Objectivity is our security blanket

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by coberst, Mar 6, 2008.

  1. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    Objectivity is our security blanket

    My second son, Mike, was a blanket boy. He spent a good part of his first 24 months with a thumb in his mouth and a blanket in his arms. If we left the house with Mike we checked and doubled check that we did not leave his ‘blanky’ behind. After 24 months the blanky was nothing more than a scrap of shredded cloth. He would not accept a substitute.

    Absolute truth is our blanky. DickandJane become very anxious when their security blanket, i.e. absolute truth, is not in hand.

    Objectivism is a fundamentalist philosophy. It believes that reality is something external to the brain and that the task of the brain is to gain knowledge about this external reality.

    Right/wrong and true/false are considered to be objective criteria rather than subjective criteria. Objectivism posits perfect knowledge and assumes such knowledge is obtainable. I think that such views have been discredited.

    The myth of objectivism says that: the world is made up of objects that have properties completely independent of those who perceive them; we understand our world through our consciously constructed concepts and categories; “we can say things that are objectively, absolutely true, and unconditionally true and false about it…we cannot rely upon subjective judgments…science can ultimately give a correct, definitive, and general account of reality”; words have fixed meaning that can describe reality correctly. To be objective is to be rational.

    The myth of subjectivism informs us that our senses and intuition is our best guide. Feelings are the most important elements of our lives. Aesthetic sensibilities and moral practices are all totally subjective. “Art and poetry transcend rationality and objectivity and put us in touch with more important reality of our feelings and intuitions. We gain this awareness through imagination rather than reason…Science is of no use when it comes to the most important things in our lives.”

    The new paradigm of cognitive science rejects both objectivism and subjectivism. I believe in this new cognitive science, which theorizes that objectivity is a shared subjectivity.

    Objectivity is shared subjectivity. Objective truth is a misnomer; there is only shared truth/false and there is only shared good/bad.

    Objectivity is shared subjectivity. We create reality in our brain. If you and I create the same reality then we have a shared subjectivity. We cannot know the thing-in-itself, as Kant informs us and is easily recognized if we focus upon it.

    I would say that reality comes in two forms; the thing-in-itself is the reality that Kant informs us that we cannot know and then we have the reality that our brain creates. This reality we create is aided by the senses and is congruent with how our body interacts with the thing-in-itself. If the interaction between the thing-in-itself and the creature’s embodied mind is too far off--the creature quickly becomes toast.

    Most people are objectivist in many ways; do you still comfort yourself with blanky?

    Quotes from “Moral Imagination” Mark Johnson (coauthor of “Philosophy in the Flesh”)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    This is an objectivist statement.
    Physician, heal thyself.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    Studying cognitive science is my cure.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    I agree that experience is probably only subjective if there is more than one subject (observer).

    If we were individuals, there would be no need to communicate, or remember anything. We do both of these things for group benefit - and thus gain "individual" benefit as part of the group.
     
  8. BeHereNow Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    473
    Objective truth is what we define it as being.
    What you call “the-thing in-itself” can be equated with objective truth.
    What evidence can you provide I have not experienced the-thing-in-itself?
    What evidence can you provide no person can experience the-thing-in-itself?
    What reasoning is it that leads you to your conclusions?
    I say the object of truth seekers is to become one with reality, to experience the-thing-in-itself.
    I say this can be achieved.
    I have only my own convictions to offer as proof.
     
  9. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    Made me think of Wittgenstein and 'private language'.
     
  10. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    and that is well and good, no doubt. But you understand what I meant. You made an objectivist statement about other minds. I realize you were trying to be provocative, but it comes off as if you might not understand the quotes you present us with.
     
  11. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949


    All knowledge comes from some basic self-evident assumption; i.e. gut feeling, folk theory, axiom, or postulate. Wiki says “In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.”

    Philosophy is a domain of knowledge; what are some of the self-evident folk theories of philosophy?

    The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”.

    The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World
    The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.

    The Folk Theory of General Kinds
    Every particular thing is a kind of thing.

    The Folk Theory of Essences
    Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.


    The consequence of the two theories of kinds and essences is:

    The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics
    Kinds exist and are defined by essences.


    Metaphysics comes from these basic gut feelings, i.e. these folk theories.

    Cognitive science, as explained in “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson, challenges our traditional Western a priori philosophy by challenging these folk theories. This new paradigm for cognitive science wishes to focus upon where these folk theories come from and why this matters.

    How do humans come by these folk theories? How does the source of these theories shed light on the inadequacies of 2000 years of traditional Western philosophy?
     
  12. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,168
    I really can't see how what you wrote was a response to my posts. In fact it seems familiar, perhaps you have posted it before. I feel a kind of deja vu, as if I have had this experience before where you response by cutting and pasting - a bricoleur without so many options to choose from - and the resulting responding post on your part, well, it really isn't a response. It is more of the same.

    I've read Lakoff's works and most of Johnson's and some of their students books also, especially those on metaphor. So you don't need to sell their ideas, at least not to me.

    This quote is objectivist. Is it acting like a blanky?
     
  13. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    Perhaps my post is familiar to you because it is largely based upon the theories in the book "Philosophy in the Flesh?

    I do not comprehend why my question is objectivist. Perhaps it is because we all have been raised under the influence of this a priori phylosophy.
     

Share This Page