Subjectivity versus Objectivity

gib, I didn’t realize that you had such a serious guilt complex.

@ Gib.

I just had no better example than the brain.

Um… okay.

Meh… if you think of a better example, or another way to make your point, I’ll be around.

I believe that it is not necessary “to think of a better example or another way”, since you know what I mean. Right?

Sure, but if you think I have misunderstood, then at your discretion, go ahead and try to think of another way to explain yourself… or don’t.

The problem is that it is very difficult to tell about a non-existent “world”, thus a about a “world” without any object. If one tells about a subject, then it is already an object. Therefore I said you should imagine to be a brain or a thought as a singularity in which it is impossible to experience anything. If you think about “anything”, then this is already an object. And if I should tell you how you only think (but not about anything), thus without experience, without an object, then it would not be possible to say “what happens”, because there is no object, thus no experience. So, “I think” (“cogito” in Latin) means already “I can have an object” (not: “I have already an object”, but: “I can have an object”), so this quickly leads to “thus I am” (“ergo sum” in Latin). But in my example (see above), this “thus I am” is not possible, because I had to give you an example without any object. And the problem is that we do not really know such an example. “The only one in the world”? No! Because there is no world in that example. So, actually, I can not even use the word “you”. There is no reality, because there is nothing that “you” (not existent in an objective way) can experience, thus even you yourself are nothing that can be experienced. This is difficult to imagine. I know. You would have to be capable of being an object, if you wanted to know yourself as a subject. But there is no and can never be an object in that said example. A subject needs an object in order to be a subject.

[tab]The question whether an object needs a subject in oder to be an object is not the subject in this example. :slight_smile:[/tab]

Arminius,

I appreciate your efforts. I think I get what you’re saying. It makes sense that to say “I experience,” must mean that I experience something. And that something must be experienced as “not-me”. Otherwise, it isn’t an object to be experienced, but the experiencer (or nothing at all).

But are there not occasions when one experiences the object without a ‘me’? Those who meditate will often report this experience. They say that they can meditate in front of the ocean or in a meadow with trees swaying the wind, and all that exists for them in those moments are the lapping waves in the ocean or the swaying of the trees–no self, no me–like the self just disappeared and all there is is the ocean or the trees.

These are situations with only object, no subject–at least, from a subjectivist point of view (i.e. no experience of self = no self)–yet what remains of the subject is the experience itself–that is, the experiencing of the ocean or the trees. This situation in which only the ocean exists, only the tree exists, not only preserve the experiencing of the ocean and the trees (the seeing, the feeling) but its what grounds and defines the ocean and the trees. Without the experiencing, what is the ocean and the trees (at least from a subjectivist point of view). But as you see, this is a very different situation from that of a brain in a void. ← In that situation, we were contemplating a subject without any object–no experience to be had–but here I am presenting the opposite situation–an object without a subject–and only because an experience is had.

What I’m trying to say is that I more or less think of it in the opposite way from the brain-in-a-void scenario, except that I think the object sans self can still maintain the aspect of being-experienced (or being-felt). ← This is my theory. I say that “being felt” is part and parcel of what it is for an object to exist (whether that’s a concrete object or an abstract object, or anything else). The “feeling” part of the object is its “being”–it is its “what it is to exist”. In this way, I see the subjective aspect of a thing’s existence (it’s being felt) as the most essential part of what the object is. Ultimately, then, it is the object it is experienced to be, but the fact of its being felt is what its existence is based on. ← It is for this reason I say the objective is rooted in the subjective. The “subjective” aspect, in this case, is not a “self” per se–not a subject, at least not a subject as in a separate being standing away from the object–but just that aspect of the object which retains its subjectivity, it’s being felt, and thus serving as an instance of conscious experience.

I think this may be where the schism lies between what you’re trying to say and what I’m trying to say. By ‘subject’ I sense that you assume a ‘self’ or an ‘individual being’–a person that has the experience of the object–but I’m willing to forego the self, the subject, because for me, what subjectivity means is just the experiencing of a thing, which I think can be bootstrapped onto the object, not necessarily the subject. Being felt is just the mode of being for any object if it is to exist at all.

In fact, as far as ‘self’ goes, I think of self as just another object. To me, my ‘self’ is just the person I see when I look in the mirror. ← Kinda looks like an object to me. Yes, in all the variety of experiences I have of the world, one of them happens to be the experience of a self. But to me, that’s no different than the experience of a chair, or a shoe, or my car. It’s just this body here which keeps following me around wherever I go.

^ Does that make any sense?

This is a stupid question.

The “subject” is an object as soon as it is perceived by any “subject”.

Therefore a subject is always an object and never a subject.

Therefore all that exists objective.

A subject is capable of thinking whereas an object is only capable of existing. And while subjects
can be objects as well the two categories are usually treated as being independent of each other

Analogy: zinc becomes a penny as soon as the mint punches it out. Therefore, there is no zinc, only pennies.

It doesn’t stop being a subject merely because it is also an object.

So the subject can be both subject AND object?

Surely as soon as the subject attempts to observe itself, it may think it has succeeded but it ought to immediately notice that the thing now being observed is distinct from that which is observing it?
And then in attempting to now observe that newly distinct thing, as soon as it does so, something else yet again is doing the observing etc.?

Isn’t it like a cat forever trying to back out of those lampshade things that the vet puts on? The subject is forever retreating and trying to see itself where it literally “just was”: a forever futile attempt.

A penny might be able to retain its zinc constitution despite changing form, such that it may be both made of zinc and a penny, but in practice I do not think a “subject” can do that as soon as it becomes an “object” - try it.

Are you sure I am wrong? Might just be me.

You reminded of that mind game, “What conclusion can you draw if you know nothing?”
“Nothing, of course”
“How do you know?”
:confused:

You said:
“it ought to immediately notice that the thing now being observed is distinct from that which is observing it?”
Why should it believe that? Do you believe that what you see in the mirror is not you?

A human is both a person and an animal. How could it be both?
You never heard of a subcategory?

Not all objects are subjects, but certainly all subjects are objects. It is merely an issue of language.

The subject can overtake the role of an object. For instance: If a subject adopts the point of view of an object o r observes the own body with all its affects, then this subject is in the position of both subject and object. And to others this subject is an object anyway.

Listen to what you just said. The subject does not become something different from itself just by observing itself. There are two modes of being–subject and object–but they aren’t mutually exclusive, and they certainly aren’t distinct objects.

I think you’re talking about the difference between the subject and the subject’s own concept of itself (or maybe the subject’s perception of itself). Sure, I guess you could say this, but the concept is still a part of the subject, not a separate entity.

Yeah, like an arrowing trying to point at its own tip. But I think whatever the subject is experiencing in the moment, including concepts about itself, is a part of the subject–experiences are a part of our own minds, our own consciousness, are they not?–the only thing being that we don’t always recognize these as the ‘self’ (the subject). IOW, we don’t need to try to point to our own tip. The tip is always there in the midst of our presence.

If the subject couldn’t be subject when it tries to observe itself as object, then it couldn’t experience the object at all. Experiencing is what makes it a subject.

I believe that what I see in the mirror is the mirror image of me, it’s what I’m supposed to look like to others, but the image is where I am not and isn’t actually me - but in terms of utility, yes I can speak of it as myself without too much issue.

The subject “ought to believe that” because upon trying to observe itself it has altered - to the role and position of observing. What it ends up observing is what it previously thought ought to be itself, but in seeing that, the seeing subject has changed from what it previously was. This is what I experience when I try to do it, and I assume - potentially wrongly - that this is what others experience too.

Like gib says, it is like an arrow trying to point at its own tip. A subject is like a spatial point that can only observe that which is away from it, generally experienced to be between the eyes or just behind them. Objects are observed in a cone radiating away from it, but not including it. My argument is that In order to adjust the cone area to include the subject point, the subject point must move - thereby making the seeing of itself the seeing of something that is no longer it.

Yes, a subcategory is like a coin to “things made of zinc” - as I already showed I understood.

Gib, I will retract my accusation of the question as stupid, not that it was your question, but I believe you actually get my position but still disagree with it. I’ll continue to think on it and see if I can come round to what you see that I may not.

Within the context of this thread, subject refers to that which perceives and object refers to that which is perceived. It may be interpreted broader than that so that subject refers to that which can perceive (regardless of whether or not it is actively perceiving at any point in time) and object to that which can be perceived (regardless of whether or not it is being actively perceived at any point in time.)

That which perceives can also be that which is perceived. Hence, a thing can be both a subject and an object. In other words, it can belong to both categories. The membership rules of these two categories does not forbid the possibility of an element belonging to one category to also belong to the other category.

It’s similar to how a man can be both someone who loves (i.e. belong to the category of people who love something or someone) and someone who is hated (i.e. belong to the category of people who are hated by someone.)

An example of a first preform of scientists are the monks of the Order of Saint Benedict (ca. 480–543).

[tab]Saint Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480–543):
[/tab]

]

Are you a subjectivist or an objectivist?
The above question is ultimately more psychological than epistemological.

A subjectivist believe in the following;

An Objectivist* believe in the following;

  • not followers of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

Why anyone leans, clings and is dogmatic to either one of the above philosophical concepts as an subjectivist or objectivist is due to deep psychological impulses and proclivity. As usual debates involving this dichotomy often get very emotional. We should focus on the concepts themselves and their contexts rather than the ‘belief’ [ism] itself.

All humans are subjects and anything that is related to humans has to be basically subjective. Individual-subject[s] has their own personal subjective inferences but when they are shared an agreed upon, then we have objectivity.

Objectivity is always inter-subjectivity.
There is no such thing as absolute independent objectivity that can stand on its own without being subjected to some framework of cognitions by subjects.
viewtopic.php?p=2654582#p2654582

The most credible objectivity is scientific knowledge and reality which is conditioned in an intersubjective consensus within a credible subjects-made scientific framework, system and methods. Credible = verifiable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable, peer reviewed and the likes.
As one will note, it make no rational sense to separate subjectivity from objectivity nor to be either a subjectivist or an objectivist.

For any knowledge or claims of knowledge to be credible, it need to be reviewed against the degree of subjectivity and objectivity.

Scientific theories as knowledge is highly objective because it has both high degree of subjectivity [personal convictions] and high objectivity [credible with intersubjective consensus].

Theological dogmas [e.g. God exists] do have intersubjective consensus based on personal conviction but lack objectivity because the framework and system supporting such dogma is not credible, i.e. lack sound justifications, verifiability, testability, repeatability, falsifiability,.

Thus the issue of Subjectivity versus Objectivity within philosophy-proper should be dealt in the above light within contexts and not in squabbling whether the objectivist or subjectivist is right or wrong about reality.

If you state that there “is no such thing as absolute independent objectivity”, then you have just declared that is so according to an absolute independent objectivity.

In addition: If there really (objectively) is no absolute independent objectivity, then there really (objectively) is no absolute independent subjectivity either.