[colordrops]

Anyone can have any view they wish about the world. What I'm saying is that it's very easy to take a superficial analysis of the nature of the reality built on gut feelings, personal anecdotes, and "i happen to be born in the right place at the right time in the right cultural tradition that has lock on truth" syndrome, and replace it with another superficial analysis of the reality built on gut feelings and personal anecdotes and "i happen to be born in the right place at the right time in the right cultural tradition that has a lock on truth" syndrome. Flapping from one superficial belief to another doesn't make the latter more true.

[notch656a]

I'm not sure deciding that "the world is on my side" is objectively false for some people is a superficial belief.

[colordrops]

"'the world is on my side" is objectively false" is not at all equivalent to "the world is a harsh place that doesn't owe anyone anything"

[notch656a]

>"the world is a harsh place that doesn't owe anyone anything" is just as much as a subjective value judgement of reality as "the universe is on my side"

Once we establish the validity of "the world is on my side" can be objective (and I think by all factual basis, the world is most definitely objectively not on some people's side), your logical expression now looks like this:

"the world is a harsh place that doesn't owe anyone anything" is just as much as a subjective value judgement of reality as < objective statement >

Logically put you say

Subjectivity_of("the world is a harsh place that doesn't owe anyone anything") >= Subjectivity_of (<Objective Statement>)

which is reduced to:

Subjectivity_of("the world is a harsh place that doesn't owe anyone anything") >= 0

Another words, your statement was meaningless and imposes nothing on the subjectivity of the statement "the world is a harsh place", just lots of word soup about your outrage over perceived ignorance of "millennia of metaphysics that led to modern ways of looking at the world."