Objectivity and Subjectivity - An alternative Point of view.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Objectivity and Subjectivity - An alternative Point of view. » Objectivity and Subjectivity - An alternative Point of view.

Objectivity and Subjectivity - An alternative Point of view.
A challenge for the philosophically inclined.

Page: 1 2 3

Objectivity and Subjectivity - An alternative Point of view.

insight-out
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 07/02/08 - 05:07 AM: Subject: Objectivity and Subjectivity - An alternative Point of view.	#1
First time poster, short term reader. I'm fairly new to these forums, but I've always carried with me this little dillema, this way of seeing things. As I will soon show, "Seeing" is very ironic in context to what I'm about to propose. Before I get into it, this is a free topic. Open forum. I want to know what you think and why you think it. Heck, I won't even ask for proof. I just want to see how you see the world. Now, let us begin. Look all around you. The world we live in is a world that is continually being simplified and at the same time becoming more and more complicated. A world where people think differently on different things, as everyone has different ways of "Seeing" things. I'd like to analyse exactly that, how we see things. Not metaphorically, very literally actually. But, if for some reason you'd like to add in anything, by all means, do so. We have objectivity in our world, at least things that most people take for being objective. Blue will always be blue, red will always be red. Lets not go into different tones etc, just the gist of what I'm trying to say. How do we know for certain that red is really red? That it exists objectively, and by that I mean that everyone is seeing the exact same thing when they see a red light, a red lollipop, a bottle of red cordial. How do we know that what is red for Person A, could be (using the same standards as person A) look Orange for person B? The only reason a person would know something is "orange" or "red" is because we've been told it is so. To try and expalin it a little more clearly...Let us examine a ball. Person A sees it as round, as smooth. Person B also sees it as smooth, but, to them, "smooth" may be what person A considers to be "jagged." However, since both have been raised to undertand that this texture is SMOOTH, they both call it smooth, although what they are feeling or seeing may be completely different. I'm sorry for the lack of proper expression, but for those of you who can make meaning of what I'm trying to say, please, make your thoughts known. The whole point of this jumble of words is that how do we know things exist as absolutes at all? How can we possibly see through the eyes of another human being and interpret things and see things as they do? Edit: This point extends to religion. How do we know that God is not subjective? I am not for or against this point, but I do wish to know what you think. Feel free to take this apart systematically and bring that suggestion to it's knees, I really do look forward to any and all criticism. Please, not too harsh =] Insight, out.

Prime_Mover
Alpha/Omega

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 313

Posted 07/02/08 - 01:15 PM:	#2
insight-out wrote: How do we know for certain that red is really red? That it exists objectively, and by that I mean that everyone is seeing the exact same thing when they see a red light, a red lollipop, a bottle of red cordial. How do we know that what is red for Person A, could be (using the same standards as person A) look Orange for person B? The only reason a person would know something is "orange" or "red" is because we've been told it is so. The possibility of "red" actually being "orange" for someone is called an inverted spectrum, a rare condition of the eye. Strangely, one could never know that he has because, well, humans inherently cannot know what other humans' concepts of "red" are. But this does not make concepts subjective at all. Since "red" is a concept, it would make sense to look at what concepts are. They are condensations of data formed by a volitional process in accordance with a human method. That method is “human” because it expresses man’s distinctive form of consciousness; it arises because of the nature and cognitive needs of man’s mind. At the same time, the method (properly employed) conforms at each step to facts; otherwise it would be irrelevant to a cognitive need. Man, therefore, cannot project the products of this method outward, into reality apart from man—nor can he detach them from reality, either. Such products represent a special kind of union: they represent reality as processed by a volitional human consciousness. This is what makes concepts objective. Now this is a minority view in philosophy, called conceptualism. Most academic philosophers like to say "oh, concepts are subjective" (nominalism) and others like to say "oh, concepts are based on perceived essences" (realism/intrincism). However, both of these views ignore the plain fact that concepts are two-sided streets--they take both a metaphysical reality and a consciousness to perceive that reality; nominalism and realism leave out either of the two. From these two perspectives does the confusion lie about inverted spectra and properties and perception and so on. Read Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy to see the quintessential wrong view of concepts.
The Promethean Movement http://www.promethea.org

ea.bednar
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 07/02/08 - 04:11 PM:	#3
I think you would really enjoy a man named George Berkley. He philosophized a lot about perception. But what he says basically is....We can never see anything outside of ourselves because what we are seeing is actually inside of us. We wouldn't see anything without our brains which is literally inside of us. Hope this helps.

insight-out
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/03/08 - 02:07 AM:	#4
The_Rational_Animal wrote: [quote=insight-out] But this does not make concepts subjective at all. Since "red" is a concept, it would make sense to look at what concepts are. They are condensations of data formed by a volitional process in accordance with a human method. That method is “human” because it expresses man’s distinctive form of consciousness; it arises because of the nature and cognitive needs of man’s mind. At the same time, the method (properly employed) conforms at each step to facts; otherwise it would be irrelevant to a cognitive need. Man, therefore, cannot project the products of this method outward, into reality apart from man—nor can he detach them from reality, either. Such products represent a special kind of union: they represent reality as processed by a volitional human consciousness. This is what makes concepts objective. Yes, I know how the concepts are subjective. It is the literal meaning/value of the objects that I call into question (The objects being perceptive). The reason why I pose this question because a divine figure, God, is percieved to be different according to different people. Doesn't that make him subjective? The God concept is objective for the most part, but the literal meaning/value seems to vary. Do you understand what I'm trying to get at? = Insight, out.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 1615

Posted 07/03/08 - 02:38 AM:	#5
How do we know that what is red for Person A, could be (using the same standards as person A) look Orange for person B? The only reason a person would know something is "orange" or "red" is because we've been told it is so. To try and expalin it a little more clearly...Let us examine a ball. Person A sees it as round, as smooth. Person B also sees it as smooth, but, to them, "smooth" may be what person A considers to be "jagged." However, since both have been raised to undertand that this texture is SMOOTH, they both call it smooth, although what they are feeling or seeing may be completely different. By the same argument, what one person calls 'communication' might just be nonsensical random noises to another. But because we've both been raised to call it 'communication', then we both understand that it is. Or perhaps we both just make random nonsensical noises. The problem with the argument is that, if it establishes its conclusion, then it establishes too much. Not only might one person's red be another person's orange. One person's colour might be another person's arithmetic, and one person's sense might be another's total rubbish. And if there's no way of telling red from orange, because we each have our own private concepts of what red and orange are, then there's no way of telling sense from nonsense, because we each have our own private concepts of those things too. And if there's no way of telling whether you are talking sense, then you can't get the argument off the ground. Conversely, if it's possible for us to distinguish sense from nonsense - e.g. by reading and understanding posts in a thread - then there seems to be no reason why we shouldn't also be able to distinguish red from orange - e.g. when choosing wallpaper.

Ron C. de Weijze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 69

Posted 07/03/08 - 04:21 AM:	#6
We supposedly have a common world and a common language. If we are not sure what we are talking about, we can: take a look for ourselves ask someone with experience and knowledge statistically analyse all the words people use for the same thing and all the things people mean for the same word
Researching and developing a practical philosophy of 'Constructive Recollection'.

Berkeley's Ghost
Moonlighting Idealist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 101

Posted 07/03/08 - 11:26 AM:	#7
Just a short thought, one would do well not to forget that society is fundimentally a simple collection of many individuals, it is not a seperate entity unto itself. So for a society to come to some majority conclusion about the nature of the color red first required that there be some kind of objective common line. It is completely possible, and indeed does happen, that someone will see red as orange and be programed by majority society to think of it as red. However, if it were subjective in the same way for all men then it is highly unlikely that society could create a concept of red which it could start imposing on people in the first place.
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith.-Miguel de Unamuno Ceiling Cat is watching you post.

Ron C. de Weijze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 69

Posted 07/04/08 - 12:48 AM:	#8
Berkeley's Ghost wrote: ... society is fundimentally a simple collection of many individuals, it is not a seperate entity unto itself. So for a society to come to some majority conclusion about the nature of the color red first required that there be some kind of objective common line ... if it were subjective in the same way for all men then it is highly unlikely that society could create a concept of red which it could start imposing on people in the first place. Cultures transfer their values and norms by proximity and perceptual training at school.
Researching and developing a practical philosophy of 'Constructive Recollection'.

insight-out
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/04/08 - 02:59 AM:	#9
I can understand where you are coming from, Cuthbert, but I think what I'm bringing up is a special case. I just wanted to use the example of visual perception to help break it in. Now, first, let us establish the fact that my red and your red may be completely different (according to our visual perception) but the concept of red is objective because we have been brought up to know that x = red. Correct? But what about something that the very objective concept of, God? Is he the same for everything and everyone? Or is he different to everyone but has his concept objectified? His concept is objective, but what about is being? Is it subjective, like colours? Or better said, could he be subjective, as we would never really know if He is the same for everyone? I need to work on wording, I know. But I'm fairly certain its all understandable :P -Insight, out.

insight-out
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 7

Posted 07/04/08 - 03:18 AM:	#10
Ron C. de Weijze wrote: We supposedly have a common world and a common language. If we are not sure what we are talking about, we can: take a look for ourselves ask someone with experience and knowledge statistically analyse all the words people use for the same thing and all the things people mean for the same word I disagree with number one, and that's the point I call into question. The "looking" part. We can all relate to what we are not sure about it since it's concept is objective, but what the object actually is may not be.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.