Objectivity is Our Shared Subjectivity
Fingerprint and now DNA analysis are what I would call the epitome of objective truth. I say this because these two human characteristics are defining evidence upon which we judge a person guilty and thereby subject to the death penalty.
Fingerprints are very subjective in that they can change substantially as result of very subjective circumstances. My fingerprint can change significantly today from what they were yesterday.
Not so significantly as to not have bearing in justice. In what way can a fingerprint change subjectively?
How is it possible that some things so subjective and unique as DNA and fingerprints can determine objectively whether a person is executed or set free?
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.
Fingerprints and DNA objectivity is based upon the structural integrity of both. That is to say that because both human characteristics are structured for every normal human being in exactly the same manner we can identify one unique individual within billions of individuals. So it is with the case of human experience. Because all normal humans structure cognition in the same manner we can identify that which is objective in human thoughts.
Objectivity is our shared subjectivity.
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 double checked 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.”
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.
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)
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.
