Hey, thanks, Fresco... Super-cool.
Perhaps, an example of objectivity (a small portion of the objective world) is the combination of my subjectivity and your subjectivity. At least the combination amounts to an "inter-subjectivity." But notice that this kind of "objectivity" is not the sole property of either mind, even though it can't exclude either.
Fresco's right, but it IS fun--when one is in the mood. I'm off for my constitutional. See you later, and that's a subjective statement about a presumed objective likelihood.
Two possible ways to go about an analysis of "reality", without wading through "the old masters".
1.(The Wittgenstein approach) Compare and contrast instances of common usage of the word.
2. (The paradigmatic approach) Make an axiomatic statement concerning the nature of reality and see where it leads.
Regarding 2, my own favoured starting point (as JLN well knows) is "reality is a social construction". I argue for this over the failings of "objectivity" which leads to naive "realism" and "subjectivity" which leads to solipsism. My "social reality" can also be stretched accommodate 1. above.
Of late I have also been tempted by the autpoietic view of living systems which would view "social reality" as one level of embedded organizational structure. This is not to imply that a reductionist "physical reality" is another level, but that no level is of itself sufficient to account for "the whole".
I apologize to those who find these comments too brief or cryptic but rather than go over old ground I would prefer to give references to the literature for those who might want them.
Your comments represent an uncommon sense; they are not cryptic, unless, of course, our frames of reference obstruct our understanding of what you say. But this--like many of your posts--reflect a very enlightened position. I particularly like your characterization of objectivism as leading to "naive realism" and subjectivism to solipsism. Which is why I consider it more profitable to consider them as a complementary set.
I, too, as you know, prefer the more "anthropological" notion that my (world)view, my perspective on reality, is socially constructed, with the qualification that individuals can add to, modify, delete, etc. portions of their internalized cultural mapping of reality. And I take the position that "mysticism" (not the New Age versions) can transcend all that, but that that transcendence, by its very (extra-linguistic) nature leaves us speechless.
JLNobody wrote:And I take the position that "mysticism" (not the New Age versions) can transcend all that, but that that transcendence, by its very (extra-linguistic) nature leaves us speechless.
If there is really no way to describe such mystical transcendence, then there must be a reason why there is no way. Why is this transcendence extra-linguistic in nature?
echi,
There are several routes into the ineffability of a transcendent position.
One might be that language is a set of culture specific (or species specific) spectacles through which we parochially view "the world". The transcendent position captures this but cannot describe the experience any more than a sighted person could describe colour to a blind person,
A second might be that words are merely "co-ordinators of action/thought " like notes in a musical score. The "reality" is the performance not the score and no two performances are exactly alike.
A third might be that from the transcendent position the "self" as an actor/ user of words has been transcended. There is no-thing to say and no-thing to say it !
That pretty much covers it. I might add that language deals only in symbols and abstractions, and mystical experience, (like that of the "pure" arts, e.g., music, abstract painting ahd perhaps dance) is absolutely concrete, which is to say ineffable.
JLN and Fresco--
I am enjoying your posts. And, to be clear, I don't have a problem with anything you're saying. I ask questions only because I am interested.
If the transcendent cannot be expressed or explained in words, then how are we able to discuss the subject? What is the subject? What is meant by "the transcendent"? Is it non-dual reality? Ultimate Reality?
Yes to all that.
When mystics talk about their perspective, they often do so in mysteriously cryptic ways, often paradoxes--like Meister Eckhart's famous "God and I see each other with the same eye." But the norm is their silence.
echi asks "how" we discuss the "subject"....the mystics do not !
Wittgenstein also advocated "silence" for certain aspects of philosophy and for the rest he saw discussion as "therapy" in as much that language "out of context" was often misused by philosophers.
For example, when discussing "reality" philosophers might use the term "hold a belief" as though "belief" were an "object" held by " a believer". This erroneosly extends the normal (everyday) boundaries of the word "hold" from the physical to the mental. It might follow then that "belief in God" is not an "acquisition", but a "modus operandi" and to discuss the "existence of God" with a believer makes no more sense than discussing the existence of "water" with a fish. To ask for "evidence of God" from a believer, is a "category mistake" (Ryle) like an uninformed tourist who asks "but where is the university" having been shown round the colleges and libraries in Oxford. For a believer "life itself" is "evidence of God". As an atheist I can merely dispute the necessity[/i ]or social consequences of universities/gods but not their "social reality".
fresco-
Have you any objection to my quoting from that post on another thread?
fresco-
Thanks.
Have you read Armstrong's The Materialist Theory of Mind?
Does your UN derive from the Corrie supermarket of old?
No to question 1
and please translate question 2
Reality - Subjective or Objective?
fresco wrote:...Two possible ways to go about an analysis of "reality", without wading through "the old masters"...
Fresco, I was wondering, what exactly do you mean by "without wading through 'the old masters'"?
Well fresco-you coming from Manchester and that being the home of Coronation Street (Corrie) and Freshco was the name of a supermarket they had which Curly was the manager of and Ken Barlow had a job there and a famous siege took place-you know-I just thought.
Don't you watch it-It's quite good really once you get past any prejudice and get into the farce and the highly convoluted plotting which has aspects in it going back thirty years or more and which is a bit of a serious test for scriptwriters.It's pretty bleak.Pinter's a trifle bourgeois.
What does "fresco" mean then?
On Armstrong-it is just that he mentions Ryle quite a bit.I thought it a book atheists would jump all over.
PoetSeductress
By the "old masters" I mean main names in philosophy from the Greeks to Kant. The later is seminal as he is considered the originator of structuralism which has offshoots Chomsky's linguistic universals and Piaget's schemata. It is interesting that Wittgenstein didn't seem to have read any of the classics.
Spendius,
I stopped watching "corrie" many moons ago when Jack and Vera took over the pub. At this point "the reality factor" took a dive for me!
Fresco is the name of a sandwich bar I once had a share in.
Thanks for that Armstrong reference . I'll look out for it .
fresco wrote-
Quote:I stopped watching "corrie" many moons ago when Jack and Vera took over the pub. At this point "the reality factor" took a dive for me!
That would be about the time when reality was disappearing over the horizon generally.I think Vera is a real star.
But I don't see it as often as I would like and one soon gets behind.I think it is very penetrating on the subject of human nature in Manchester.
AND****Tomorrow night a new series of Footballer's Wives begins which Joan Collins has managed,at last,to insinuate herself into.It has in the past made me wonder how the players ever manage to stagger out onto the field.
I don't think you ought to address PS in that hypnotic fashion-it makes their little heads spin you know as AJ Ayer proved so conclusively.
Do you read VIZ?
Reality - Subjective or Objective?
fresco wrote:echi asks "how" we discuss the "subject"....the mystics do not !
Wittgenstein also advocated "silence" for certain aspects of philosophy and for the rest he saw discussion as "therapy" in as much that language "out of context" was often misused by philosophers.
For example, when discussing "reality" philosophers might use the term "hold a belief" as though "belief" were an "object" held by " a believer". This erroneosly extends the normal (everyday) boundaries of the word "hold" from the physical to the mental. It might follow then that "belief in God" is not an "acquisition", but a "modus operandi" and to discuss the "existence of God" with a believer makes no more sense than discussing the existence of "water" with a fish. To ask for "evidence of God" from a believer, is a "category mistake" (Ryle) like an uninformed tourist who asks "but where is the university" having been shown round the colleges and libraries in Oxford. For a believer "life itself" is "evidence of God". As an atheist I can merely dispute the necessity[/i ]or social consequences of universities/gods but not their "social reality".
I don't see a need in bringing up the subject of whether or not there is a God, with regard to the subjectivity or objectivity of reality. I've noticed that the pendulum swings drastically from the "radically" religious to the "radically" atheist (level-headed ones politely excluded), and both combat everything from their labeled viewpoints.
Could you possibly address the issue of reality without mentioning the existence or non-existence deity? (no sarcasm or insinuation intended)
