Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Arminius · December 18, 2017, 11:06pm

I bet that we can read in her/his next response something like this: Note that … Kant and Hume … were feminists.

Which of her/his “empirical possible multiple realities” is the feministic one?

Prismatic567 · December 19, 2017, 5:40am

It is obvious, language is a critical necessity for communications.

But philosophically one need to understand the limitations of language. You don’t seem to get this point. I suggest you brush up on the Philosophy of Linguistic [as wide as possible] and note Wittgenstein’s Language Games. Note Chomsky versus others.

And my example “John sees Mary” includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged “critique” does not change anything. Furthermore, your “critique” is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.

Show me how can you nail or ground the real reality of an object. e.g. What is a really real apple?

My point is,
your “It is an objective fact that there are subjects” is based on intersubjectivity.

So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a “social” situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, development and so on, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become “designed” (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, subjectivity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

There is only one reality.

I understand your claim of your philosophical perspective re objectivity of object. But your philosophical views are not tenable.
As I have requested, demonstrate to me ‘what is the really real apple on the table’?

Note, I have countered there is a more realistic view of what is objectivity, i.e. it is intersubjectivity. Note this is very serious issue within the philosophical community. You need to understand the stance of both sides before you make your own stance.

From the above note this higlighted;

Intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called objectivity of objects.

And note Russell’s point;

There is no real absolute objective table but rather an intersubjective based objective table depending on the Framework and System [Leibniz, Berkeley, Science, etc.] relied upon.

Subconsciously your know you cannot defend your position, that is why you are resorting to derogatory remarks rather than presenting credible arguments. I expect James and yourself will continue to condemn me ad hominem because both of you has run out of credible arguments. I suggest you read and reflect wider and deeper on the whole range of philosophy [relevant to this forum].

James_S_Saint · December 19, 2017, 6:41am

Hence…

Prismatic567 · December 19, 2017, 6:52am

Language is a critical necessity as a tool of philosophy, but it is a very blunt tool and a philosopher must be mindful of its limitations.

Read up,

Problems in philosophy of language
3.1 Vagueness
3.2 Problem of universals and composition
3.3 Nature of language
3.4 Formal versus informal approaches
3.5 Translation and interpretation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph … f_language

James_S_Saint · December 19, 2017, 7:21am

Yeah, trying to speak philosophically to you is a “problem”.

Prismatic567 · December 19, 2017, 7:40am

Whilst I backed up my point with supporting i.e.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph … f_language

all you did is throwing tantrums. :-"

James_S_Saint · December 19, 2017, 7:44am

Out of curiosity, could you tell us your original language and/or country?

Prismatic567 · December 19, 2017, 7:52am

I prefer not to reveal, what matter to me is the contents to be discussed.

James_S_Saint · December 19, 2017, 7:58am

Yeah, I’d probably be embarrassed about it too…
… if I were you.

Prismatic567 · December 19, 2017, 8:02am

Nah, it more like care on the potential of theists killing non-theists when the theists’ God and religion are criticized. The evidence of such is so glaring.

Arminius · December 20, 2017, 11:01pm

I know that you do not know how important language is. So I am writing this not for you but for readers. There is an interdependence between linguistics and philosophy, science and almost everything else. This is because of the fact that language is the most striking feature, the main feature of humans. And it is not difficult but often very effective to linguistically analyze the speech of philosophers or scientists or everyone else.

Prismatic567:

And my example “John sees Mary” includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged “critique” does not change anything. Furthermore, your “critique” is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.

Show me how can you nail or ground the real reality of an object. e.g. What is a really real apple?

I have already done this several times! So read my posts!

And you want to be taken seriously? Really? Thus: Objectively?

Show me how you can “nail or grund the real reality of a” subject …!

It is absolutely obvious that you are not able to understand what “subject” and “object” and their “dualism” mean. They are concepts of epistemology, so they are related to philosophy and science as well - and very much. An object is everything that is not a subject, and a subject is everything that is not an object. It is a dualism and similar to the yin/yang dualism. But this is again something that you do not understand. You want to eleminate yang - hoping that yin can exist without yang as a yin/yang principle. That is more than ridiculous.

A solipsist is someone who says that the subject, thus the subjective I with its consciousness contents, is the only being. I am pretty sure that your answer is exact this or a very similar statement. So you are a solipsist. But a solipsist is not able to explain what “subject” and “object” and their “dualism” mean. And if you are a subjectivist, then it is difficult but not impossible to do this. But if you are nonetheless not able to change the perspective and become an objectivist for a moment, then you are an extreme subjectivist, thus a solipsist, and a solipsist is not able to explain what “subject” and “object” and their “dualism” mean.

Your “intersubjectivity” has nothing to do with objectivity. I will say this again and again, regardless how often you are trolling against it. The goal of the extreme subjectivists and thus solipsists is to eleminate the object and thus objectivity too. This means that they try to eliminate the whole epistemology. Subject and object are part of the same phenomenon. If this pheomenon lacks one of the two, then it is kaput. One can try to circumvent the subject/object dualism, for example by concepts like Husserl’s “Intersubjektivität” or Heidegger’s “In-der-Welt-sein” or Luhmann’s “Kommunikation”, but “circumventing” does not mean "replacing"or “overcoming” the older concept (subject/object dualism). So if you and the other solipsists were successful, then epistemology would lack an important concept, then philosophy and science would have lost.

So you and the other solipsists should be absolutely silent when it comes to philosophy and science. (“Worüber man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein [“Whereof one can not speak, thereof one must be silent.”])

Your point is that you are not capable of understanding what “subject” and “object” and their “dualism” mean.

Prismatic567:

So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a “social” situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, development and so on, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become “designed” (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, subjectivity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

There is only one reality.

I understand your claim of your philosophical perspective re objectivity of object. But your philosophical views are not tenable.

Your philosophical views are not tenable, especially your schizoid and delusional term “empirical possible multiple realities”.

But that is not objectivity but merely intersubjectivity.

Try to learn words before becoming the lackey of philosophers you do not understand.

You really do not know what you are talking about.

And you want to tell us something about “both sides”? You? A solipsist!

Also, you have no other one who agrees with you (so: where is your “intersubjectivity” here?). You - the solipsist - will never become an intersubjectivist, since you will remain such a stubborn and ignorant solipsist.

You have no arguments - as everyone knows here and as I have said many times already. How often do I have to repeat this? No one of those who have posted here agrees with you. You are a solipsist.

You have used ad hominems. So stop whining here.

And stop preaching. You are preaching and preaching and preaching and ignoring everything else. Your stubborn and naive belief in your false gods gives evidence that you are by far more religious than the average human.

James_S_Saint · December 21, 2017, 12:29am

Language is, by no accident, a reflection of thought, so obviously anything having to do with thought is going to be strongly related to language. If the thoughts get twisted, the language gets twisted, and vsvrsa. Untwist the language, and you untwist the thoughts.

And yes Prism, philosophy actually does have something to do with thoughts.

Arminius · December 21, 2017, 1:00am

It is no accident that a solipsist can never find another solipsist who agrees with him/her. Prismatic’s says “intersubjective consensus” and likely means “intersolipsistic consensus” in “multiple realities” of which Prismatic is speaking so often.

Prismatic567 · December 21, 2017, 6:17am

The rest of your post is merely babbling without substance, but note this;

I am very familiar with Eastern Philosophy.

There is no question of eliminating yin/yang and escaping duality.
One cannot run away from experiencing hot and cold and other dualities.
In Taoism, one must be engaged in the duality the Yin & Yang [subject and object plus other dualities] but grounded in the Tao so as not be caught in any extreme.

It is only within semantics that an object is not a subject.

But within philosophy an object can be a subject depending on contexts, perspectives and conditions.
Note the following;
At time t1 a large great white shark [subject] bite an grouper [object][subject] eating an octopus [object][subject] which is eating an crab [object].

It is the same with cause and effect. An effect can also be a cause of another effect within determination.

Arminius · December 21, 2017, 10:43am

You were once in Eastern Asia, so you are “very familiar with Eastern Philosophy”?

That is again one of your childish pseudo arguments - very similar to this one:

What a pure stupidity!

Like I said: Prismatic does almost always not know what Prismatic is talking about.

In addition, you are lying, Prismatic. Not you, you liar, but I was the one - the only one of those who are posting here - who said that the subject/object duality can never be eliminated. You are the one - the only one of those who are posting here - who wants to eliminate the subject/object duality.

Your interpretation of “intersubjectivity” is “intersolipsism” in “multiple realities” (as you have said so often in several threads), and that means nothing else than a schizoid and delusional solipsism.