Subjectivity versus Objectivity

So the subject can be both subject AND object?

Surely as soon as the subject attempts to observe itself, it may think it has succeeded but it ought to immediately notice that the thing now being observed is distinct from that which is observing it?
And then in attempting to now observe that newly distinct thing, as soon as it does so, something else yet again is doing the observing etc.?

Isn’t it like a cat forever trying to back out of those lampshade things that the vet puts on? The subject is forever retreating and trying to see itself where it literally “just was”: a forever futile attempt.

A penny might be able to retain its zinc constitution despite changing form, such that it may be both made of zinc and a penny, but in practice I do not think a “subject” can do that as soon as it becomes an “object” - try it.

Are you sure I am wrong? Might just be me.

You reminded of that mind game, “What conclusion can you draw if you know nothing?”
“Nothing, of course”
“How do you know?”
:confused:

You said:
“it ought to immediately notice that the thing now being observed is distinct from that which is observing it?”
Why should it believe that? Do you believe that what you see in the mirror is not you?

A human is both a person and an animal. How could it be both?
You never heard of a subcategory?

Not all objects are subjects, but certainly all subjects are objects. It is merely an issue of language.

The subject can overtake the role of an object. For instance: If a subject adopts the point of view of an object o r observes the own body with all its affects, then this subject is in the position of both subject and object. And to others this subject is an object anyway.

Listen to what you just said. The subject does not become something different from itself just by observing itself. There are two modes of being–subject and object–but they aren’t mutually exclusive, and they certainly aren’t distinct objects.

I think you’re talking about the difference between the subject and the subject’s own concept of itself (or maybe the subject’s perception of itself). Sure, I guess you could say this, but the concept is still a part of the subject, not a separate entity.

Yeah, like an arrowing trying to point at its own tip. But I think whatever the subject is experiencing in the moment, including concepts about itself, is a part of the subject–experiences are a part of our own minds, our own consciousness, are they not?–the only thing being that we don’t always recognize these as the ‘self’ (the subject). IOW, we don’t need to try to point to our own tip. The tip is always there in the midst of our presence.

If the subject couldn’t be subject when it tries to observe itself as object, then it couldn’t experience the object at all. Experiencing is what makes it a subject.

I believe that what I see in the mirror is the mirror image of me, it’s what I’m supposed to look like to others, but the image is where I am not and isn’t actually me - but in terms of utility, yes I can speak of it as myself without too much issue.

The subject “ought to believe that” because upon trying to observe itself it has altered - to the role and position of observing. What it ends up observing is what it previously thought ought to be itself, but in seeing that, the seeing subject has changed from what it previously was. This is what I experience when I try to do it, and I assume - potentially wrongly - that this is what others experience too.

Like gib says, it is like an arrow trying to point at its own tip. A subject is like a spatial point that can only observe that which is away from it, generally experienced to be between the eyes or just behind them. Objects are observed in a cone radiating away from it, but not including it. My argument is that In order to adjust the cone area to include the subject point, the subject point must move - thereby making the seeing of itself the seeing of something that is no longer it.

Yes, a subcategory is like a coin to “things made of zinc” - as I already showed I understood.

Gib, I will retract my accusation of the question as stupid, not that it was your question, but I believe you actually get my position but still disagree with it. I’ll continue to think on it and see if I can come round to what you see that I may not.

Within the context of this thread, subject refers to that which perceives and object refers to that which is perceived. It may be interpreted broader than that so that subject refers to that which can perceive (regardless of whether or not it is actively perceiving at any point in time) and object to that which can be perceived (regardless of whether or not it is being actively perceived at any point in time.)

That which perceives can also be that which is perceived. Hence, a thing can be both a subject and an object. In other words, it can belong to both categories. The membership rules of these two categories does not forbid the possibility of an element belonging to one category to also belong to the other category.

It’s similar to how a man can be both someone who loves (i.e. belong to the category of people who love something or someone) and someone who is hated (i.e. belong to the category of people who are hated by someone.)

An example of a first preform of scientists are the monks of the Order of Saint Benedict (ca. 480–543).

[tab]Saint Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480–543):
[/tab]

]

Are you a subjectivist or an objectivist?
The above question is ultimately more psychological than epistemological.

A subjectivist believe in the following;

An Objectivist* believe in the following;

  • not followers of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

Why anyone leans, clings and is dogmatic to either one of the above philosophical concepts as an subjectivist or objectivist is due to deep psychological impulses and proclivity. As usual debates involving this dichotomy often get very emotional. We should focus on the concepts themselves and their contexts rather than the ‘belief’ [ism] itself.

All humans are subjects and anything that is related to humans has to be basically subjective. Individual-subject[s] has their own personal subjective inferences but when they are shared an agreed upon, then we have objectivity.

Objectivity is always inter-subjectivity.
There is no such thing as absolute independent objectivity that can stand on its own without being subjected to some framework of cognitions by subjects.
viewtopic.php?p=2654582#p2654582

The most credible objectivity is scientific knowledge and reality which is conditioned in an intersubjective consensus within a credible subjects-made scientific framework, system and methods. Credible = verifiable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable, peer reviewed and the likes.
As one will note, it make no rational sense to separate subjectivity from objectivity nor to be either a subjectivist or an objectivist.

For any knowledge or claims of knowledge to be credible, it need to be reviewed against the degree of subjectivity and objectivity.

Scientific theories as knowledge is highly objective because it has both high degree of subjectivity [personal convictions] and high objectivity [credible with intersubjective consensus].

Theological dogmas [e.g. God exists] do have intersubjective consensus based on personal conviction but lack objectivity because the framework and system supporting such dogma is not credible, i.e. lack sound justifications, verifiability, testability, repeatability, falsifiability,.

Thus the issue of Subjectivity versus Objectivity within philosophy-proper should be dealt in the above light within contexts and not in squabbling whether the objectivist or subjectivist is right or wrong about reality.

If you state that there “is no such thing as absolute independent objectivity”, then you have just declared that is so according to an absolute independent objectivity.

In addition: If there really (objectively) is no absolute independent objectivity, then there really (objectively) is no absolute independent subjectivity either.

:handgestures-thumbup:

We philosophers call that an “ontology”.

:wink:

Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.

Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.

The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.

A linguistic example: “John sees Mary”. Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: “Mary sees John” (S-P-O) or “John is seen by Mary” (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: “John sees Mary, and Mary sees John” (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or “John and Mary see each other” (S-P-O) or “John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John” (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or “John and Mary are seen by each other” (O-P-S) … or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.

John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).

So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.

When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not “in fashion”, then this does not mean that they have vanished.

An absolute independent objectivity is something like a God. I am not a theist, so that is not applicable to me.

When have I ever claimed ‘there must be really (objectively) is no absolute independent subjectivity.’

Note my response to your latter post;
viewtopic.php?p=2688403#p2688403

Subjectivity is one person’s view.
Objectivity is many peoples’ shared-view, i.e. intersubjective consensus.

Objectivity come in degrees from very low [winner of a beauty contest] to the highest [e.g. scientific knowledge] and other Justified True Beliefs.

No, it isn’t. Try to learn the language.

Running out of arguments?

  • so resorting to one-liners which Snark is also famous for.

Here is an interesting take re Objectivity;

staff.amu.edu.pl/~ewa/Harawa … ledges.pdf

Note the traditionally very crude* perspective of ‘objectivity’ in blue above. * As inherited from our beastly ancestors.

The above objectivity re situated knowledge which involves embodiment takes into account the subject which interacts with the object, thus intersubjectivity.

Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.

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.

It is an objective fact that there are subjects. 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.

You are missing the point again, and your alleged “critique” is nonsensical and based on your schizoid and delusional term “empirical possible multiple realities”.

There is only one reality.

Gyahd. Now he’s quoting feminists quoting disgruntled feminists who want to redefine the language to get rid of anything she can’t understand or manipulate (“knowledge-making”).
:icon-rolleyes:

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

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

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.

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.

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].