Moderator: Only_Humean
gib wrote:Arminius wrote:The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.James S Saint wrote:The problem is that creating disagreement is the purpose (obfuscation, misdirection, and extortion).
If everyone has their own "reality", then nothing and everything can be said to be real. That makes all history and facts questionable, and thus changeable. And manipulated change is the goal. Why allow people to restrain you with Truth?
Both you of, those are known as the "slippery slope" fallacy: X can't be true because bad things would happen if it were true. Wanna be comfortable, better not seek out the truth.
James S Saint wrote:We were not saying that "X is true because if not....". Arminius was saying that too much is too much. And I was saying that too much is intentional, to serve a purpose. Neither of those constitute a "slippery slope" fallacy.
gib wrote:Arminius, some people might take subjectivism to its solipsistic extremes, but not I.
Arminius wrote:The first one of our world was no subject, since: in order to know what a "subject" is, a second one is needed ....
James S Saint wrote:I suspect that you don't understand what we each said, but perhaps you merely misunderstand the "slippery slope" fallacy.
We were not saying that "X is true because if not....". Arminius was saying that too much is too much. And I was saying that too much is intentional, to serve a purpose. Neither of those constitute a "slippery slope" fallacy.
Arminius wrote:The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.
James S Saint wrote:The problem is that creating disagreement is the purpose (obfuscation, misdirection, and extortion).
James S Saint wrote:You are conflating a perception of reality with reality itself...
James S Saint wrote:the "map vs terrain" fallacy
James S Saint wrote:Then you compound the fallacy by conflating perspective with perception with reality itself. Everyone has their own perspective of reality, their own perception of reality, and even their own situation within reality, but only one shared actual reality.
James S Saint wrote:The "objectivists" know this. The subjectivists continue conflating concepts and words such as to create the liberal chaos used to manipulate Man into a new beast.
Arminius wrote:No. Either you do not know what a "slippery slope" fallacy means or you did not understand what we said. Nobody of us said anything in the sense of "X can't be true because ... if ...". Just see what James S. Saint already responded to you:James S Saint wrote:We were not saying that "X is true because if not....". Arminius was saying that too much is too much. And I was saying that too much is intentional, to serve a purpose. Neither of those constitute a "slippery slope" fallacy.
This is exactly what I would have answered, if James S. Saint had not done it before me.
Arminius wrote:gib wrote:Arminius, some people might take subjectivism to its solipsistic extremes, but not I.
Yes, I also think that you are not an extreme subjectivist. But I remind you of our dialogue in this thread on page 3 where I said:Arminius wrote:The first one of our world was no subject, since: in order to know what a "subject" is, a second one is needed ....
This second one could be a tiny thing, since it does not have to be a huge living being (thing) in order to be an object.
Arminius wrote:Imagine, you are your brain and the only one, the first one (see above). You know nothing about a subject and an object, since no thing (nothing) is there - except you as you brain. It makes no sense (nonsense) then to have senses, since there is nothing to observe. There is no object, thus there is no subject. You do not know that you are your brain (thoughts). You can think but you do not know that you think. You have no evidence, because you have no empirical data, no experience at all. Your thoughts are not your experience, because they are not objects but you yourself as your brain . So it is not possible to think "cogito ergo sum".
gib wrote:Arminius wrote:The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.
All he's saying is that if you take subjectivism to its logical conclusion, you get solipsism. <-- Why that makes subjectivism wrong isn't highlighted in Arminius's argument. It just leaves one with the sense that "Gee, I don't want to be a solipsist... better denounce subjectivism." Not that I am a solipsist, but I don't see how solipsism is logically ruled out by this.
gib wrote:James S Saint wrote:The problem is that creating disagreement is the purpose (obfuscation, misdirection, and extortion).
While this is blatantly wrong in the first place, it doesn't rule out subjectivism.
gib wrote:James S Saint wrote:I suspect that you don't understand what we each said, but perhaps you merely misunderstand the "slippery slope" fallacy.
We were not saying that "X is true because if not....". Arminius was saying that too much is too much. And I was saying that too much is intentional, to serve a purpose. Neither of those constitute a "slippery slope" fallacy.
I still don't see how that's not the slippery slope fallacy. Here's what Arminius said:Arminius wrote:The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.
All he's saying is that if you take subjectivism to its logical conclusion, you get solipsism. <-- Why that makes subjectivism wrong isn't highlighted in Arminius's argument. It just leaves one with the sense that "Gee, I don't want to be a solipsist... better denounce subjectivism." Not that I am a solipsist, but I don't see how solipsism is logically ruled out by this.
gib wrote:Arminius wrote:gib wrote:Arminius, some people might take subjectivism to its solipsistic extremes, but not I.
Yes, I also think that you are not an extreme subjectivist. But I remind you of our dialogue in this thread on page 3 where I said:Arminius wrote:The first one of our world was no subject, since: in order to know what a "subject" is, a second one is needed ....
This second one could be a tiny thing, since it does not have to be a huge living being (thing) in order to be an object.
I remember this. Your wording is rather vague here; I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Sounds like you're saying: a subject is only a subject if it is known as a subject, and that requires something else to do the knowing. I take this means solipsism can't be true because there must be something other than the subject.
gib wrote:The reason I'm not a solipsist is because I believe there is an extension to existence beyond myself. What I don't believe is that this extension is not a subject too (it's just not me).
gib wrote:Arminius wrote:Imagine, you are your brain and the only one, the first one (see above). You know nothing about a subject and an object, since no thing (nothing) is there - except you as you brain. It makes no sense (nonsense) then to have senses, since there is nothing to observe. There is no object, thus there is no subject. You do not know that you are your brain (thoughts). You can think but you do not know that you think. You have no evidence, because you have no empirical data, no experience at all. Your thoughts are not your experience, because they are not objects but you yourself as your brain . So it is not possible to think "cogito ergo sum".
True, you wouldn't recognize yourself as a self. But you would have experience (even if that's just thought). The experience (thought) projects as a reality (truth). The truth and the thought are one and the same. <-- That's the kind of monism I'm getting at with my subjectivism. I don't mean to say the subject exist as a 'self' per se, just that as a fusion of truth and thought, the thought aspect is what makes it a subject at the same that the truth aspect makes it an object (an abstract object in this case).
James S Saint wrote:So actually it is you making the slippery-slope logical fallacy. <-- Nice try. You know that he didn't say that it was wrong, It was implied. rather merely that it is a slippery slope that could lead to something that you recognize as a bad thing, so then you declare that he is wrong because of the false conclusion that you think others might draw from what he said. <-- *cough* strawman *cough* You are the one doing the "A can't be true, because if it is then.. bad."
James S Saint wrote:You are twisting it into a political issue rather than philosophical.
James S Saint wrote:gib wrote:While this is blatantly wrong in the first place, it doesn't rule out subjectivism.
Gyahd, and again. First it is certainly NOT "blatantly wrong", but then how would you know one way or another. Um... because I know what my intentions are? But secondly (back on topic) no one "ruled out" subjectivism. He said that it was dangerous. I said that it was intentionally dangerous, but neither of us ruled it completely out, rather that it has limits.
James S Saint wrote:WE are not the ones saying that it is "WRONG". We are saying that it is not the total picture and thus is misleading. Obviously you are one of those misled into thinking that it is either totally right or totally wrong, depending on what you want others to believe about it.
James S Saint wrote:You are being one of those, "Vote for Hillary to be President because she is a woman".
Arminius wrote:No. That is not exactly what I am saying. I really meant it in the sense of "too much": Too much subjectivism can lead to solipsism. It was meant as a fact. It was meant objectively.![]()
Arminius wrote:I mean that a subject needs an object in order to be a subject.
Arminius wrote:gib wrote:The reason I'm not a solipsist is because I believe there is an extension to existence beyond myself. What I don't believe is that this extension is not a subject too (it's just not me).
It is because you have observed, experienced it.
If there is only one (I mean one entity), then there is nothing else. Let this one be a thought or whatever. In order to have this one as a subject (which can know what it is for the first time), an object is needed.
There is no distiction or differentiation without an object. A subject is not possible without an object.
Arminius wrote:According to my example (see above), you would not have any experience. See above again where I said: "You have no evidence, because you have no empirical data, no experience at all".
James S Saint wrote:gib, I didn't realize that you had such a serious guilt complex.
Arminius wrote:@ Gib.
I just had no better example than the brain.
Arminius wrote:I believe that it is not necessary "to think of a better example or another way", since you know what I mean. Right?
Arminius wrote:The problem is that it is very difficult to tell about a non-existent "world", thus a about a "world" without any object. If one tells about a subject, then it is already an object. Therefore I said you should imagine to be a brain or a thought as a singularity in which it is impossible to experience anything. If you think about "anything", then this is already an object. And if I should tell you how you only think (but not about anything), thus without experience, without an object, then it would not be possible to say "what happens", because there is no object, thus no experience. So, "I think" ("cogito" in Latin) means already "I can have an object" (not: "I have already an object", but: "I can have an object"), so this quickly leads to "thus I am" ("ergo sum" in Latin). But in my example (see above), this "thus I am" is not possible, because I had to give you an example without any object. And the problem is that we do not really know such an example. "The only one in the world"? No! Because there is no world in that example. So, actually, I can not even use the word "you". There is no reality, because there is nothing that "you" (not existent in an objective way) can experience, thus even you yourself are nothing that can be experienced. This is difficult to imagine. I know. You would have to be capable of being an object, if you wanted to know yourself as a subject. But there is no and can never be an object in that said example. A subject needs an object in order to be a subject.
Silhouette wrote:This is a stupid question.
The "subject" is an object as soon as it is perceived by any "subject".
Therefore a subject is always an object and never a subject.
Therefore all that exists objective.
Silhouette wrote:This is a stupid question.
The "subject" is an object as soon as it is perceived by any "subject".
Therefore a subject is always an object and never a subject.
Therefore all that exists objective.
gib wrote:Analogy: zinc becomes a penny as soon as the mint punches it out. Therefore, there is no zinc, only pennies.
James S Saint wrote:It doesn't stop being a subject merely because it is also an object.
Silhouette wrote:gib wrote:Analogy: zinc becomes a penny as soon as the mint punches it out. Therefore, there is no zinc, only pennies.James S Saint wrote:It doesn't stop being a subject merely because it is also an object.
So the subject can be both subject AND object?
Surely as soon as the subject attempts to observe itself, it may think it has succeeded but it ought to immediately notice that the thing now being observed is distinct from that which is observing it?
And then in attempting to now observe that newly distinct thing, as soon as it does so, something else yet again is doing the observing etc.?
Silhouette wrote:A penny might be able to retain its zinc constitution despite changing form, such that it may be both made of zinc and a penny, but in practice I do not think a "subject" can do that as soon as it becomes an "object" - try it.
Are you sure I am wrong? Might just be me.
Silhouette wrote:gib wrote:Analogy: zinc becomes a penny as soon as the mint punches it out. Therefore, there is no zinc, only pennies.James S Saint wrote:It doesn't stop being a subject merely because it is also an object.
So the subject can be both subject AND object?
Silhouette wrote:Surely as soon as the subject attempts to observe itself, it may think it has succeeded but it ought to immediately notice that the thing now being observed is distinct from that which is observing it?
Silhouette wrote:And then in attempting to now observe that newly distinct thing, as soon as it does so, something else yet again is doing the observing etc.?
Silhouette wrote:Isn't it like a cat forever trying to back out of those lampshade things that the vet puts on? The subject is forever retreating and trying to see itself where it literally "just was": a forever futile attempt.
Silhouette wrote:A penny might be able to retain its zinc constitution despite changing form, such that it may be both made of zinc and a penny, but in practice I do not think a "subject" can do that as soon as it becomes an "object" - try it.
James S Saint wrote:You said:
"it ought to immediately notice that the thing now being observed is distinct from that which is observing it?"
Why should it believe that? Do you believe that what you see in the mirror is not you?
James S Saint wrote:A human is both a person and an animal. How could it be both?
You never heard of a subcategory?
Not all objects are subjects, but certainly all subjects are objects. It is merely an issue of language.
Silhouette wrote:This is a stupid question.
The "subject" is an object as soon as it is perceived by any "subject".
Therefore a subject is always an object and never a subject.
Therefore all that exists objective.
Arcturus Descending wrote:Arminius,Idealistically said, an objectivist excludes all kinds of subjectivity. That is difficult to do.
I would say so...almost like a harrowing experience.An objectivist is comparable to a monk. Monks were the first scientists. Excluding all kinds of subjectivity is a huge task.
They were. Can you give me an example.
Subjectivism is the doctrine that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience.", instead of shared or communal, and that there is no external or objective truth. The success of this position is historically attributed to Descartes and his methodic doubt.
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users