i was told that there is no way to seperate object/subject.
however i disagreed and my argument is as follows.
you actually can seperate object from subject.
this because object is the essence of subject. object “allows” subject to exist. for instance with the object “sun” gives life without which 'NO" subject would be. and as well you need a planet(object) with certain conditions to “allow” life. “moisture” for instance. then follows the chemistry etc.
The comprehension of an object, as an “objectâ€, that is the sun as the “sunâ€, occurs through triangulation, between the “observerâ€, the “interpreter†(other justifying human being(s)) and “the worldâ€. The “object†as object is never known outside of this linguistic comprehension “of the world”. No piece of the triangle can be taken out. The problem with the representationalist dual-place conception of the world (subject/object) is that it leaves out one leg of the linguistic triangle, the inter-subjective relationships which establish knowledge and perception, as perception in the first place. You simply are positing as “real†those things which intersubjectivity has granted you.
Look here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28philosophy%29
Interesting definition.
My Psychology teacher explained this to me the same way.
Btw if someone can write exact definition for subject and object with 1-2 examples, I’d be happy to see it.
am I right in thinking where statements just concern a formal system, valid and true can be the same thing? Like, the truth of the statement “there are two prime numbers between four and ten” cannot be determined through experience, but its truth is dependant on its validity.
Dunamis, i accept that language is an intersubjective thing (obviously) but i flat out reject that our conception of the world is dependant on that language. The Sapir Whorf hypothesis (if thats where you are getting this from) is long discredited in such a strong form.
Language is a handy tool for using our concepts but we would still have concepts without it.
Nor is subject/object just a linguistic thing, but its hard wired into the way the universe works. There must always be a subject from which to observe things or the universe is utterly unintelligible (its what relativity is all about).
The Sapir Whorf hypothesis (if thats where you are getting this from) is long discredited in such a strong form.
No. I am not coming from the Sapir Whorf hypothesis, but from Wittgenstein’s argument against a private language and Davidson’s theory of triangulation. Please explain how either has been “long discredited”.
Language is a handy tool for using our concepts but we would still have concepts without it.
Where do you get this “concepts without languge” conception of concepts? Do you also believe in “sentences without language”?
Nor is subject/object just a linguistic thing, but its hard wired into the way the universe works.
All of this is stated within language, and its truth or falsity is established through justification to other language users. There is no “objective” conceptual reality, no “the way the universe works”.
the thing is, this. are you saying that plants think?? that photosynethisis by plants is a linguistic thing? and that the reality of the plants survival and indirectly ours because of the suns reality is because the plants have somehow brought the sun into existence because this is what plants need and want? since plants were here and existed on this planet before we did.
my example is to show that LONG before thinking beingings existed, the sun and our planet Earth existed long before there was thinking beings.
and you find this liguistic perspective Reasonable?
If I’m reading you correctly, you are suggesting that reality exists independently of an observer. Although I wouldn’t use Dunamis’ language, he is absolutely correct. The very meaning of ‘real’ is always from a perspectival point -ie- there must always be an observer. Without the observer there is no ordered reality. We create the universe (conceptually), not the other way around.
I feel that there must be some meaning for the words above which will make them sensible, but I cannot fathom that meaning. You appear to be saying that reality does not exist independent of an observer. Later, you modify that to say this is so of “ordered reality”. I feel the clue must be in the word “ordered”, but the concept seems to me to be either ludicrous or trivial. Can you explain more clearly what you mean, please?
Also,
So the “sun” as an “object” requires an “observer”. This in no way means that the sun is not real, simply that we need people in order to think or talk about it. Again, it seems to me that a trivial point is being elevated to some higher plane of metaphysical mystery. And this metaphysical mystery is being trotted out to no useful purpose. What philosophical insight is to be derived from discussing “the sun” as opposed to discussing the sun?
NO, and Dunamis’ is not “absolutely” correct. there does not always need an observer. we can use inductive and/ or deductive of Reasoning to come to conclusion of the object reality.
reality is already ordered enough to ALLOW life, therefore the possibility of thoughtful life. before observation of it.
This in no way means that the sun is not real, simply that we need people in order to think or talk about it. Again, it seems to me that a trivial point is being elevated to some higher plane of metaphysical mystery. And this metaphysical mystery is being trotted out to no useful purpose. What philosophical insight is to be derived from discussing “the sun” as opposed to discussing the sun?
The philosophical “insight” is immense, if “the sun” is only a historically contingent manifestation of a language game (Kuhn-Wittgenstein-Darwin). In this way, the god Apollo driving his steeds across the sky, is no more “objectively” true than a ball of hydrogen and helium gas floating through a void. All are conceptual descriptions justified within a community of language users. To refer to “the sun” as if it is the sun is to assume an objective, ahistorical, translanguage reality perspective, one which cannot be assumed, because justification is always historically contingent.
Can a mute person observe what a language speaking person observes?
Oh course he can.
It would not require a language to communicate such an experience.
Human beings had senses long before they could talk.
The question, then, is not “how to get to truth with language,” or even “can language communicate truth between two observers,” but “what does language add to the truth upon communication.”
Can a mute person observe what a language speaking person observes?
Oh course he can.
It would not require a language to communicate such an experience.
You confuse “communicate an experience” with “conceptualize an experience”. You make the mistake of assuming a “language of the senses” or a “private language” which Wittgenstein pretty much disproved. Language use is two things. One it is simply a way of predicting the future behavior of other “language users”, and letting other language uses be able to predict your behavior, and two, it is a method of triangulating the “objective”. Without language use the “objective” cannot be triangulated conceptually, nor can “experiences” be conceptualized. A dog can triangulate certain aspects of “objective” reality, aspects we understand “conceptually”, that is can represent in sentences. Part of the way that a dog can do this is our projection of beliefs upon him, so too with a mute person. But without language these “experiences” are not conceptual. A mute person who understands language, for instance having lost his tongue, but could read and write and understand what was spoken to him, would be very different than a mute person who never was exposed to language at all, raised in a cube. The kind of things that can be triangulated by each type of “mute” would be vastly different. The first could triangulate “conceptual” reality, the other not.
but the sun is the object which gives LIFE to plants. and our subjectivivty becomes irrelevant and therefore Humanity.and that is a fact.
we can use inductive and/ or deductive of Reasoning to come to conclusion of the object reality.
[quote]
Reasoning inductive and/or deductive can be without language. for consequences of this or that part of reality becomes apparent first. then comes the want to communicate this or that consequence of reality.
and there is NO subjectivity(life) without object and the conditions which ALLOW for life.
notice there is NO life on the MOON, WHY? because the object is not conducive to life and therefore the possibility of subjectivity let alone intersubjectivity.
but the sun is the object which gives LIFE to plants.
This understanding of yours is entirely based in language.
Reasoning inductive and/or deductive can be without language. for consequences of this or that becomes apparent first. then comes the want to communicate this or that consequence.
Consequences, for instance behaviorist conditioning, are not an example of “reasoningâ€. Reasoning, which entails linguistically expressed justifiable ends, occurs within language, and is justified before other language users.
notice there is NO life on the MOON, WHY? because the object is not conducive to life and therefore the possibility of intersubjectivity.