boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 09:45 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Obviously enough, except to agree, the concept of truth is useless and meaningless.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

What else would you do with it?

--

"Narrative" also implies the part the observer plays, "..all the World's a stage" etc.

We believe to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss.

--


perplexity,Smile

Reality is constituted of the relations between subject and object are you saying these relations do not exist? It is true these relations are relative to both subject and object both entities of process, but don't you think there is a correlation between them which gives them a certain stability. If the concept of truth and falsehood did not exist, we as individuals would not last long. Experience of the moment is truth, taken out of that context it becomes probability, and even probability is a most useful concept in maintaining our well being. PS: the link you provided is not functional.:eek:
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 09:49 am
@de Silentio,
The corollary to "all is motion" is that there is no object apart from the motion.

:eek:
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 10:00 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
The corollary to "all is motion" is that there is no object apart from the motion.

:eek:


Smile In that, being is motion.



"There is no such thing as right or wrong only thinking makes it so." :eek: Shakespeare

"To God all things are well and good, only to man some things are and some things are not.":eek: Heraclitus
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 01:51 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:

"There is no such thing as right or wrong only thinking makes it so." :eek: Shakespeare


Correctly quoted, "for there is nothing either good or bad... " in view of the full context, Hamlet's point would rather be that the rightness or wrongness (to call Demark a prison, objectively) fails to assuage the ill of it, subjectively.

:rolleyes:
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 02:22 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Correctly quoted, "for there is nothing either good or bad... " in view of the full context, Hamlet's point would rather be that the rightness or wrongness (to call Demark a prison, objectively) fails to assuage the ill of it, subjectively.

:rolleyes:


perplexity,Smile

Thank you for the correction. All meaning is subjective, so I think that statement would be universal, " For there is nothing either good or bad only thinking makes it so." :cool: Billy Shakespeare. I wonder, is that TRUE!Very Happy

Those nihilists, what is the meaning of a flower, I say it is not this or that, it just is.Very Happy
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 06:21 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
perplexity,Smile

Thank you for the correction. All meaning is subjective, so I think that statement would be universal, " For there is nothing either good or bad only thinking makes it so." :cool: Billy Shakespeare. I wonder, is that TRUE!Very Happy

Those nihilists, what is the meaning of a flower, I say it is not this or that, it just is.Very Happy


The dictionary says that "brother" means male sibling. Why is that subjective? It is a report, a true report, of what speakers of the language mean by the term, "brother". That report is objectively true.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 07:39 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
The dictionary says that "brother" means male sibling. Why is that subjective? It is a report, a true report, of what speakers of the language mean by the term, "brother". That report is objectively true.


Kennethamy,Smile

What are you talking about, Brother? Things can be objectively true, but only subjectively known to be true. There is no meaning to the objective/physical world that the subject does not give it. Kennethamy, did you just pull the term brother out of the air, you seemed to be challenging me with a term you thought I had misused?:eek:
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 08:21 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Kennethamy,Smile

What are you talking about, Brother? Things can be objectively true, but only subjectively known to be true. There is no meaning to the objective/physical world that the subject does not give it.


Hi Boagie,

But it is not the truth if the subject gives the objective/physical world meaning that it does not posses.

I think the problem is all the baggage that has been attached to the words objective and subjective. In common use, even in science, we have been told that a person can be objective in their observations if they are impartial. Whereas, a person is considered to be making a subjective observation if they are showing partiality; like making choices simply as a matter of taste.

The use of subjective observation, because the person making the observation is the subject observing the object which is anything else that is in the world or reality, is correct: but it flies in the face of the common concept of being "objective" in ones observation, to denote one trying to be impartial in ones observations in order to accurately find out the truth of a matter.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 08:52 am
@Isa,
Isa wrote:
Hi Boagie,

But it is not the truth if the subject gives the objective/physical world meaning that it does not posses.

I think the problem is all the baggage that has been attached to the words objective and subjective. In common use, even in science, we have been told that a person can be objective in their observations if they are impartial. Whereas, a person is considered to be making a subjective observation if they are showing partiality; like making choices simply as a matter of taste.

The use of subjective observation, because the person making the observation is the subject observing the object which is anything else that is in the world or reality, is correct: but it flies in the face of the common concept of being "objective" in ones observation, to denote one trying to be impartial in ones observations in order to accurately find out the truth of a matter.





Hi Isa!Smile

Smile I think it is a matter of degree don't you, there can never truely be an objective observation, it is a matter of how invested and in what ways the subject has an interest in the out come. I Hear again Schopenhaur in my ears, subject and object stand or fall together. Any experiment which fails to consider the observing subject as part of the equation, is at least partially a failure.

"But it is not true if the subject gives the objective/physical world meaning it does not possess."

Smile Lack of the proper perception or fantasy, even lieing might be examples, mistakes or deception. Niether perception nor judgement are infalliable. Personification of nature in the literary world, is not deception, it gives the metaphor a wonderfully clear vivid connotation which can overlapp with other concepts, until the physcial world all most becomes a character and main player of any story.
0 Replies
 
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 12:05 pm
@Isa,
The only way to prove an objectivity is to plant the evidence.

Smile




boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 05:57 pm
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
The only way to prove an objectivity is to plant the evidence.


perplexity,Smile

You come by your name well.What do you mean by an objectivity, a relation between subject and object? Please make an effort to make yourself understood.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Oct, 2007 07:22 pm
@boagie,
Objectivity is no relationship, no connection, association or involvement.

A relationship is a connection, association, or involvement.

To connect, associate or involve is to affect, is thus to plant evidence.

:cool:

i.e.

Isa wrote:
...it is not the truth if the subject gives the objective/physical world meaning that it does not posses.


What we give to life we give to stitch it up, as if the Universe itself were somehow predisposed to take the blame.

Sad
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 05:57 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Objectivity is no relationship, no connection, association or involvement.

A relationship is a connection, association, or involvement.

To connect, associate or involve is to affect, is thus to plant evidence.

:cool:

i.e.



What we give to life we give to stitch it up, as if the Universe itself were somehow predisposed to take the blame.

Sad


In order to have objectivity don't you have to have an observation? In my way of thinking, without observation it's not objectivity its merely ignorance.
So then, by observing do you not have a connection, and an association as an observer to the observed? Therefore wouldn't that association have an effect on both?
Ultimately, wouldn't that relationship constitute an involvement even if it is a passive one?
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 06:56 am
@Irishcop,
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

"Observation" infers an act of will.

Except to affect, why do?

---
Irishcop
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 08:30 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

"Observation" infers an act of will.

Except to affect, why do?

---

There are lots of things I have observed, unwillingly. I believe you need to qualify that statement or abandon it.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 08:51 am
@Irishcop,
Observed - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Smile
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 08:54 am
@Irishcop,
Smile One can not move from indifference to objectivity easily, for objectivity infers a degree of care, that is what distinguishes it from indifference. There is such a creature as indifference, don't confuse it with objectivity, for objectivity depends upon a degree of care not to be indifference.
perplexity
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 09:06 am
@de Silentio,
Objectivity infers belief.

The object is the premise, not the proof.

--
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 09:14 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Objectivity infers belief.

The object is the premise, not the proof.

--


Smile Objectivity subtract care= indifference Objectivity you might say infers involvement, in the absence of care it is indifference.
0 Replies
 
Isa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2007 09:43 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Smile One can not move from indifference to objectivity easily, for objectivity infers a degree of care, that is what distinguishes it from indifference. There is such a creature as indifference, don't confuse it with objectivity, for objectivity depends upon a degree of care not to be indifference.



The simple act of observation can affect reality; indifferent or objective.

In a quantum physics experiment done at the Weizmann Inst., studying light/electrons' ability to behave both as particles and waves, they discovered a very interesting result: electrons could only behave as waves if they are not observed. The simple act of observation forced an electron to behave as a particle.

http://glenavalon.com/observation01.html

The ironic thing to me is that this could not have been found out without observation.

Perhaps the lesson in this is that the subjects are to learn as much about themselves as they do about the objects they are observing.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Truth and Belief
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 05:48:37