A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 10:03 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:


The objective is subjective, and the subjective is objective... Where one leaves off the other begins... As Carrol said: The further off trom England, the nearer is to France... So what do the terms tell us??? That they modify our concepts is obvious... That we live in subjective, value and meaning colored worlds is true... What else..



What is objective is subjective, and what is subjective is subjective. The point is that we get to create our own system of judgement and think for ourselves. It's quite beautiful.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 11:22 am
@A Lyn Fei,
A Lyn Fei wrote:

Fido wrote:


The objective is subjective, and the subjective is objective... Where one leaves off the other begins... As Carrol said: The further off trom England, the nearer is to France... So what do the terms tell us??? That they modify our concepts is obvious... That we live in subjective, value and meaning colored worlds is true... What else..



What is objective is subjective, and what is subjective is subjective. The point is that we get to create our own system of judgement and think for ourselves. It's quite beautiful.


Certainly wonderful,,, Though I cannot say about beautiful... Within the confines of nature you can create your own system of judgement, realizing the the laws of nature are somewhat immutable, and to that extent objective, and that when we fail in our judgement, nature will remind us in short order where lies the truth...
A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 11:58 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Fido wrote:


The objective is subjective, and the subjective is objective... Where one leaves off the other begins... As Carrol said: The further off trom England, the nearer is to France... So what do the terms tell us??? That they modify our concepts is obvious... That we live in subjective, value and meaning colored worlds is true... What else..



What is objective is subjective, and what is subjective is subjective. The point is that we get to create our own system of judgement and think for ourselves. It's quite beautiful.


Certainly wonderful,,, Though I cannot say about beautiful... Within the confines of nature you can create your own system of judgement, realizing the the laws of nature are somewhat immutable, and to that extent objective, and that when we fail in our judgement, nature will remind us in short order where lies the truth...


Will you give me an example of nature "reminding" us?
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 01:11 pm
@A Lyn Fei,
A Lyn Fei wrote:

Simple: The answer is no. Subjectivity is still subjective because it takes one person looking at how many people interpret different things to determine that they are subjective. That person is being subjective. Objectivity could only exist if we could prove that some stable force outside of ourselves exists and that force determined what "is" and what "is not".
I cannot prove "objectively" that there is no objectivity because there is not- my saying that is subjective.

What's fun is that anyone saying that there is objectivity is being subjective.


So when you say that everything is subjective, do you then mean "every thought/concept is subjective"? Or that every belief is a subjective belief?

What I take interpret you to mean is that because we are individuals that tackle the world from a cultural standpoint, and culture is a subjective thing (meaning we create meaning, we create the words, and we interpret those words according to our culture and personal references) that every thought, statement, belief, and judgment is a subjective... thing? Or occurrence? I think this is where I'm getting hung up in understanding your statement, now. I wasn't sure how to address it before.

I agree that there is no "Objectivity", as a noun, but I would argue that there is also no "Subjectivity" as a noun. It is a not a thing that mixes with other things, but a description of things (whether those things be statements, objects, events, etc.) Or do you think that "Subjectivity" is a thing?
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:17 am
@A Lyn Fei,
A Lyn Fei wrote:

Fido wrote:

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Fido wrote:


The objective is subjective, and the subjective is objective... Where one leaves off the other begins... As Carrol said: The further off trom England, the nearer is to France... So what do the terms tell us??? That they modify our concepts is obvious... That we live in subjective, value and meaning colored worlds is true... What else..



What is objective is subjective, and what is subjective is subjective. The point is that we get to create our own system of judgement and think for ourselves. It's quite beautiful.


Certainly wonderful,,, Though I cannot say about beautiful... Within the confines of nature you can create your own system of judgement, realizing the the laws of nature are somewhat immutable, and to that extent objective, and that when we fail in our judgement, nature will remind us in short order where lies the truth...


Will you give me an example of nature "reminding" us?


Certainly: All of the oil spilling into the gulf of Mexico... The Subjectively good notions of lazaire faire government, and plutocrcacy as resulting in the greatest good even while it was robbing the people of their national resources ran into a wall of objective truth.... Outrageous profits, cutting corners, driving workers to deistraction to make a hand full rich was good the day before the accident, and no doubt, such a view would be accepted by the majority in the gulf states, not because it is good, but because the objective view of good as good for all, and good for future generations, and good for the animal life of this earth is all beyond them. They live with their own system of judgement that sees things as good only when defined through a narrow definition/ judgement of good that is inevitably subjective...

There terms: Subjective and Objective modify the judgements and reasons of mankind.. They are not absolutes... The more of one is the less of the other, but political power, economic power, and religious power give to people the power to command the tides, and every great disaster people suffer from war, to famine, to disease, and over population punctuated by the tragic interludes of our day to day disasters, like floods, huricanes, ships sinking, and space craft crashing is the result of subjective judgements finding there is such a thing as objective truth...
qwertyportne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 10:28 am
The subjectivity of everything was brought to my attention many years ago while reading a book by Thomas Sheehan, in which he wrote... ""We only know what we interpret. We cannot peek over the edge of our interpretations to see things in the raw."

And it's OK, as many of you have said, because we are "free" to judge things, and perhaps should, if for no other reason than to imporve our chances of surviving. One example is light, which perhaps is an objective thing, wave or particle, but we don't see things we look at, not directly. We "see" the light reflected from things, which we interpret in our minds as the impulses come in from our eyes.

Just some of my random thoughts. Thanks for an enjoyable discussion...

--Bill
0 Replies
 
A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 11:02 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Fido wrote:

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Fido wrote:


The objective is subjective, and the subjective is objective... Where one leaves off the other begins... As Carrol said: The further off trom England, the nearer is to France... So what do the terms tell us??? That they modify our concepts is obvious... That we live in subjective, value and meaning colored worlds is true... What else..



What is objective is subjective, and what is subjective is subjective. The point is that we get to create our own system of judgement and think for ourselves. It's quite beautiful.


Certainly wonderful,,, Though I cannot say about beautiful... Within the confines of nature you can create your own system of judgement, realizing the the laws of nature are somewhat immutable, and to that extent objective, and that when we fail in our judgement, nature will remind us in short order where lies the truth...


Will you give me an example of nature "reminding" us?


Certainly: All of the oil spilling into the gulf of Mexico... The Subjectively good notions of lazaire faire government, and plutocrcacy as resulting in the greatest good even while it was robbing the people of their national resources ran into a wall of objective truth.... Outrageous profits, cutting corners, driving workers to deistraction to make a hand full rich was good the day before the accident, and no doubt, such a view would be accepted by the majority in the gulf states, not because it is good, but because the objective view of good as good for all, and good for future generations, and good for the animal life of this earth is all beyond them. They live with their own system of judgement that sees things as good only when defined through a narrow definition/ judgement of good that is inevitably subjective...

There terms: Subjective and Objective modify the judgements and reasons of mankind.. They are not absolutes... The more of one is the less of the other, but political power, economic power, and religious power give to people the power to command the tides, and every great disaster people suffer from war, to famine, to disease, and over population punctuated by the tragic interludes of our day to day disasters, like floods, huricanes, ships sinking, and space craft crashing is the result of subjective judgements finding there is such a thing as objective truth...


And I say these results of human error and mother nature's wrath can be interpreted in many ways. There is no objective good. Where the human race thinks it's good to keep as many people alive as possible, this causes overpopulation. Where the human race thinks it's good to keep all creatures healthy and alive in this world, this offsets ecosystems. However, there is no ultimate good to tell us which species should survive and which should not. Why is "good" for humans not to suffer? These questions are subjective entirely to the human experience and caused by our emotional attachment to life. A sociopath, though they may be considered an anomaly, would not care about human suffering or the "right" thing because they can see past emotions.
Of course I want this disaster in the gulf to be taken care of. I want the wildlife to be alright. I want the world to be a place of health and wellbeing. And this, it seems, is the "good" you are talking about. But I argue that this CANNOT be objective because that would imply that such a world has existed to be the true object to which we, as a species, could refer. A world of that nature has never existed, therefore we cannot objectively say that such a world is "good".
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 01:42 pm
@A Lyn Fei,
I would agree there is no absolute objective good, and agree with Kant that knowledge is judgement... There is a reason why we put so much into the valuation of life, and it because our economies and idealogies deny the very value we assert... It is like saying all work is worthy while saying your work is not worth a living wage... We often ask of the meaning of life, and would we were that meaning not obvious, as it should be??? We say women cannot abort, then live lives we wish away as quickly as we pay for them... I wish it were quiting time, pay day, vacation time, retirment time and time to die. Do we have to live live so devoid of meaning, with the meaning turned into another person's profit??? I think there is a relative objective good, and it is life, which is the meaning of all meaning and the truth of all truth; but if my profound pleasure depends upon your misery, and your wishing of your life away then here is a pocket handkerchief to dry your tears... In other words: Tough Luck...
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 07:12 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

Arjuna wrote:

Huxley wrote:

Would you characterize the subjective as more fundamental than the objective, then? (this is what I take from your last statement)
If you mean is the subjective more real, no. It can't stand alone. Meaning requires both.

The subjective is always more immediate, and personal, so it is more real based upon the fundamental reality of all reality which is our own lives... It is like riding on a roller coaster at a high rate of speed, with falls, twists and turns and loops... Some people sit in the back and some people sit in the front... Some people look for the shared experience of life, taking their terror and excitment from the clues of others... Some people embrace the fierce immediacy of existence and realize that no amount of the sharing of meaning, which is what we share with communication, will ever share the actual experience of life....
Delightfully said. And I agree it's commonly overlooked: the only thing you really know is what it's like to be alive. Life is indeed a roller coaster. You can white-knuckle it the whole way or throw up your hands and scream. Realizing that it's your choice may come like a lightning bolt.. or through many experiences... each a drop of rain.

On the other hand, it may also come to one that subjectivity makes no sense without objectivity. Neither holds the ultimate truth. You can't have one without the other. Objectivity isn't a place out there to be touched and measured... it's an aspect of the psyche. It's part of the dualism that creates meaning. Knowing that meaning depends on this dualism is to stand at the boundary of the mind. The mind can see no further than realizing that they're two halves of a whole. (At least my mind hasn't so far. ..)
Fido
 
  3  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 10:26 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

Fido wrote:

Arjuna wrote:

Huxley wrote:

Would you characterize the subjective as more fundamental than the objective, then? (this is what I take from your last statement)
If you mean is the subjective more real, no. It can't stand alone. Meaning requires both.

The subjective is always more immediate, and personal, so it is more real based upon the fundamental reality of all reality which is our own lives... It is like riding on a roller coaster at a high rate of speed, with falls, twists and turns and loops... Some people sit in the back and some people sit in the front... Some people look for the shared experience of life, taking their terror and excitment from the clues of others... Some people embrace the fierce immediacy of existence and realize that no amount of the sharing of meaning, which is what we share with communication, will ever share the actual experience of life....
Delightfully said. And I agree it's commonly overlooked: the only thing you really know is what it's like to be alive. Life is indeed a roller coaster. You can white-knuckle it the whole way or throw up your hands and scream. Realizing that it's your choice may come like a lightning bolt.. or through many experiences... each a drop of rain.

On the other hand, it may also come to one that subjectivity makes no sense without objectivity. Neither holds the ultimate truth. You can't have one without the other. Objectivity isn't a place out there to be touched and measured... it's an aspect of the psyche. It's part of the dualism that creates meaning. Knowing that meaning depends on this dualism is to stand at the boundary of the mind. The mind can see no further than realizing that they're two halves of a whole. (At least my mind hasn't so far. ..)

Objective and subjective are judgements along a continuum... And while it may seem that what is scientific is the most objective in the way of truth, or experience, because in following it the same result can be reproduced for any number; what is really objective is our moment, right now, the unadulturated experience of the now... Life becomes memory by way of a subjective judgement of it... If we lived every moment with the intensity of a phenomenologist we might remember none of it, might never say whether or not it was real...

Because I think of everything, and so judge everything it has always been challenge to me to make love to my love as though it were the last act of my life, to live every moment in the moment, to not save any memory as mental pornography in which I could re-experience the experience... Love deserves such devotion of giving ones self to it entirely, to enjoy the moment as moment and cast away every thought of time or time pieces, or tomorrow, or ever, or never.... I have wished I had a zipper down my back so I could unwrap my skin and wrap her body in it, to feel her all at once, to touch her as though with a different hand for every part of her body... Can I say the feeling is real, or objective??? Such would be a judgement when all I want is more and more as fast as i can swallow, and more... In devotion, in gratitude, in hope, in emotion, in love, every pleasure can be pleasure... Would you pray for a miracle, and then ask: what is this miracle???

We can so seldom feel without the fear that our sensitivity will teach us pain... Live for the moments when pain will not matter, where death, and the thought of death does not concentrate the mind, but gives to love an even greater glory... As life gives to all things their reality, so the presence of death give reality its meaning...The only objective truth to one is the most subjective of truths to all others... If we would ever know anything we should never deny this most essential of truths... We Know how we feel, and our feeling is the beginning of knowledge, and we see this in science where all scientific instraments are extentions of the human senses
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 10:57 pm
@Fido,
Dude... I had to print that out to stick in clear sight
Thanks.
A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2010 09:19 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

I would agree there is no absolute objective good, and agree with Kant that knowledge is judgement... There is a reason why we put so much into the valuation of life, and it because our economies and idealogies deny the very value we assert... It is like saying all work is worthy while saying your work is not worth a living wage... We often ask of the meaning of life, and would we were that meaning not obvious, as it should be??? We say women cannot abort, then live lives we wish away as quickly as we pay for them... I wish it were quiting time, pay day, vacation time, retirment time and time to die. Do we have to live live so devoid of meaning, with the meaning turned into another person's profit??? I think there is a relative objective good, and it is life, which is the meaning of all meaning and the truth of all truth; but if my profound pleasure depends upon your misery, and your wishing of your life away then here is a pocket handkerchief to dry your tears... In other words: Tough Luck...


I don't think we are on different pages, here. I am not saying there is no meaning to life. I am saying there is no objectivity. Happily, I believe there is vast meaning to living life, and much of that meaning comes from our inability to be anything else but subjective. As far as a "relative objective good" is concerned, I see what you are saying and I will concur that such a thing exists. It is similar to my saying "good, subjective to humanity". I'd be interested in having a "meaning of life" conversation on a different thread, perhaps.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2010 09:32 am
@A Lyn Fei,
A Lyn Fei wrote:

I'd be interested in having a "meaning of life" conversation on a different thread, perhaps.
If you build it, they will come. Umm.. I would appreciate it, anyway.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2010 10:58 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

Dude... I had to print that out to stick in clear sight
Thanks.

Arjuna; I am touched... Thank you..
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 12:53 pm
Objective is usually what one observes and there is no interpetation. However, one can also see problems with that. Observers must also be looked at. Mt. Everest is looked upon as an abode of the Gods as does Mt. Olympus. Others looked at it as the highest mountain in the world that Edmund Hillary climbed while the Brits believe that a Brit climbed Everest decades before Hillary. Look at the stars. Ancient people saw them as little lights in the sky and the Bible saw them as lights leading the 3 Wise Men to the baby Jesus. Sailors saw them as guide posts for navigation and Astrologers saw them as determing the future and gave them names. Scientists see stars as balls of fire and that the sun is also a star.

It depends on what one wants from the facts. If you are a scientist you would look at a scientific report and for your horoscope you would consult an astrologer. To each his own.
jeeprs
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 01:27 am
@talk72000,
Quote:
Objective is usually what one observes and there is no interpetation.

But everything requires interpretation. The mind is active: it is not the passive recipient of signals. It continually assembles the data and makes judgments about them. Everything exists from a perspective. We don't know things as they exist in themselves.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 02:41 am
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:

Objective is usually what one observes and there is no interpretation. However, one can also see problems with that. Observers must also be looked at. ..It depends on what one wants from the facts. If you are a scientist you would look at a scientific report and for your horoscope you would consult an astrologer. To each his own.


Scientists, or those with confidence in the scientific outlook, don't just look at a report and think, "Well, this person thinks like me, so I'll accept this as true." Science is not (usually) argued from a position of authority. The presumption (occasionally wrongly subscribed to) is that the results of the report are adequately tested. This testing process, and the duplicated result, is what one usually assumes leads to the presumption of objectivity.

Now, if one could follow a comet's tail or the path of the north star in the sky and always find the baby Jesus at the end of it...that would be something. Could you realistically hope to consult two astrologers and get the same statement both times?
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 05:01 am
@talk72000,
Stars as balls of fire??? That is kid book stuff... Perhaps as fusing hydrogen???
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 04:41 pm
@Fido,
You are technically right. I am just simplifying. It shows that there is a menu to oservation likein a restaurant. You try to get what you look for.
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 08:32 pm
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:

You are technically right. I am just simplifying. It shows that there is a menu to oservation likein a restaurant. You try to get what you look for.
Everytime you simplify and generalize you lie...Oh no...I just told another one...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 11:30:43