Subjectivity of the subject

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Light Travelling, May 2, 2006.

  1. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    A subject can only ever perceive objects. It cannot ever perceive another subject.

    A subject assumes objects that have a similar physical form to itself are also subjects; but this is only assumed and not perceived or made known through the senses.

    Other beings may be broken down in to their component objects and analysed – no subject will never be found, only objects.

    The subject then is the most subjectively asserted phenomena possible.

    Possibly we define a subject as that which holds a different view of reality to ourselves, albeit sometimes only slightly.

    It is only through this subjective viewing of reality that we are able to subjectively deduce that other subjects exist.

    It is only subjective differences that make us real.

    Science and philosophy usually only considers objective information and evidence – so why is a subject generally accepted? And how is it defined?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kriminal99 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    If I told you everyone but you was not really a subject (and I was right and you knew it), would you act any differently towards them?

    Would you expect them to act any differently towards you if they were a subject or if they were not?

    My biggest interest in this subject is that when technology allows I know I could program an AI that might act in every way similar to a human being. Looking at someone that was just like you but you knew they were not realized the same way physically, would you consider them a subject or not?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    What we need to do then is identify what is necessary to call something a subject - to be able to say that it is capable of subjectivity?

    Are the following necessary;
    Accessing sensory information
    Processing sensory information
    Decision making based on sensory information.

    But are these enough - computers, plants and animals all do this but are they all subjective?

    What about pure cognition - can cognition cut off from sensory input still be called subjective.

    So what is it - cognition, sensory input (or output)?

    How about ability to construct a belief system? and would this mean imagination is necessary?

    In which case being a subjective being might have little to do with sensory percetion at all.....
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    the terms 'subject/ive' and 'object/ive' are in actuality abstract terms that WE--us people who speak Engish have abstracted out of reality

    reality is PROCESS, and is only chopped into abstract pices by how we look at 'it' and/or how we have been schooled to look at it. by reading and listening to authorities say that there exists an object vs a subjct, etc

    its becom so serious---this indoctrination that in its history, even animals have been seeen to be 'objects' with no subjectivity (Rene Descartes), and subsequently tortured. their cries of pain being understood by the utterly ignoreant mindset doing the horror, to be cries of machine-objects

    so in tat horrendou example, we can see illustrated that: when a person objectifies another is wwhen he/she loses any subjective feeling!

    so FEELINGis a key!

    IF we feel it meas that we are subjectively feeling. and this subjectivity reaches out and sees/feels subjectivity. ie., you aint seeing a hard unyielding object any more. your feeling interfuses with your perceptios and feelings

    but...BOT. when you are caught up in the divisry belief of object versu subject. then you you actually objectify your own feelings, instead of FEELING. you LOOK AT 'them' as objects! thus keeping the division between what you believe is real abstracts--object and subject
     
  8. Light Travelling It's a girl O lord in a flatbed Ford Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,154
    Of course - sentience. The emotional response to stimuli.

    And cut off from our emotions - we become objective machines.

    Can escape from subject / object be found in subject / subject? and can that relationship be applied to our contacts with all existence.... or just other sentient beings?
     
  9. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    when you say 'subject/subject' it says to me you mean just-subjectivity?....i am exploring that there is ALWAYS subjective AND objective. you cant have one with out te oter.
    when we talk about it like tis. our language. way it's been contructed and/or we understand it. what i said implies i am talking about two 'things' 'subject' and 'object'. but process is not that. when we feel deeply and thus experiece deeply, things dont disappear, but there is a sense of continuum between all states of being. ie., you may realize the same shit going on with oter so-called abstracted out extremes like 'profane/mundane' and 'sacred'..........when you tae these abstracts as things. is whn you fall into a semantic trap. te reality around us is made in tis confusion, by an oppressive mindset. hence many people are fearful of feeling, and when they become dsitressed are feareed BY this culture also.
    so to see the utter danger that mindset has doine and continues to do, a plunge INTO feeling is urgent.....tat's the harrowing scene. a waking up into a friggin nightmare...heh
     

Share This Page