Subjectivity versus Objectivity

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Are you a subjectivist or an objectivist?

Subjectivist.
7
41%
Objectivist.
5
29%
I do not know.
5
29%
 
Total votes : 17

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:03 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: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.

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.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:21 pm

Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: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.

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.

:handgestures-thumbup:
Prismatic567 wrote:framework of cognitions by subjects.

We philosophers call that an "ontology".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:59 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: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.

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.

:handgestures-thumbup:
Prismatic567 wrote:framework of cognitions by subjects.

We philosophers call that an "ontology".

:wink:
The compound word ontology combines onto-, from the Greek ὄν, on (gen. ὄντος, ontos), i.e. "being; that which is", which is the present participle of the verb εἰμί, eimí, i.e. "to be, I am", and -λογία, -logia, i.e. "logical discourse", see classical compounds for this type of word formation.

While the etymology is Greek, the oldest extant record of the word itself, the New Latin form ontologia, appeared in 1606 in the work Ogdoas Scholastica by Jacob Lorhard (Lorhardus) and in 1613 in the Lexicon philosophicum byRudolf Göckel (Goclenius).

The first occurrence in English of ontology as recorded by the OED (Oxford English Dictionary, online edition, 2008) came in a work by Gideon Harvey (1636/7–1702): Archelogia philosophica nova; or, New principles of Philosophy. Containing Philosophy in general, Metaphysicks or Ontology, Dynamilogy or a Discourse of Power, Religio Philosophi or Natural Theology, Physicks or Natural philosophy, London, Thomson, 1663. The word was first used in its Latin form by philosophers based on the Latin roots, which themselves are based on the Greek.

Leibniz is the only one of the great philosophers of the 17th century to have used the term ontology.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:01 pm

Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.

Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.

The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.

A linguistic example: "John sees Mary". Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: "Mary sees John" (S-P-O) or "John is seen by Mary" (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: "John sees Mary, and Mary sees John" (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or "John and Mary see each other" (S-P-O) or "John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John" (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or "John and Mary are seen by each other" (O-P-S) ... or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.

John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).

So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.

When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not "in fashion", then this does not mean that they have vanished.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:04 am

Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote: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.

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.
An absolute independent objectivity is something like a God. I am not a theist, so that is not applicable to me.

In addition: If there really (objectively) is no absolute independent objectivity, then there really (objectively) is no absolute independent subjectivity either.
When have I ever claimed 'there must be really (objectively) is no absolute independent subjectivity.'

Note my response to your latter post;
viewtopic.php?p=2688403#p2688403

Subjectivity is one person's view.
Objectivity is many peoples' shared-view, i.e. intersubjective consensus.

Objectivity come in degrees from very low [winner of a beauty contest] to the highest [e.g. scientific knowledge] and other Justified True Beliefs.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:25 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Objectivity is many peoples' shared-view, i.e. intersubjective consensus.

No, it isn't. Try to learn the language.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:36 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Objectivity is many peoples' shared-view, i.e. intersubjective consensus.

No, it isn't. Try to learn the language.
Running out of arguments?
- so resorting to one-liners which Snark is also famous for.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:51 am

Here is an interesting take re Objectivity;

http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~ewa/Harawa ... ledges.pdf

In "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective" (1988) Donna Haraway argues that when we talk about objectivity in science and philosophy, traditionally we understand it as a kind of disembodied, transcendent "conquering gaze from nowhere,"[5]:581 in which the subject is split apart, distanced from and set above the object of inquiry.[5]:583–587

She argues that this kind of objectivity is impossible to achieve; it is "an illusion, a god trick,"[5]:582 and instead demands a re-thinking of objectivity in such a way that, while still striving for "faithful accounts of the real world,"[5]:579 we must also acknowledge and make explicit our perspective and positioning within the world.[5]:581–582 She calls this new kind of knowledge-making "situated knowledges."[5]:582

Objectivity, she argues, "turns out to be about particular and specific embodiment and definitely not about the false vision promising transcendence of all limits and responsibility."[5]:583

This new objectivity, then, "allows us to become answerable for what we learn how to see."[5]:583
Thus Haraway is not only critiquing the idea that objectivity, as we have long understood it, is possible; she is also arguing that if we continue to approach knowledge-making in this way then we wash our hands of any responsibility for our truth claims. In contrast, she is arguing, approaching knowledge-making from an embodied perspective forces us to take responsibility for our truth claims.


Note the traditionally very crude* perspective of 'objectivity' in blue above. * As inherited from our beastly ancestors.

The above objectivity re situated knowledge which involves embodiment takes into account the subject which interacts with the object, thus intersubjectivity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:41 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:What wrong with 'subjectivism' [with rational justifications] where after all you are a subject. Note my views of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.

Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.

Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.

The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.

A linguistic example: "John sees Mary". Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: "Mary sees John" (S-P-O) or "John is seen by Mary" (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: "John sees Mary, and Mary sees John" (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or "John and Mary see each other" (S-P-O) or "John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John" (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or "John and Mary are seen by each other" (O-P-S) ... or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.

John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).

So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.

When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not "in fashion", then this does not mean that they have vanished.

Note ....

Note ...

Note ....

Note ....

Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.

And my example "John sees Mary" includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged "critique" does not change anything. Furthermore, your "critique" is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.

It is an objective fact that there are subjects. So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a "social" situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, development and so on, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become "designed" (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, subjectivity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

You are missing the point again, and your alleged "critique" is nonsensical and based on your schizoid and delusional term "empirical possible multiple realities".

There is only one reality.
Last edited by Arminius on Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:32 pm

Gyahd. Now he's quoting feminists quoting disgruntled feminists who want to redefine the language to get rid of anything she can't understand or manipulate ("knowledge-making").
:icon-rolleyes:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:06 am

James S Saint wrote:Gyahd. Now he's quoting feminists quoting disgruntled feminists who want to redefine the language to get rid of anything she can't understand or manipulate ("knowledge-making").
:icon-rolleyes:

I bet that we can read in her/his next response something like this: *Note that ... Kant and Hume ... were feminists*. :wink:

Which of her/his "empirical possible multiple realities" is the feministic one?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:40 am

Arminius wrote:Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.
It is obvious, language is a critical necessity for communications.

But philosophically one need to understand the limitations of language. You don't seem to get this point. I suggest you brush up on the Philosophy of Linguistic [as wide as possible] and note Wittgenstein's Language Games. Note Chomsky versus others.

And my example "John sees Mary" includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged "critique" does not change anything. Furthermore, your "critique" is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.
Show me how can you nail or ground the real reality of an object. e.g. What is a really real apple?

It is an objective fact that there are subjects.
My point is,
your "It is an objective fact that there are subjects" is based on intersubjectivity.

So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a "social" situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, development and so on, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become "designed" (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, subjectivity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

There is only one reality.
I understand your claim of your philosophical perspective re objectivity of object. But your philosophical views are not tenable.
As I have requested, demonstrate to me 'what is the really real apple on the table'?

Note, I have countered there is a more realistic view of what is objectivity, i.e. it is intersubjectivity. Note this is very serious issue within the philosophical community. You need to understand the stance of both sides before you make your own stance.

Contemporarily, intersubjectivity is a major topic in both the analytic and the continental traditions of philosophy. Intersubjectivity is considered crucial not only at the relational level but also at the epistemological and even metaphysical levels.
For example, intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called objectivity of objects.


From the above note this higlighted;

    Intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called objectivity of objects.

And note Russell's point;

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.


There is no real absolute objective table but rather an intersubjective based objective table depending on the Framework and System [Leibniz, Berkeley, Science, etc.] relied upon.

You are missing the point again, and your alleged "critique" is nonsensical and based on your schizoid and delusional term "empirical possible multiple realities".
Subconsciously your know you cannot defend your position, that is why you are resorting to derogatory remarks rather than presenting credible arguments. I expect James and yourself will continue to condemn me ad hominem because both of you has run out of credible arguments. I suggest you read and reflect wider and deeper on the whole range of philosophy [relevant to this forum].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:41 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.
It is obvious, language is a critical necessity for communications.

Hence...
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:52 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.
It is obvious, language is a critical necessity for communications.

Hence...
Language is a critical necessity as a tool of philosophy, but it is a very blunt tool and a philosopher must be mindful of its limitations.


Read up,

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:21 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
    Problems in philosophy of language
    3.1 Vagueness <<--- You
    3.2 Problem of universals and composition <<--- You
    3.3 Nature of language <<--- You
    3.4 Formal versus informal approaches <<--- You
    3.5 Translation and interpretation <<--- You

Yeah, trying to speak philosophically to you is a "problem".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:40 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
    Problems in philosophy of language
    3.1 Vagueness <<--- You
    3.2 Problem of universals and composition <<--- You
    3.3 Nature of language <<--- You
    3.4 Formal versus informal approaches <<--- You
    3.5 Translation and interpretation <<--- You

Yeah, trying to speak philosophically to you is a "problem".

Whilst I backed up my point with supporting i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... f_language

all you did is throwing tantrums. :-"
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:44 am

Out of curiosity, could you tell us your original language and/or country?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:52 am

James S Saint wrote:Out of curiosity, could you tell us your original language and/or country?
I prefer not to reveal, what matter to me is the contents to be discussed.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:58 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Out of curiosity, could you tell us your original language and/or country?
I prefer not to reveal, what matter to me is the contents to be discussed.

Yeah, I'd probably be embarrassed about it too...
.. if I were you.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:02 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Out of curiosity, could you tell us your original language and/or country?
I prefer not to reveal, what matter to me is the contents to be discussed.

Yeah, I'd probably be embarrassed about it too...
.. if I were you.
Nah, it more like care on the potential of theists killing non-theists when the theists' God and religion are criticized. The evidence of such is so glaring.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:01 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.
It is obvious, language is a critical necessity for communications.

But philosophically one need to understand the limitations of language. You don't seem to get this point. I suggest you brush up on the Philosophy of Linguistic [as wide as possible] and note Wittgenstein's Language Games. Note Chomsky versus others.

I know that you do not know how important language is. So I am writing this not for you but for readers. There is an interdependence between linguistics and philosophy, science and almost everything else. This is because of the fact that language is the most striking feature, the main feature of humans. And it is not difficult but often very effective to linguistically analyze the speech of philosophers or scientists or everyone else.

Prismatic567 wrote:
And my example "John sees Mary" includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged "critique" does not change anything. Furthermore, your "critique" is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.
Show me how can you nail or ground the real reality of an object. e.g. What is a really real apple?

I have already done this several times! So read my posts!

And you want to be taken seriously? Really? Thus: Objectively?

Show me how you can "nail or grund the real reality of a" subject ...!

It is absolutely obvious that you are not able to understand what "subject" and "object" and their "dualism" mean. They are concepts of epistemology, so they are related to philosophy and science as well - and very much. An object is everything that is not a subject, and a subject is everything that is not an object. It is a dualism and similar to the yin/yang dualism. But this is again something that you do not understand. You want to eleminate yang - hoping that yin can exist without yang as a yin/yang principle. That is more than ridiculous.

A solipsist is someone who says that the subject, thus the subjective I with its consciousness contents, is the only being. I am pretty sure that your answer is exact this or a very similar statement. So you are a solipsist. But a solipsist is not able to explain what "subject" and "object" and their "dualism" mean. And if you are a subjectivist, then it is difficult but not impossible to do this. But if you are nonetheless not able to change the perspective and become an objectivist for a moment, then you are an extreme subjectivist, thus a solipsist, and a solipsist is not able to explain what "subject" and "object" and their "dualism" mean.

Your "intersubjectivity" has nothing to do with objectivity. I will say this again and again, regardless how often you are trolling against it. The goal of the extreme subjectivists and thus solipsists is to eleminate the object and thus objectivity too. This means that they try to eliminate the whole epistemology. Subject and object are part of the same phenomenon. If this pheomenon lacks one of the two, then it is kaput. One can try to circumvent the subject/object dualism, for example by concepts like Husserl’s "Intersubjektivität" or Heidegger’s "In-der-Welt-sein" or Luhmann’s "Kommunikation", but "circumventing" does not mean "replacing"or "overcoming" the older concept (subject/object dualism). So if you and the other solipsists were successful, then epistemology would lack an important concept, then philosophy and science would have lost.

So you and the other solipsists should be absolutely silent when it comes to philosophy and science. ("Worüber man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen." - Ludwig Wittgenstein ["Whereof one can not speak, thereof one must be silent."])

Prismatic567 wrote:
It is an objective fact that there are subjects.
My point is,
your "It is an objective fact that there are subjects" is based on intersubjectivity.

Your point is that you are not capable of understanding what "subject" and "object" and their "dualism" mean.

Prismatic567 wrote:
So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a "social" situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, development and so on, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become "designed" (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, subjectivity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

There is only one reality.

I understand your claim of your philosophical perspective re objectivity of object. But your philosophical views are not tenable.

Your philosophical views are not tenable, especially your schizoid and delusional term "empirical possible multiple realities".

Prismatic567 wrote:Note, I have countered there is a more realistic view of what is objectivity, i.e. it is intersubjectivity. Note this is very serious issue within the philosophical community. You need to understand the stance of both sides before you make your own stance.

But that is not objectivity but merely intersubjectivity.

Try to learn words before becoming the lackey of philosophers you do not understand.

You really do not know what you are talking about.

And you want to tell us something about "both sides"? You? A solipsist! :lol:

Also, you have no other one who agrees with you (so: where is your "intersubjectivity" here?). You - the solipsist - will never become an intersubjectivist, since you will remain such a stubborn and ignorant solipsist.

Prismatic567 wrote:I expect ... ad hominem because both of you has run out of credible arguments.

You have no arguments - as everyone knows here and as I have said many times already. How often do I have to repeat this? No one of those who have posted here agrees with you. You are a solipsist.

You have used ad hominems. So stop whining here.

And stop preaching. You are preaching and preaching and preaching and ignoring everything else. Your stubborn and naive belief in your false gods gives evidence that you are by far more religious than the average human.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:29 am

Language is, by no accident, a reflection of thought, so obviously anything having to do with thought is going to be strongly related to language. If the thoughts get twisted, the language gets twisted, and vsvrsa. Untwist the language, and you untwist the thoughts.

And yes Prism, philosophy actually does have something to do with thoughts.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:00 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Objectivity is many peoples' shared-view, i.e. intersubjective consensus.

No, it isn't. Try to learn the language.

It is no accident that a solipsist can never find another solipsist who agrees with him/her. Prismatic's says "intersubjective consensus" and likely means "intersolipsistic consensus" in "multiple realities" of which Prismatic is speaking so often.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:17 am

The rest of your post is merely babbling without substance, but note this;

Arminius wrote:It is absolutely obvious that you are not able to understand what "subject" and "object" and their "dualism" mean. They are concepts of epistemology, so they are related to philosophy and science as well - and very much. An object is everything that is not a subject, and a subject is everything that is not an object.
It is a dualism and similar to the yin/yang dualism. But this is again something that you do not understand. You want to eliminate yang - hoping that yin can exist without yang as a yin/yang principle. That is more than ridiculous.
I am very familiar with Eastern Philosophy.

There is no question of eliminating yin/yang and escaping duality.
One cannot run away from experiencing hot and cold and other dualities.
In Taoism, one must be engaged in the duality the Yin & Yang [subject and object plus other dualities] but grounded in the Tao so as not be caught in any extreme.

It is only within semantics that an object is not a subject.

But within philosophy an object can be a subject depending on contexts, perspectives and conditions.
Note the following;
At time t1 a large great white shark [subject] bite an grouper [object][subject] eating an octopus [object][subject] which is eating an crab [object].

It is the same with cause and effect. An effect can also be a cause of another effect within determination.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:43 am

You were once in Eastern Asia, so you are "very familiar with Eastern Philosophy"?

That is again one of your childish pseudo arguments - very similar to this one:

Prismatic567 wrote:Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.

What a pure stupidity!

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.
Gyahd ....

"I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about." - 13 year old boy.

:icon-rolleyes:
Alf wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Note I was once a pantheist re Brahman for a long time, so I know what Brahman is all about.

Gyahd ....

"I was once alive, so I know what Life is ALL about." - 13 year old boy.

:icon-rolleyes:

:lol:

=D>

"I inhaled and exhaled once, so I am a medical specialist for breath control."

Like I said: Prismatic does almost always not know what Prismatic is talking about.

In addition, you are lying, Prismatic. Not you, you liar, but I was the one - the only one of those who are posting here - who said that the subject/object duality can never be eliminated. You are the one - the only one of those who are posting here - who wants to eliminate the subject/object duality.

Your interpretation of "intersubjectivity" is "intersolipsism" in "multiple realities" (as you have said so often in several threads), and that means nothing else than a schizoid and delusional solipsism.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users