Subjectivity versus Objectivity

[WendyDarling]

Yeah, what JSS said..."only one shared actual reality" which is not "in your head" only.

[Arminius]

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.

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.

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:

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, 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:

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.

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]

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:

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.

Now you:

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. It just says that if you're a subjectivist, then your intention is to obfuscate, misdirect, and extort. "Gee, I don't want to do that... better denounce subjectivism." Even if creating disagreement is the purpose, that doesn't make a position wrong.

You are conflating a perception of reality with reality itself...

Welcome to subjectivism, James.

the "map vs terrain" fallacy

You can't just take something you disagree with and call it a fallacy.

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, you're just reasserting naive realism without any argument. Yes, the distinction between perception and reality is intuitive at first, but sometimes in philosophy, we like to go beyond intuition, sometimes even arriving at counterintuition. Subjectivism isn't a step below this most intuitive understanding of the problem--as if to say: gee, I had a dream last night, did I really travel to another world?--most subjectivists have highly sophisticated reasons for joining perception and reality--they've moved beyond naive realism--reasserting naive realism doesn't drag them back.

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.

Failure to understand can lead to frustration. People end up doing excatly what you're doing here--throwing accusations of "doing it on purpose," "trying to cause harm," and you end up lumping the person with the only enemy you know. It's laziness, the lack of will to try to understand.

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:

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.

Did my response to James suffice?

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:

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.

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).

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]

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.

So actually it is you making the slippery-slope logical fallacy. You know that he didn't say that it was wrong, 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. You are the one doing the "A can't be true, because if it is then.. bad."

You are twisting it into a political issue rather than philosophical.

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.

Gyahd, and again. First it is certainly NOT "blatantly wrong", but then how would you know one way or another. 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.

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.

You are being one of those, "Vote for Hillary to be President because she is a woman".

[Arminius]

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:

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.

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, 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:

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.

I mean that a "subject" needs an object in order to be a subject.

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.

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).

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".

[gib]

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."

^ Nice try, James, but I've seen more highly polished sophism from a monkey.

You are twisting it into a political issue rather than philosophical.

Says the kettle to the pot.

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.

Ah, so you're just trying to say "bad gib!"

And unless you are denying the truth of subjectivism, you're saying "bad gib" for telling the truth.

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.

That would imply the potential to arrive at an agreement... something beyond your ability... let's say, for example, that in addition to expounding my subjectivism, I gave more of the whole picture (whatever that is). Are you saying you would then agree with me? Even the subjectivist part?

You are being one of those, "Vote for Hillary to be President because she is a woman".

James, why do I get the feeling that the world, seen through your visors, wouldn't even look like affectance, but political left and right. Eh, kettle?

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.

So it was just an observation?

I mean that a subject needs an object in order to be a subject.

You mean a body, or an object to observe?

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.

I agree. Put in my own terms, I say there is no experience that doesn't project to become the experienced. But because the experienced is projected from the experience, they are not two distinct things, just two different ways of thinking of the same thing. But even this doesn't imply solipsism. I still believe the experience is 'given' to us. It is given to us from an outside source. When it comes to sensations, for example, we are 'given' sensory input, and that becomes a sensory experience, which projects and becomes the things we sense. The world we sense, therefore, is a representation of its source. The source is communicating to us, giving us a representation of itself. But obviously this means that there is more to the world than just me and my subjective experiences.

On the other hand, solipsism can't be circumvented as easily for this source. If this source is conscious as I propose it is, and if we can treat it as more or less interchangeable with "the universe", then from its point of view, its experiences are all there is. It might have to be a solipsist. But even in that case, it can still be argued that the dualism between experience and experienced is really two sides to the same coin. It experiences whatever it experiences as an "object" while at the same time it is the object so experienced (the fact of the object's being experienced is part of the object--it is its being--and it counts as the "subject" part of the object).

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".

So you're saying you wouldn't even have thought. I'm not sure what a brain suspended in a void would do. Probably just disintegrate. A brain in a vat, however, hooked up to wires might experience an entire world. But in general, my theory of consciousness says that any physical activity whatsoever will come with some subjective experience characterized by some quality. So if the brain is doing something--anything--it will experience. I'm not sure what it would experience, but I don't think it needs to take in input (i.e. perceive an object) just in order to have some experience. It is in the nature of experience, I say, to project and become the 'object' (or some equivalent thereof) while at the same time maintaining that aspect of being experience (i.e. being felt) which keeps one of its feet in the subjective.

[James S Saint]

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

[Arminius]

@ Gib.

I just had no better example than the brain.

[gib]

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

Um... okay.

@ Gib.

I just had no better example than the brain.

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

[Arminius]

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

[gib]

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

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

[Arminius]

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.

untab

The question whether an object needs a subject in oder to be an object is not the subject in this example.

[gib]

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.

untab

The question whether an object needs a subject in oder to be an object is not the subject in this example.

Arminius,

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

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

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

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

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

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

^ Does that make any sense?

[Silhouette]

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.

[surreptitious75]

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

[gib]

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.

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

[James S Saint]

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.

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

[Silhouette]

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

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

So the subject can be both subject AND object?

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

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

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

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

[James S Saint]

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

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

So the subject can be both subject AND object?

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

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


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

A 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.

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.

[Arminius]

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

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

So the subject can be both subject AND object?

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

[gib]

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?

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

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.?

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

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.

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

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.

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

[Silhouette]

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

[Magnus Anderson]

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.

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

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

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

[Arminius]

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.

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

untab

Saint Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480–543):

]

[Prismatic567]

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

A subjectivist believe in the following;

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.

An Objectivist* believe in the following;
* not followers of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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