Alexander Houchens Posted January 19, 2013 Posted January 19, 2013 There is insufficient reason for me to believe that an object/subject divide actually exists. If I am to be an internally consistent Materialist, then I have come to realize that everything is objective, and subjective is just a useful term to describe what is private to an individual organism's experience. That if I am indeed a Materialist, that all is matter and energy, then it will one day be theoretically possible to completely experience the mind of another by replicating all sensory input of an individual mind, and also the internal structure of that person's brain. Subjective experiences are actually objective experiences, but restrained to the privacy of any one individual.
STer Posted January 19, 2013 Posted January 19, 2013 There is insufficient reason for me to believe that an object/subject divide actually exists. If I am to be an internally consistent Materialist, then I have come to realize that everything is objective, and subjective is just a useful term to describe what is private to an individual organism's experience. That if I am indeed a Materialist, that all is matter and energy, then it will one day be theoretically possible to completely experience the mind of another by replicating all sensory input of an individual mind, and also the internal structure of that person's brain. Subjective experiences are actually objective experiences, but restrained to the privacy of any one individual. You might find this book interesting if you can get a copy of it somewhere. Or even just the basic idea of the book will probably interest you: Mindmelding: Consciousness, Neuroscience, and the Mind's Privacy
Alexander Houchens Posted January 19, 2013 Author Posted January 19, 2013 Thank you very much! This is exactly spot on.
huttnedu Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 "That if I am indeed a Materialist, that all is matter and energy, then it will one day be theoretically possible to completely experience the mind of another by replicating all sensory input of an individual mind, and also the internal structure of that person's brain.""Experience" is the concept of the brain's motion & structure. If you were to rearrange your brain structure & motion to be identical to another, then you would no longer be "you"...
Connor Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 The objective/subjective divide lies precisely in the fact that what is objective is certainy true, and that what is subjective is not certainly true. There is ultimately an objective reality, however an individual may not know it.
SaintElsewhere Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 There is no "object in itself". This is just another kind of metaphysics.
Rick Horton Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 There is no "object in itself". This is just another kind of metaphysics. Define subjective. Define objective.
Rick Horton Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 There is no "object in itself". This is just another kind of metaphysics. Define subjective. Define objective.
Hannibal Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 I don't understand the post. Objectivity is dependant on the object - i.e. what is. Subjectivity depends on the subject, i.e. a particular interpretation of what is. icecream is made from milk - objectively true. icecream is tasty - subjectively true or false. I think icecream is tasty - objectively true or false. I don't understand what you mean by whether "an object/subject divide actually exists". It's just a language construct to describe a logical concept. I might be wrong, but I think you have a common misunderstanding of what objectovity/subjectivity actually is.
SaintElsewhere Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Define subjective. Define objective. I'll refer you to Kant and then Nietzsche's criticism on that. Then Heidegger if you can stand it. But I'll try briefly.. Objective- The thing-in-itself. Subjective- Experience. One could say experience of the thing, but that begs the question.
SaintElsewhere Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 Sorry, I realize that this is more of an appeal to authority than an actual argument. Epistemology is such a sticky and difficult topic that I admit it's the kind of philosophy where I personally don't want to start at the beginning with it when there are some really wise people who have thought about it. Those recomendations are for the serious student of philosophy. I just want to paraphrase in a kind of simple way some other thinkers. And some of this is stuff I haven't read directly in 8 years or so. So what I consider the Platonic position is that-- the world exists (duh?), objects have an essential nature that exists as in an ideal form (world of forms), when we think or talk or percieve we are rearranging these forms or ideals. The world we experience is but shadows of the ideal. The world of forms is in some sense more real or more important than the "real world" because it is eternal. Kant's position-- Objective reality (noumenal world) is the world of things, the phenomenal world is our experience. Certain categories are hardwired into our brain like distance and time and this is how the phenomenal world is structured. Kant goes on to create a list of categories without providing a good enough argument for how they can be derived or even known from the phenomenal world. Nietzsche-- Tears into Kant. To say that objective (the noumenal world) reality exists is nonsense if all we experience is the (subjective) phenomenal world. We can never touch the "thing-in-itself" the objective world, so we can make no claim to speak on it. This opens the door to perspectivism. Nagarjuna-- Nothing has an essential nature. Existence and non-existence is a false dichotomy as are all dichotomies and oppositions. All concepts are empty. Wittgensteing-- Philosophy is a misuse of words. Philosophical speculation of the above kind is like moving chess pieces randomly on a board. If you don't agree with me I will hit you with a poker from the fireplace. Nagarjunas method reveals this by turning the rules of the game against itself. Language does not equal logic. All logically true statements are simply definitions. Language and meaning can only exist in a context. Language outside of context is without meaning which is what any kind of metaphysical discussion is. I will donate my inherited millions of dollars to charity and go try to teach math to children by smacking them over the head. Philosophy is dead. Long live Philosophy!
Recommended Posts