Objectivity is Our Shared Subjectivity

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by coberst, Apr 11, 2010.

  1. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    Cheers. I didn't see the redirect.

    Overall, given the vague nature of the OP, I would have to agree with you that topically, it's more fitting here than elsewhere. But aside from simply being text stripped from another source, I can't see much value in the OP. If coberst had given some particular interpretation, or even suggested an interpretive line of questioning based on the material, I'd be quite happy. As it stands, it's simply an advertisement.

    The last thing needed in here are posts of the sort:

    " Kant thought X".

    .... crickets chirping........


    Even something akin to: "Kant thought X, and I think he was right because...." would be a vast improvement.

    I'll leave this be for now, hoping that either coberst will elucidate his position, or someone else will instigate some interesting discussion.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Not so significantly as to not have bearing in justice. In what way can a fingerprint change subjectively?

    Because they are unique to you. Though, subjective and unique aren't the same thing. Do you have any evidence that fingerprints can change according to the subjective? DNA can change according to the subjective, but from what I heard only to put genes on/off (as what may happen when subjected to traumatic events) not change the actual sequence which is what is tested in justice.

    It is the collective awareness of what is right or wrong, true or false that has bearing in a culture. Right/Wrong, Truth/Falsity requires awareness. In other words, it requires a subjective. If we believe that others are aware (which we take for granted) then we could say that it is objective in the sense that it is external to ourselves though at the same time internal to someone else.

    I don't see how science can ever make the subjective objective. It just can't reach those areas. To me science is a way to describe the world in the most accurate way possible through "objective" means of measuring - as opposed of subjective means of experiencing (even if experience itself often is a result of a measuring).

    Science becomes subjective when it is known to someone, as such science can indeed be a subjective part of someone and indeed can be very important to someone.

    What do you mean with "the thing-in-itself"?

    And what do you mean with "If the interaction between the thing-in-itself and the creature's embodied mind is too far off"?

    I take it that this is a way of supporting evolution but I really need to know what you mean by "the thing-in-itself" and "embodied mind"...

    I'm sure we can continue an intelligent discussion if you can answer those two.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. BigFairy Hi Im Big Fairy! Registered Senior Member

    Which leads us to the question - "Is consciousness a good (desirable) or bad (undesirable) characteristic?"

    My opinion is that we will not be capable of answering this yet, because our understanding of consciousness is not sufficient. Intelligence and consciousness allows us to be more adaptable, and adaptation is the engine of evolution.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gustav Banned Banned


    i would imagine it to be a good thing as the characteristic enables us to be in a position to pose the question

    /tongue in cheek
  8. BigFairy Hi Im Big Fairy! Registered Senior Member

    Hi Gustav, thank you for the reply.

    Recognizing oneself as an entity separate from the world around you is just one of the phenomena of conscious experience....

    Just thought i would add my bit

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. stateofmind seeker of lies Valued Senior Member

    Actually it's been found (though I guess there are still some elements of doubt) that babies up to a certain stage of development recognize no distinction between themselves and their environment.
  10. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    It is certainly related, to be sure.
    But let's not let this thread go too far offtrack.

    Yes; an interesting, and pertinent point.
  11. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator


    Mod Note:


    You have been advised not to post sections of quoted material.
    If you are going to bring no original content to a post, then it is not welcome.

  12. coberst Registered Senior Member

    Meaning is in the eye of the beholder. We can comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend
  13. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Hi coberst, please tell me what you mean with "the thing-in-itself" and "embodied mind", it would be helpful for my understanding of your OP, and will encourage me to discuss this with you as this subject is of interest to me.

    For people to appreciate what you are trying to say you have to say it in clear words, not vague words. Vague words are for those that themselves don't understand what they are talking about in the intention of deceit.
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2010
  14. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    As Cyperium has noted, feel free to make sense some time.
    Or, more to the point, herein, you are required to make sense.

Share This Page