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 Alf » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:02 pm

Look at the syntax. A sentence requires a subject, not necessarily an object.

And with Schopenhauer I say that everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Meno_ » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:06 pm

Alf wrote:Look at the syntax. A sentence requires a subject, not necessarily an object.

And with Schopenhauer I say that everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject
.


Rarely, but then the subject substantially consumes its object.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Alf » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:05 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Alf wrote:Look at the syntax. A sentence requires a subject, not necessarily an object.

And with Schopenhauer I say that everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject.

Rarely, but then the subject substantially consumes its object.

Subjects have an advantage.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:28 pm

X says: "The Sun rises in the East".
Y says: "The Earth rotates around its axis once every 24 hours (mean solar time), causing the change of day and night for an observer on the surface".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:48 pm

Arminius wrote:Newton’s physics was "true" till Clausius’ second law ("entropy") of thermodynamics, in any case till Planck’s constant, Planck’s quantum theory, and Einstein’s (actually Hilbert’s) relativity theory. The "truth" about dynamics and about time changed. Both "truths" are very typical for the Occidental culture. One of the both led to the knowledge that entropy and irreversibility make probabilities and statistics more relevant, more "true"; the other one of the both led to the knowledge that time is more organic than anorganic, more historical than physical, more chronic than mathematical.

So what changed was a pattern of the Occidental way of life, experience, the kind of epistemology, the interpretation of "truth", also of "subjectivity" and "objectivity". The cultural goal, aim, target, object came closer.


Oswald Spengler (translated):

Since Newton, the assumption of constant mass — the counterpart of constant force — has had uncontested validity. But the Quantum theory of Planck, and the conclusions of Niels Bohr therefrom as to the fine structure of atoms, which experimental experience had rendered necessary, have destroyed this assumption. Every self-contained system possesses, besides kinetic energy, an energy of radiant heat which is inseparable from it and therefore cannot be represented purely by the concept of mass. For if mass is defined by living energy it is ipso facto no longer constant with reference to thermodynamic state. Nevertheless, it is impossible to fit the theory of quanta into the group of hypotheses constituting the " classical" mechanics of the Baroque; moreover, along with the principle of causal continuity, the basis of the Infinitesimal Calculus founded by Leibniz is threatened (1). But, if these are serious enough doubts, the ruthlessly cynical hypothesis of the Relativity theory strikes to the very heart of dynamics. Supported by the experiments of A. A. Michelson, which showed that the velocity of light remains unaffected by the motion of the medium, and prepared mathematically by Lorentz and Minkowski, its specific tendency is to destroy the notion of absolute time. Astronomical discoveries (and here present-day scientists are seriously deceiving themselves) can neither establish nor refute it. "Correct" and "incorrect" are not the criteria whereby such assumptions are to be tested; the question is whether, in the chaos of involved and artificial ideas that has been produced by the innumerable hypotheses of Radioactivity and Thermodynamics, it can hold its own as a useable hypothesis or not. But however this may be, it has abolished the constancy of those •physical quantities into the definition of which time has entered, and unlike the antique statics, the Western dynamics knows only such quantities. Absolute measures of length and rigid bodies are no more. And with this the possibility of absolute quantitative delimitations and therefore the "classical" concept of mass as the constant ratio between force and acceleration fall to the ground — just after the quantum of action, a product of energy and time, had been set up as a new constant.

(1) See M. Planck, Entstehung und bisherige Entwicklung der Quantentheorie (192.0), pp. 17-2.5.


If we make it clear to ourselves that the atomic ideas of Rutherford and Bohr (2) signify nothing but this, that the numerical results of observations have suddenly been provided with a picture of a planetary world within the atom, instead of that of atom-swarms hitherto favoured; if we observe how rapidly card-houses of hypothesis are run up nowadays, every contradiction being immediately covered up by a new hurried hypothesis; if we reflect on how little heed is paid to the fact that these images contradict one another and the "classical" Baroque mechanics alike, we cannot but realize that the great style of ideation is at an end and that, as in architecture and the arts of form, a sort of craft-art of hypothesis-building has taken its place. Only our extreme maestria in experimental technique — true child of its century — hides the collapse of the symbolism.

(2) Which in many cases have led to the supposition that the "actual existence" of atoms has now at last been proved — a singular throw-back to the materialism of the preceding generation.

Amongst these symbols of decline, the most conspicuous is the notion of Entropy, which forms the subject of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The first law, that of the conservation of energy, is the plain formulation of the essence of dynamics — not to say of the constitution of the West-European soul, to which Nature is necessarily visible only in the form of a contrapuntal-dynamic causality (as against the static-plastic causality of Aristotle). The basic element of the Faustian world-picture is not the Attitude but the Deed and, mechanically considered, the Process, and this law merely puts the mathematical character of these processes into form as variables and constants. But the Second Law goes deeper, and shows a bias in Nature-happenings which is in no wise imposed a priori by the conceptual fundamentals of dynamics.

Mathematically, Entropy is represented by a quantity which is fixed by the momentary state of a self-contained system of bodies and under all physical and chemical alterations can only increase, never diminish; in the most favourable conditions it remains unchanged. Entropy, like Force and Will, is something which (to anyone for whom this form-world is accessible at all) is inwardly clear and meaningful, but is formulated differently by every different authority and never satisfactorily by any. Here again, the intellect breaks down where the world-feeling demands expression.

Nature-processes in general have been classified as irreversible and reversible, according as entropy is increased or not. In any process of the first kind, free energy is converted into bound energy, and if this dead energy is to be turned once more into living, this can only occur through the simultaneous binding of a further quantum of living energy in some second process; the best-known example is the combustion of coal — that is, the conversion of the living energy stored up in it into heat bound by the gas form of the carbon dioxide, if the latent energy of water is to be translated into steam-pressure and thereafter into motion. It follows that in the world as a whole entropy continually increases; that is, the dynamic system is manifestly approaching to some final state, whatever this may be. Examples of the irreversible processes are conduction of heat, diffusion, friction, emission of light and chemical reactions; of reversible, gravitation, electric oscillations, electromagnetic waves and sound-waves.

What has never hitherto been fully felt, and what leads me to regard the Entropy theory (1850) as the beginning of the destruction of that masterpiece of Western intelligence, the old dynamic physics, is the deep opposition of theory and actuality which is here for the first time introduced into theory itself. The First Law had drawn the strict picture of a causal Nature-happening, but the Second Law by introducing irreversibility has for the first time brought into the mechanical-logical domain a tendency belonging to immediate life and thus in fundamental contradiction with the very essence of that domain.

If the Entropy theory is followed out to its conclusion, it results, firstly, that in theory all processes must be reversible — which is one of the basic postulates of dynamics and is reasserted with all rigour in the law of the Conservation of Energy — but, secondly, that in actuality processes of Nature in their entirety are irreversible. Not even under the artificial conditions of laboratory experiment can the simplest process be exactly reversed, that is, a state once passed cannot be re-established. Nothing is more significant of the present condition of systematics than the introduction of the hypotheses of "elementary disorder" for the purpose of smoothing-out the contradiction between intellectual postulate and actual experience. The "smallest particles" of a body (an image, no more) throughout perform reversible processes, but in actual things the smallest particles are in disorder and mutually interfere; and so the irreversible process that alone is experienced by the observer is linked with increase of entropy by taking the mean probabilities of occurrences. And thus theory becomes a chapter of the Calculus of Probabilities, and in lieu of exact we have statistical methods.

Evidently, the significance of this has passed unnoticed. Statistics belong, like chronology, to the domain of the organic, to fluctuating Life, to Destiny and Incident and not to the world of laws and timeless causality. As everyone knows, statistics serve above all to characterize political and economic, that is, historical, developments. In the "classical" mechanics of Galileo and Newton there would have been no room for them. And if, now, suddenly the contents of that field are supposed to be understood and understandable only statistically and under the aspect of Probability — instead of under that of the a piori exactitude which the Baroque thinkers unanimously demanded — what does it mean? It means that the object of understanding is ourselves. The Nature "known" in this wise is the Nature that we know by way of living experience, that we live in ourselves. What theory asserts (and, being itself, must assert) — to wit, this ideal irreversibility that never happens in actuality — represents a relic of the old severe intellectual form, the great Baroque tradition that had contrapuntal music for twin sister. But the resort to statistics shows that the force that that tradition regulated and made effective is exhausted. Becoming and Become, Destiny and Causality, historical and natural-science elements are beginning to be confused. Formulas of life, growth, age, direction and death are crowding up.

That is what, from this point of view, irreversibility in world-processes has to mean. It is the expression, no longer of the physical t but of genuine historical, inwardly-experienced Time, which is identical with Destiny.

Baroque physics was, root and branch, a strict systematic and remained so for as long as its structure was not racked by theories like these, as long as its field was absolutely free from anything that expressed accident and mere probability. But directly these theories come up, it becomes physiognomic. "The course of the world" is followed out. The idea of the end of the world appears, under the veil of formulas that are no longer in their essence formulas at all. Something Goethian has entered into physics — and if we understand the deeper significance of Goethe's passionate polemic against Newton in the "Farbenlehre" we shall realize the full weight of what this means. For therein intuitive vision was arguing against reason, life against death, creative image against normative law. The critical form-world of Nature-knowledge came out of Nature-feeling, God-feeling, as the evoked contrary. Here, at the end of the Late period, it has reached the maximal distance and is turning to come home.

So, once more, the imaging-power that is the efficient in dynamics conjures up the old great symbol of Faustian man's historical passion, Care — the out-look into the farthest far of past and future, the back-looking study of history, the foreseeing state, the confessions and introspections, the bells that sounded over all our country-sides and measured the passing of Life. The ethos of the word Time, as we alone feel it, as instrumental music alone and no statue- plastic can carry it, is directed upon an aim. This aim has been figured in every life-image that the West has conceived — as the Third Kingdom, as the New Age, as the task of mankind, as the issue of evolution. And it is figured, as the destined end-state of all Faustian "Nature" in Entropy.

Directional feeling, a relation of past and future, is implicit already in the mythic concept of force on which the whole of this dogmatic form-world rests, and in the description of natural processes it emerges distinct. It would not be too much, therefore, to say that entropy, as the intellectual form in which the infinite sum of nature-events is assembled as a historical and physiognomic unit, tacitly underlay all physical concept-formation from the outset, so that when it came out (as one day it was bound to come out) it was as a "discovery" of scientific induction claiming "support" from all the other theoretical elements of the system. The more dynamics exhausts its inner possibilities as it nears the goal, the more decidedly the historical characters in the picture come to the front and the more insistently the organic necessity of Destiny asserts itself side by side with the inorganic necessity of Causality, and Direction makes itself felt along with capacity and intensity, the factors of pure extension. The course of this process is marked by the appearance of whole series of daring hypotheses, all of like sort, which are only apparently demanded by experimental results and which in fact world-feeling and mythology imagined as long ago as the Gothic age.

Above all, this is manifested in the bizarre hypotheses of atomic disintegration which elucidate the phenomena of radioactivity, and according to which uranium atoms that have kept their essence unaltered, in spite of all external influences, for millions of years and then suddenly without assignable cause explode, scattering their smallest particles over space with velocities of thousands of kilometres per second. Only a few individuals in an aggregate of radioactive atoms are struck by Destiny thus, the neighbours being entirely unaffected. Here too, then, is a picture of history and not "Nature," and although statistical methods here also prove to be necessary, one might almost say that in them mathematical number has been replaced by chronological.

With ideas like these, the mythopoetic force of the Faustian soul is returning to its origins. It was at the outset of the Gothic, just at the time when the first mechanical clocks were being built, that the myth of the world's end, Ragnarok, the Twilight of the Gods, arose. It may be that, like all the reputedly old-German myths Ragnarok (whether in the Voluspa form or as the Christian Muspilli) was modelled more or less on Classical and particularly Christian-Apocalyptic motives. Nevertheless, it is the expression and symbol of the Faustian and of no other soul. The Olympian college is historyless, it knows no becoming, no epochal moments, no aim. But the passionate thrust into distance is Faustian. Force, Will, has an aim, and where there is an aim there is for the inquiring eye an end. That which the perspective of oil-painting expressed by means of the vanishing point, the Baroque park by its pint de vue, and analysis by the »th term of an infinite series — the conclusion, that is, of a willed directedness — assumes here the form of the concept. The Faust of the Second Part is dying, for he has reached his goal. What the myth of Götterdammerung signified of old, the irreligious form of it, the theory of Entropy, signifies today — world's end as completion of an inwardly necessary evolution.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:41 pm

Arminius wrote:Oswald Spengler (translated):...

Although quite erudite, he expresses the very reason why science's ontologies must be revisited and reborn.

The second law of thermodynamics is false. The universe is not winding down to a stop.
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: 25807
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:32 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:Oswald Spengler (translated):...

Although quite erudite, he expresses the very reason why science's ontologies must be revisited and reborn.

The second law of thermodynamics is false. The universe is not winding down to a stop.

Yes. See also here.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Meno_ » Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:16 pm

Alf wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
Alf wrote:Look at the syntax. A sentence requires a subject, not necessarily an object.

And with Schopenhauer I say that everything that is
an object can be this only with reference to a subject.

Rarely, but then the subject substantially consumes
its object.


Subjects have an advantage.


With time the differance disappears. The appearent difference, of course.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby gib » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:11 am

Arminius wrote:Most people are subjectivists, not objectivists. your pole seems to confirm this. Even most scientists are subjectivists No, they r subjective beings, like the rest of us. But I guarantee u, if u asked them, they'd call themselves objectivist - they subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers.


I think you're right that objectivity comes out of subjectivity--it is not opposite. It's like a man color blind to red all of a sudden seeing red and thinking it must b something opposed to color. Subjectivity and objectivity possess opposing characteristics--namely, tendencies towards consensus vs tendencies away from consensus, thereby giving off the illusion of being real vs in the head--but if consciousness and mind are characterized by subjectivity and if objectivity requires consciousness and mind, then objectivity must be a form of subjectivity. Having different characteristics does not make two things opposite.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8508
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:33 am

Is it objectively true that there is a reality?
Yes or no?
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: 25807
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Meno_ » Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:55 am

Sorry to interject, but was compelled, You are raising the question to the level of the paradoxical. I do not think it has gone that far. But I am unwilling to substantially interject, that would invalidate my excuse for it. It is proximal but distant enough to bring up the point.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Gamer » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:17 am

There’s also the possibility that it’s like asking if you are an inhaler or an exhaler. Perhaps consciousness is a balancing act of the subjective and objective, and that even when we allow that subjectivity seems primary, we can only hold that thought for so long, we can’t permanently talk ourselves out of playing along with the objective. The soul must breathe.
User avatar
Gamer
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:24 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby gib » Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:59 pm

James S Saint wrote:Is it objectively true that there is a reality?
Yes or no?


I would think we'd have to say yes. The brain is hardwire to think so. If objectivity comes out of subjectivity, that doesn't make the objective false.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8508
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby phyllo » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:22 pm

The brain is hardwire to think so.
Let the paradox sink in. :lol:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:36 pm

gib wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Is it objectively true that there is a reality?
Yes or no?


I would think we'd have to say yes. The brain is hardwire to think so. If objectivity comes out of subjectivity, that doesn't make the objective false.


What does it mean that there is or that there is not a reality?
That's the first question one has to ask.

In order to prove that the concept the word "reality" refers to is a meaningful one, you have to give me an example of something that is reality and something that is not.
It must be a particular of some sort.
You can say that what is not reality is what we expect to happen and what is reality is what happens.
That's what we mean when we say "what is true (i.e. what will happen) is independent from what one thinks is true (i.e. will happen)".
For example, I expect that it will be warm in the next couple of days.
That's not reality. That's what I think is reality.
Even if I was 100% sure that that's what's going to happen, and even if I was more informed than everyone else on Earth, it's still not reality but merely what I think is reality.
What happens during the next couple of days, whether it is warm or not, is what is reality.
Is that what you mean by reality?
I am pretty sure that's not the case.
Because if that's the case then what does the question "is it objectively true that there is a reality?" means?
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby gib » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:40 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:What does it mean that there is or that there is not a reality?
That's the first question one has to ask.


To say there is a reality is a tautology. To say there is anything is to say that thing exists, but reality by definition exists. To say there is not a reality is meaningless.

Magnus Anderson wrote:In order to prove that the concept the word "reality" refers to is a meaningful one, you have to give me an example of something that is reality and something that is not.


Reality is everything around you. The world of Star Wars is not reality.

Magnus Anderson wrote:You can say that what is not reality is what we expect to happen and what is reality is what happens.
That's what we mean when we say "what is true (i.e. what will happen) is independent from what one thinks is true (i.e. will happen)".
For example, I expect that it will be warm in the next couple of days.
That's not reality. That's what I think is reality.
Even if I was 100% sure that that's what's going to happen, and even if I was more informed than everyone else on Earth, it's still not reality but merely what I think is reality.
What happens during the next couple of days, whether it is warm or not, is what is reality.
Is that what you mean by reality?


I mean that even when you verify that the weather is warm by looking outside, feeling the air, etc., that is a subjective experience all the same (it comes from the senses) though it might also count as an objective experience (i.e. seeing a clear blue sky with the sun shining means that objectively there is a clear blue sky with the sun shining).

Magnus Anderson wrote:Because if that's the case then what does the question "is it objectively true that there is a reality?" means?


It means the existence of reality is not a matter of opinion or that it depends on one's experience which can differ from someone else's. If the existence of reality is objective, it means it exists for everybody whether they experience it that way or not.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8508
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:37 pm

Gib wrote:To say there is a reality is a tautology. To say there is anything is to say that thing exists, but reality by definition exists. To say there is not a reality is meaningless.


You need to give me an example of a thing that is represented by the word "reality" and an example of a thing that is not represented by the word "reality". If you cannot do this then your concept of reality is either too specific (i.e. all-exclusive) or too generic (i.e. all-inclusive.) If it's all-exclusive, it means nothing. If it's all-inclusive, it means anything.

In everyday life, we often say things such as "this is reality" and "this is not reality". This implies that the category of reality, like every proper category, includes certain things and excludes others. What are the things it includes? They are assumptions that have the potential to influence our behavior. Everything else is not reality. This includes assumptions that do not have the potential to influence our behavior.

Reality is everything around you. The world of Star Wars is not reality.


If the concept of reality is all-inclusive, which means, if the word "reality" refers to everything around us, then the world of Star Wars is also reality. The only reason we can say that the world of Star Wars is not reality is thanks to the fact that our concept of reality, in this particular use, is not all-inclusive i.e. it excludes certain things. These things are everything that is not an assumption that has the potential to influence our behavior.

I mean that even when you verify that the weather is warm by looking outside, feeling the air, etc., that is a subjective experience all the same (it comes from the senses) though it might also count as an objective experience (i.e. seeing a clear blue sky with the sun shining means that objectively there is a clear blue sky with the sun shining).


How do you determine whether subjective experience counts as an objective experience?
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby gib » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:44 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:You need to give me an example of a thing that is represented by the word "reality"...


A "thing"? There's only one "thing" that's represent by the word "reality," and that's reality. Perhaps you mean an example of a thing that is real--how 'bout the Statue of Liberty--but that hardly tells you what reality itself is. Or maybe you mean an example of what I think reality is (like the way a religious person might say: reality to me is all matter and energy, and also a transcendental, spiritual realm in which we find God). In that case, let me start by saying: to me, reality is fundamentally experience. All experience which we have, and all experience which we don't have, constitutes the fabric of reality. <-- That's a start. There's much therein to unpack.

Magnus Anderson wrote:If you cannot do this then your concept of reality is either too specific (i.e. all-exclusive) or too generic (i.e. all-inclusive.) If it's all-exclusive, it means nothing. If it's all-inclusive, it means anything.


Fair enough, so long as we understand that in order for me to give an example of something unreal, it has to be imaginary. For example, I can't say "That chair is an example of something real but this table is an example of something unreal."

Magnus Anderson wrote:In everyday life, we often say things such as "this is reality" and "this is not reality". This implies that the category of reality, like every proper category, includes certain things and excludes others. What are the things it includes? They are assumptions that have the potential to influence our behavior. Everything else is not reality. This includes assumptions that do not have the potential to influence our behavior.


I'm not sure I understand this. You're saying that everything that is real is an assumption? What do you mean by assumption? And what allows for an assumption to influence behavior, and what disallows it to influence behavior.

Magnus Anderson wrote:If the concept of reality is all-inclusive, which means, if the word "reality" refers to everything around us, then the world of Star Wars is also reality. No, the movie Star Wars is real, the world is make believe. The only reason we can say that the world of Star Wars is not reality is thanks to the fact that our concept of reality, in this particular use, is not all-inclusive i.e. it excludes certain things. These things are everything that is not an assumption that has the potential to influence our behavior.


Sure, if we define "reality" carefully--watching what gets included and what gets excluded--then the world of Star Wars is correctly recognized as belonging to the category of the unreal. But I don't think saying "reality is everything around you" is all-inclusive in the way you mean. The world of Star Wars is not all around you. When I say "everything around you," I'm already denoting a specific set of things and not others.

Magnus Anderson wrote:How do you determine whether subjective experience counts as an objective experience?


Through a lifetime of experiences and being in social groups. When you're young, you might think of your favorite movie and think: that movie's awesome! But then talking to others, you might find that some people agree with you but others don't. You eventually learn that the awesomeness of the movie is something that only you feel (and others who agree with you) and not a fact of reality. Yet there are other things which everyone seems to agree on: the time of day, that the Sun exists, that 2 + 2 = 4, and you learn to call these objective.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8508
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:18 am

Reality ≡ all that which really affects.
.. snicker.. 8-[
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: 25807
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:10 pm

Gib wrote:A "thing"?


Yes, a particular thing. Something that I can experience.
For example, a tree.

If you want to help someone understand the concept that you are using the best way to do it is to give them a number of examples that are labelled either as "this is an example of my concept" or as "this is NOT an example of my concept" and then let them make connections on their own.

That's also how we train computers to differentiate between different classes of images e.g. those with a face and those without a face.

This is basically a style of learning that is known as constructionism. The good thing about it is that people do things on their own, i.e. you teach them how to be independent, so that when they face an unfamiliar situation they don't freak out. The bad thing is that it requires a lot of experience and this means making a lot of mistakes.

If you cannot afford making mistakes then the alternative is instructionism which is about giving people instructions that they can follow independently from their experience. The good thing about this approach is that it's easy to learn. All you have to do is understand language (i.e. what sort of action each one of the instructions refers to) and memorize the set of instructions on how to act that has been devised by someone else (usually someone who learned these things the hard way i.e. through laborious process of trial and error.) That's what a theory is. It's just a set of instructions on how to make predictions independently from your experience. All you have to do is fill the formula with input parameters and do the calculations. This is deductive reasoning. No need to be experienced. You can be clueless and still make accurate predictions. This is why theories, and instructions in general, are often used as a way to hide one's inferiority. Anyways, the bad thing about instructionism is that it makes you brittle. The moment you leave your comfort zone, i.e. the part of reality the theory you are using is capable of predicting with sufficient degree of accuracy, you freak out. You crash in the most ungraceful way that is possible. Basically, if you simply follow other people's instructions, you cannot adapt to new, previously unseen, situations. At best, you can go back to your instructor to give you new instructions.

All of this may seem irrelevant to you but it isn't really. If you're an instructionist -- and by you I don't mean specifically you -- then it is not surprising that you place so much emphasis on language, words, definitions, etc. Because that's where you get all of your knowledge from. Experience never enters your picture.

Perhaps you mean an example of a thing that is real--how 'bout the Statue of Liberty--but that hardly tells you what reality itself is.


The more examples you give someone, the more accurate their understanding will be.
Categories are inductively inferred.

I'm not sure I understand this. You're saying that everything that is real is an assumption? What do you mean by assumption? And what allows for an assumption to influence behavior, and what disallows it to influence behavior.


I am saying that the word "real" is a label that is attached to assumptions that have the potential to influence our behavior. This is a very modest understanding of the word "real". When you cut out all of the pretenses, all of the references or pseudo-references to the world beyond our experience, that's what you get. It's just a plain and simple description of how the word "real" is used in everyday life.

You ask what do I mean by assumption.
An example would be any kind of prediction.
Whenever you say something will happen (which means you are predicting it will happen) you are assuming that that something will happen.
The purpose of predictions is to motivate us to take preventive measures.
Another example is the idea that humans evolved from monkeys.
This one isn't a prediction because it is not an assumption regarding some future point in time. But it's still an assumption. And the purpose of such an assumption is to help us predict the future.

Say you think there will be WW3 within next 10 years.
What does that mean?
It means you are predicting (or expecting) WW3 within next 10 years.
What does that mean in turn?
It means that you might prepare for it.
On the other hand, if you don't think there will be WW3 within next 10 years, then what that means is that you won't prepare for it.

In that case, let me start by saying: to me, reality is fundamentally experience. All experience which we have, and all experience which we don't have, constitutes the fabric of reality. <-- That's a start. There's much therein to unpack.


I suppose that what you mean by "all experience we don't have" is that the concept of reality has no temporal restrictions. For example, the concept of reality does not refer exclusively to my experience up to this point in time. It refers to my experience at any point in time which includes my experience at future points in time (i.e. future experience.) Otherwise, if you mean something beyond this, then you're stepping into the territory of non-sense, I am afraid.

Let's stick to the definition that makes sense. Reality refers to experience of any kind. Isn't that all-inclusive? The world of Star Wars is also a form of experience.

Sure, if we define "reality" carefully--watching what gets included and what gets excluded--then the world of Star Wars is correctly recognized as belonging to the category of the unreal. But I don't think saying "reality is everything around you" is all-inclusive in the way you mean. The world of Star Wars is not all around you. When I say "everything around you," I'm already denoting a specific set of things and not others.


But the world of Star Wars is all around me. In the form of movies, games, comics, novels, toys, etc. Are you saying that these things are not real?

The problem is resolved by realizing that the word "real" is attached to assumptions. In the case of Star Wars, the assumption that there is a physical world of Star Wars.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:41 pm

gib wrote:
Arminius wrote:Most people are subjectivists, not objectivists. (your pole seems to confirm this. I guess you mean the "poll". Right?) Even most scientists are subjectivists (No, they r subjective beings, like the rest of us. But I guarantee u, if u asked them, they'd call themselves objectivist Yes, of course, but in reality - objectively - they are subjectivists because they have become corrupt and greedy) - they subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers.


I think you're right that objectivity comes out of subjectivity.

That is not what I exactly said. It is easier to be subjective than to be objective. So one may think that objects come out of subjects. But I am saying that the subject-object-relationship is less like the diachronic chicken-and-egg problem but more like the synchronic side-by-side-problem. If there "IS" something, then always according to a subject that refers to an object. Which of them was first is not decidable. The first one of our world was no subject, since: in order to know what a "subject" is, a second one is needed; but a second one is not only the beginning of subjectivity, but also the beginning of objectivity. So the subject and the object began at the same time. But the subject can always be one step ahead when it comes to the identification with the said first one before the second one. Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" assumes that there is a one who thinks, that there is a conclusion and that there is being. If Descartes had been the said first one, then he would have known (in the way we do) nothing about thinking, conclsuion and being.

gib wrote:... it is not opposite. It's like a man color blind to red all of a sudden seeing red and thinking it must b something opposed to color. Subjectivity and objectivity possess opposing characteristics--namely, tendencies towards consensus vs tendencies away from consensus, thereby giving off the illusion of being real vs in the head--but if consciousness and mind are characterized by subjectivity and if objectivity requires consciousness and mind, then objectivity must be a form of subjectivity. Having different characteristics does not make two things opposite.

Epistemologically said, subjectivity and objectivity are oppositions. For example: the subject is the observing one, the object is the observed one. It is similar to the grammatic active/passive-opposition.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:53 pm

Gamer wrote:Subj 9
Obj 1

Gamer wrote:There’s also the possibility that it’s like asking if you are an inhaler or an exhaler. Perhaps consciousness is a balancing act of the subjective and objective, and that even when we allow that subjectivity seems primary, we can only hold that thought for so long, we can’t permanently talk ourselves out of playing along with the objective. The soul must breathe.

So you are saying: "inhaler 9, exhaler 1"?

:)
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby gib » Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:03 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:Yes, a particular thing. Something that I can experience.
For example, a tree.

If you want to help someone understand the concept that you are using the best way to do it is to give them a number of examples that are labelled either as "this is an example of my concept" or as "this is NOT an example of my concept" and then let them make connections on their own.


I'm not actually using the concept "reality" all that differently from ordinary people. True, I'm a subjectivist, which means that I see reality differently than you, but if you want examples, I won't give you anything different from what an ordinary person would give: bananas, shoes, tin cans, ear lobes, quasars, people, rock bands... these are all examples of things that are real. Santa Clause, Darth Vader, the Fly Spaghetti Monster, Harry Potter, Teddy Ruxpin... these are all examples of things that are unreal.

Magnus Anderson wrote:That's also how we train computers to differentiate between different classes of images e.g. those with a face and those without a face.

This is basically a style of learning that is known as constructionism. The good thing about it is that people do things on their own, i.e. you teach them how to be independent, so that when they face an unfamiliar situation they don't freak out. The bad thing is that it requires a lot of experience and this means making a lot of mistakes.

If you cannot afford making mistakes then the alternative is instructionism which is about giving people instructions that they can follow independently from their experience. The good thing about this approach is that it's easy to learn. All you have to do is understand language (i.e. what sort of action each one of the instructions refers to) and memorize the set of instructions on how to act that has been devised by someone else (usually someone who learned these things the hard way i.e. through laborious process of trial and error.) That's what a theory is. It's just a set of instructions on how to make predictions independently from your experience. All you have to do is fill the formula with input parameters and do the calculations. This is deductive reasoning. No need to be experienced. You can be clueless and still make accurate predictions. This is why theories, and instructions in general, are often used as a way to hide one's inferiority. Anyways, the bad thing about instructionism is that it makes you brittle. The moment you leave your comfort zone, i.e. the part of reality the theory you are using is capable of predicting with sufficient degree of accuracy, you freak out. You crash in the most ungraceful way that is possible. Basically, if you simply follow other people's instructions, you cannot adapt to new, previously unseen, situations. At best, you can go back to your instructor to give you new instructions.

All of this may seem irrelevant to you but it isn't really. If you're an instructionist -- and by you I don't mean specifically you -- then it is not surprising that you place so much emphasis on language, words, definitions, etc. Because that's where you get all of your knowledge from. Experience never enters your picture.


Ok.

Magnus Anderson wrote:The more examples you give someone, the more accurate their understanding will be.
Categories are inductively inferred.


True, but I have no idea how many examples or of what kind to give you before you inductively infer reality--unless, of course, you already know the category I'm trying to define, and you're just seeing if I can make the connection with examples.

Magnus Anderson wrote:I am saying that the word "real" is a label that is attached to assumptions that have the potential to influence our behavior. This is a very modest understanding of the word "real". When you cut out all of the pretenses, all of the references or pseudo-references to the world beyond our experience, that's what you get. It's just a plain and simple description of how the word "real" is used in everyday life.

You ask what do I mean by assumption.
An example would be any kind of prediction.
Whenever you say something will happen (which means you are predicting it will happen) you are assuming that that something will happen.
The purpose of predictions is to motivate us to take preventive measures.
Another example is the idea that humans evolved from monkeys.
This one isn't a prediction because it is not an assumption regarding some future point in time. But it's still an assumption. And the purpose of such an assumption is to help us predict the future.

Say you think there will be WW3 within next 10 years.
What does that mean?
It means you are predicting (or expecting) WW3 within next 10 years.
What does that mean in turn?
It means that you might prepare for it.
On the other hand, if you don't think there will be WW3 within next 10 years, then what that means is that you won't prepare for it.


So an assumption is a prediction, or can lead to predictions. Sounds like you're saying that everything we take to be real, we do so on the grounds of an assumption.

Magnus Anderson wrote:I suppose that what you mean by "all experience we don't have" is that the concept of reality has no temporal restrictions. For example, the concept of reality does not refer exclusively to my experience up to this point in time. It refers to my experience at any point in time which includes my experience at future points in time (i.e. future experience.) Otherwise, if you mean something beyond this, then you're stepping into the territory of non-sense, I am afraid.


That's not quite what I was saying, but it counts anyway. It's more centered around the "we" in that phrase. By "we", I mean humans. Other animals also have experiences. I was saying that reality is constituted by all experience that exists, not just those of humans.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Let's stick to the definition that makes sense. Reality refers to experience of any kind. Isn't that all-inclusive? The world of Star Wars is also a form of experience.


No, it's not all-inclusive. Thanks to the human imagination, we are able to conjure up ideas and images of things we take to be unreal, and at the same time, take the ideas and images themselves to be real (as mental things). The flying rhinoceros in the pink tutu I'm imagining is not real, but my mental image of it is. As I said earlier, I can give you a rough picture of what I take to be real and what I take to be unreal, but you'll have to allow me to bring up examples of the imaginary or the fabricated in order to show you what's in the "unreal" bucket, which is to say I have to bring up examples of the imaginary or the fabricated in order to avoid being all-inclusive in my definition of reality. The imagination helps a lot here--it's a mental faculty that enables us to actually bring up such examples.

Magnus Anderson wrote:But the world of Star Wars is all around me. <-- That's just a play on words. In the form of movies, games, comics, novels, toys, etc. Are you saying that these things are not real?


That's not the "world" of Star Wars (except in a metaphorical way). You're trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that the world of Star Wars is all around us (in the form of movies, toys, games, etc.) and at the same time can't be all around us because that would make reality all-inclusive (I mean, if Star Wars counts as real, what doesn't?).

Magnus Anderson wrote:The problem is resolved by realizing that the word "real" is attached to assumptions. In the case of Star Wars, the assumption that there is a physical world of Star Wars.


Yes, if you really thought there is a physical world of Star Wars, you'd be making an assumption.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8508
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:17 am

Reality is ALL of those real things together. And if you can't experience it, well ... then you can't experience anything.
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: 25807
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:00 pm

Gib wrote:Sounds like you're saying that everything we take to be real, we do so on the grounds of an assumption.


The point that I am trying to make is that the word "real" refers to a category of assumptions that have the potential to influence our behavior.

For example, when someone assumes that there is a physical world of Star Wars somewhere out there what they are doing is they are attaching the label "real" to the assumption that there is a physical world of Star Wars somewhere out there and assigning it a potential to influence their behavior. It does not matter what caused them to decide to categorize such an assumption as "real". The fact that they did is all that matters.

What you're doing here, it appears to me, is you're trying to take the word "real" out of its context. You are trying to make it independent from human judgment. Which it is not. The word "real" is a label that is attached by humans to certain things (namely, assumptions) based on some set of rules. It is a word that refers to assumptions that have the potential to influence our behavior. And it is people who decide what assumptions have the potential to influence their behavior and what assumptions don't. And they do so based on some set of rules. A lot of people do it by employing inductive reasoning. They look at the evidence they have, and then, based on it, they assign probability values to assumptions. But there are also people who do it based on their desires. An example would be a person who assumes he will become rich within next couple of years, not because his past experience suggests it, but merely because he wants it to happen. Every assumption has some sort of origin and based on that origin it can be categorized as either evidence-dependent or evidence-independent. The two terms translate to objective and subjective. That's what objectivity and subjectivity really mean. They are epistemological concepts. They are not ontological concepts. In the same way that reductionism and atomism are epistemological (see Bertrand Russell's logical atomism) rather than ontological (see Democritus and other varieties of physical atomism.)

Yes, if you really thought there is a physical world of Star Wars, you'd be making an assumption.


I really think that there is a physical body behinid your Internet persona. That's an assumption too.
Whatever hasn't been experienced can only be assumed.

I was saying that reality is constituted by all experience that exists, not just those of humans.


Reality is a reference to the category of assumptions that has the potential to affect one's behavior. That's what it is. Very simple. When you say "this is reality" what you are saying is "this assumption has the potential to influence my behavior". Similarly, when you say "this is NOT reality" what you are saying is "this assumption has no potential to influence my behavior". That's all these words mean.

You are making a mistake in thinking that "what exists" is separate from "what one thinks exists". It is not. You cannot say that something exists without it begin something that you think exists. It's very difficult for people to accept that their opinions are merely their personal opinions and not an exact or an inexact reflection of some never-changing state of affairs. People don't like fallibility. They cannot consider the possibility that what they are doing might turn out to be a mistake. They prefer to think that will keep doing what they are doing for all eternity.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Prismatic567, Yahoo [Bot]