Objectivity/Subjectivity: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Objectivity/Subjectivity » Objectivity/Subjectivity

Objectivity/Subjectivity

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Objectivity/Subjectivity

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2726

Posted 08/03/05 - 09:08 AM: Subject: Objectivity/Subjectivity	#1
Just some random thought of mine that's been floating around my head for a while. Imagine a cylinder standing in front of you, but what you see is a square. Then if you walk around it and look at it again you see a circle. From a third perspective it looks like its an ellipse attached to half of an ellipse with two lines. How do you know that it is the same object, when its certainly appears to be different? For what do I know, the univese could be one object that if rotated in some n dimensional hyperspace produces every single experience, or consist uncountable unrelated objects that we are confusing some to be the same. And still its only trough confusing these things we make it less confusing for ourselves, confusing isn't it? Is the object rotating and moving before a static mind, or is it our mind that is rotating and moving around a static universe? Or is there a difference? Or does it matter if there is a difference, and is it useful to assume either way? Does thing have to make sense? Am I making any sense here?
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7929

Posted 08/03/05 - 09:52 AM:	#2
Is the object rotating and moving before a static mind, or is it our mind that is rotating and moving around a static universe? I couldn't tell you (really, it would be impossible). Or is there a difference? Conceptually, yes. Or does it matter if there is a difference, and is it useful to assume either way? It doesn't matter AFAICS, and I can't see the use of either model. If there was use to either one, they would probably be used. If you came up with the notion and you don't know, then I doubt anyone else will. Does thing have to make sense? Depends on whose rules you're playing by. In philosophy, it is usually desirable though. Am I making any sense here? The fact that you are asking makes me think that it will come as a surprise that the answer is yes. You are making sense to me anyways. Any other questions?
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

Timothy
The Author of Waverly

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: Unemployment line
Total Topics: 70
Total Posts: 1931

Posted 08/03/05 - 10:00 AM:	#3
keda wrote: How do you know that it is the same object, when its certainly appears to be different? Objectivist ones may answer "Well, you know that it is the same object because you perceives it in x way on y position, then perceived it in z way on w position, and when you returned to y position, you again perceived it in x way. The object is the sum of all the perceptions we get from it. If you think the perceptions in an abstract way, you will get the overall "perception"; the shape and volume" I hardly find that position as justified. - Perceptions aren't subjective because they presupose an "objective" world that is the cause of them. However, is it valid to assert the existence of such world? After all, we are bound to our perceptions. Why we state that what we perceive is a reflection of an objcetive world behind them? That statement is unjustified. We can't go behind of our own perceptions to "verify" if they are in fact a reflection of an objective world. Hence the belief in facts is also unjustified. Hence perceptions aren't really perceptions (is a perception when we know that we are perceiving something caused by something external. That external thing is the one that we can't get to know given our attachment to pure senses info). Hence I rather call them "interpretations". Hence they're really subjective. -
""Physics investigates the essential nature of the world, and biology describes a local bump. Psychology, human psychology, describes a bump on the bump." W.V.O. Quine

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2726

Posted 08/03/05 - 10:33 AM:	#4
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Is the object rotating and moving before a static mind, or is it our mind that is rotating and moving around a static universe? I couldn't tell you (really, it would be impossible). Or is there a difference? Conceptually, yes. Or does it matter if there is a difference, and is it useful to assume either way? It doesn't matter AFAICS, and I can't see the use of either model. If there was use to either one, they would probably be used. If you came up with the notion and you don't know, then I doubt anyone else will. Does thing have to make sense? Depends on whose rules you're playing by. In philosophy, it is usually desirable though. Am I making any sense here? The fact that you are asking makes me think that it will come as a surprise that the answer is yes. You are making sense to me anyways. Any other questions? Yeah, after all, it was just a random thought. More questions though: You say there's a conceptual difference. Can you clarify this difference a bit? We can say that earth is rotating around the sun, and the sun is rotating around earth, are these differences that they are different perspectives or that something is objectively different? If there is only difference in perspective then there is nothing inconsistent with the claims, since we are only looking at the same thing from different perspectives. I'm sort of exploring this difference without a difference concept, which is making sense out of nonsense. Philosophers want to make sense out of things, and thus they must resolve to nonsense, are there any rules to start with to begin with? What is desirable? What is philosophy?
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2726

Posted 08/03/05 - 10:44 AM:	#5
Timothy wrote: Objectivist ones may answer "Well, you know that it is the same object because you perceives it in x way on y position, then perceived it in z way on w position, and when you returned to y position, you again perceived it in x way. The object is the sum of all the perceptions we get from it. If you think the perceptions in an abstract way, you will get the overall "perception"; the shape and volume" I hardly find that position as justified. - Perceptions aren't subjective because they presupose an "objective" world that is the cause of them. However, is it valid to assert the existence of such world? After all, we are bound to our perceptions. Why we state that what we perceive is a reflection of an objcetive world behind them? That statement is unjustified. We can't go behind of our own perceptions to "verify" if they are in fact a reflection of an objective world. Hence the belief in facts is also unjustified. Hence perceptions aren't really perceptions (is a perception when we know that we are perceiving something caused by something external. That external thing is the one that we can't get to know given our attachment to pure senses info). Hence I rather call them "interpretations". Hence they're really subjective. - So you say that we are only interpreting the world, because it is not justified otherwise? Is this position justified though, or is it just useful to assume that it is this way and for what sake? Any normal day I would agree with you on this, but for the sake of figuring out why me, you or anyone else does it, I want to know the justification.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Timothy
The Author of Waverly

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: Unemployment line
Total Topics: 70
Total Posts: 1931

Posted 08/03/05 - 11:12 AM:	#6
keda wrote: So you say that we are only interpreting the world, because it is not justified otherwise? Not because it's not justified otherwise. Rather because that's the result of taking the objective/subjective distinction to its final consequences. The most important one is that objective world appear to us as unreacheble. It may exist; but even if it does, we just can't get to it, it's out of our grasp. As a curiosity (you may impress girls and philosophy teachers with this) I'd say that this is empiricism main problem: they start by believing on the external world, and ended trying to prove it without a complete succes. keda wrote: Is this position justified though, or is it just useful to assume that it is this way and for what sake? Any normal day I would agree with you on this, but for the sake of figuring out why me, you or anyone else does it, I want to know the justification. It is mainly justified (I think; some other nietzsche fans may find alternative answers) on the evidence of "feelings". Let me explain myself better: If you touch velvet, you may doubt about the objective, real existence of the velvet (it may be, for example, product of your imagination and you didn't noticed), but you may not doubt that you're feeling, perceiving (take the sense of this words beyound the physical/empirical notion, i.e that feeling is a rush of electric energy through your neves). From there we may conclude that what we really do when we say "I'm seeing an objective existing tree" is to interpret some sensations. "this is useful/bad/good/correct/wrong/red/blue/etc" are interpretations of sensations. Even logical tautologies (If p then p, 2+2=4) are to be considered as interpretations, or rather as the limits of our capacity of interpretation. So that position is, let's say, "justified", by the result that we get from taking the objetive/subjective distinction to its limits.
""Physics investigates the essential nature of the world, and biology describes a local bump. Psychology, human psychology, describes a bump on the bump." W.V.O. Quine

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2726

Posted 08/03/05 - 11:47 AM:	#7
Timothy wrote: Not because it's not justified otherwise. Rather because that's the result of taking the objective/subjective distinction to its final consequences. The most important one is that objective world appear to us as unreacheble. It may exist; but even if it does, we just can't get to it, it's out of our grasp. As a curiosity (you may impress girls and philosophy teachers with this) I'd say that this is empiricism main problem: they start by believing on the external world, and ended trying to prove it without a complete succes. You say that the objective world appears to you as unreachable, how can it appear to be unreachable, if its unreachable? How can we identify that it is within our grasp or not? It is mainly justified (I think; some other nietzsche fans may find alternative answers) on the evidence of "feelings". Let me explain myself better: If you touch velvet, you may doubt about the objective, real existence of the velvet (it may be, for example, product of your imagination and you didn't noticed), but you may not doubt that you're feeling, perceiving (take the sense of this words beyound the physical/empirical notion, i.e that feeling is a rush of electric energy through your neves). I may doubt the objective existence of the velvet, but is it justified to doubt it? I can do either way, but how do I determine which way is justified? From there we may conclude that what we really do when we say "I'm seeing an objective existing tree" is to interpret some sensations. "this is useful/bad/good/correct/wrong/red/blue/etc" are interpretations of sensations. I'm not sure how you conclude this. Why are they interpreted rather than being in the actual object? Even logical tautologies (If p then p, 2+2=4) are to be considered as interpretations, or rather as the limits of our capacity of interpretation. But how can tautologies be interpretations of anything? They are are taken to be true for practical reasons. So that position is, let's say, "justified", by the result that we get from taking the objetive/subjective distinction to its limits. I'm still not sure how either position is more justified than the other. Either way we end up with the same situation, so it seems to me that they are just two ways of looking at the same thing.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7929

Posted 08/03/05 - 12:10 PM:	#8
keda wrote: You say there's a conceptual difference. Can you clarify this difference a bit? We can say that earth is rotating around the sun, and the sun is rotating around earth, are these differences that they are different perspectives or that something is objectively different? If there is only difference in perspective then there is nothing inconsistent with the claims, since we are only looking at the same thing from different perspectives. I'm sort of exploring this difference without a difference concept, which is making sense out of nonsense. Well, you explain the differences yourself. The choice of perspective you use in each model makes for a conceptual difference. Saying they is nothing inconsitent with the claims doesn't diminish the difference. When it comes to the notion of objectivity as a perspective, I consider this to be a useless notion, as such objectivity would require "God's eye veiw". I am only blessed with my own eyes view, so I'll stick with that. Philosophers want to make sense out of things, and thus they must resolve to nonsense, are there any rules to start with to begin with? Resolve to nonsense? Do you mean resort to nonsense, or resolve out of nonsense? As far as rules go, the common ones to follow are the rules of logic. The tricky bit is that part of philosophy involves studying the rules of philosophy. What is desirable? A million dollars, world peace, and the cute red head who works in the office next to mine. In other words, it depends who you ask. The topic is one that could take a whole thread to itself (and probably has). What is philosophy? Well, a common answer is "the love of wisdom", but that's not very helpfull. Some might say "the exploration of topics from the perspective of the inter-relationship between subject and object". I like that one better.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

Timothy
The Author of Waverly

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: Unemployment line
Total Topics: 70
Total Posts: 1931

Posted 08/03/05 - 12:11 PM:	#9
keda wrote: You say that the objective world appears to you as unreachable, how can it appear to be unreachable, if its unreachable? How can we identify that it is within our grasp or not? To have the "objctive" world within our grasp would require us to be unattached of interpretations, and other ways of "seeing things". We can't given our status of sense-receivers. As long as we feel, we will be bound to interpretations. So practically we would have to be non-humans in order to "have" the objective world in our hands. keda wrote: I may doubt the objective existence of the velvet, but is it justified to doubt it? I can do either way, but how do I determine which way is justified? It is justified for we really don't have proofs that there really is an objective existing world were the velvet exists. We don't know for the reason I gave above. keda wrote: I'm not sure how you conclude this. Why are they interpreted rather than being in the actual object? Because things on themselves (objective things), even if they exist, must be free of concepts. Grass isn't really "green". "Green" is a concept that we impose on that "objective world" that we normally believe in, in order to understand it and use it. The same thing (and specially) with moral values, such as "good" and "bad". Are plants good on themselves, even if there were no humans at all? keda wrote: But how can tautologies be interpretations of anything? They are are taken to be true for practical reasons. They are taken to be true because we can't think otherwise. ~(p&~p) is always true because we can't think contradictions. That is a limit of our "perspective" (being the perspective were all our interpretations take place). To extend that impossibility into all the other perspectives is unjustified. keda wrote: I'm still not sure how either position is more justified than the other. Either way we end up with the same situation, so it seems to me that they are just two ways of looking at the same thing. The position I've been describing it's the "other" position you mention, but taken a step beyound. One is more "complete" than the other. The one I'm defending does a deep analysis of the other's key concepts, and realizes that those concepts don't work as one may have first suspected. There are inconsistencies on any philosophy that hold them as foundations.
""Physics investigates the essential nature of the world, and biology describes a local bump. Psychology, human psychology, describes a bump on the bump." W.V.O. Quine

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land
Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 08/03/05 - 12:45 PM:	#10
First, I think the question is interesting. Perhaps not as such, but because every answer we give to it seems to lead to other questions. The question about how x appears to be the same if all its properties are different is a very good one. Another of the kind I enjoyed was the question: how close to a door must I be so I would see it as the right size? Innocent questions often lead us directly to the hardcore foundations of our cognition and its relation to the world. keda wrote: Imagine a cylinder standing in front of you, but what you see is a square. Then if you walk around it and look at it again you see a circle. From a third perspective it looks like its an ellipse attached to half of an ellipse with two lines. How do you know that it is the same object, when its certainly appears to be different? This question can also be reformed. Consider yourself. You would be you when someone cut your arm off. You would also be you if the colour of your eyes changed. The most remarkable thing is that people would still say it is you when you are dead - just a pile of biomass, nothing more, nothing less, yet it is your biomass, they say. The idea is that we can take away properties, perhaps all of them, and still say "This is x, but just different". Why? I would say that the key is continuity. The object you see in front of you here is continuous: when you move a bit, it moves a bit, yet you also fathom that it moves from a position to another, not that one object is gone and then another appears. If you think of this long enough, you will find yourself face to face with Kant and his Transcendental Deduction, of which we already spoke of elsewhere. He asks "why?", and finds a whole world of philosophy. To him the key is in synthesis of our mind. We take single perceptions and construct greater wholes out of them, and we link those to the past and predict with them the future. The continuity I spoke of is one of the necessary conditions of our experience: we must be able to understand that x at the moment of time t1 is the same x at the moment of time t2. In some way, we must be able to recognize them as the same object for the world to make any sense - yet this must be due to an activity of the cognition, because the single set of perceptions you get from the cylinder at each times does not in any way include the information of the past - or the future. ~M~
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.