Arminius wrote:Both subjectivity and objectivity have to be learned.
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:What is the correct way to blend objectivism and subjectivism?
You seem to be condemning 'subjectivity' seemingly ignorant that you are a 'subject' in one sense._A_ wrote:Subjectivity is difficult to confront and argue with, rationally and reasonably, when it is locked inside such a delusion.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Now obviously this point in which the philosophers are agreed -- the view that there is a real table, whatever its nature may be is vitally important, and it will be worth while to consider what reasons there are for accepting this view before we go on to the further question as to the nature of the real table. Our next chapter, therefore, will be concerned with the reasons for supposing that there is a real table at all.
Before we go farther it will be well to consider for a moment what it is that we have discovered so far. It has appeared that, if we take any common object of the sort that is supposed to be known by the senses, what the senses immediately tell us is not the truth about the object as it is apart from us, but only the truth about certain sense-data which, so far as we can see, depend upon the relations between us and the object. Thus what we directly see and feel is merely 'appearance', which we believe to be a sign of some 'reality' behind. But if the reality is not what appears, have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all? And if so, have we any means of finding out what it is like?
Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.
Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.
Objectivity is meta-inter-subjectivity from a philosophical perspective.Maniacal Mongoose wrote:What is the correct way to blend objectivism and subjectivism?
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:I know that JSS, but the blending needs to happen no matter the parent position.
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Progress. Techno science limits us. Creative science might free us.
James S Saint wrote:Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Progress. Techno science limits us. Creative science might free us.
"Progress" toward what?
"Free us" from what?
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:JSS,
Are your thoughts your own?
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Perceptual intelligence.
And this is what an irrevocable nihilism can regress into.
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Word play is discrete? Thanks for the heads up towards Brentano.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]