• Banno
    23.1k
    Human feelings of belief and truth have little to do with correctness.YuZhonglu

    Something is either true, or false. Feelings usually have little to do with it.

    Further, to feel that something is true is to believe in that thing. One can feel that it is true, without its being true.
  • YuZhonglu
    212
    Oftentimes statements are neither true nor false. Feelings have everything to do with it. People rationalize their feelings, all the time.
  • frank
    14.5k
    I think you're just hand-waving.
  • leo
    882
    I know some philosophers talk this way. I think it misleading. The remainder of your post serves as an example of what happens when a philosopher talks this way.Banno

    I don't see how that is misleading. You seem used to interpret subjectivity as referring solely to feelings or tastes or thoughts, because on many occasions you have noticed that different people seem to have different feelings/tastes/thoughts. However you assume that perception is objective, in that everyone perceive the same world from their own point of view, that if you put different people in the same place they would perceive the exact same thing, but would only make different reports of what they perceive because of their different feelings/tastes/thoughts. That is a strong assumption. There are many examples where different people report having differing perceptions (seeing different colors, hearing different sounds, ...).

    The root of the disagreement I see here is that you (and people agreeing with you) assume that there exists an objective world, existing independently of us, and that our perception is a window to this objective world. Whereas I (and presumably others) don't make such an assumption. I have noticed how different beliefs can make us see the world in very different ways, how believing in something make us see it exist.

    To me, the objective world that you and many others assume to exist independently of us is a world that we construct in part ourselves through our beliefs. For instance, the belief that the things we have perceived exist when we're not perceiving them leads to construct a world in our mind, a world that is consistent in some ways, but then when we perceive things that don't fit into that construction we relegate them to the status of hallucination, while if we hadn't forced a specific constructed world in the first place we would consider these unconventional perceptions differently, more seriously, on the same level of reality as the others, which would give rise to a very different view of the world.

    Forcing beliefs and assumptions onto our perceptions forces us to see the world in a restricted, limited way, and to me that's what people are doing when they are using their beliefs to construct an objective world in their minds supposedly existing independently of us, without realizing that what they see as an objective world was constructed in part through their own subjective beliefs.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    @frank

    But take a look at Leo's post.

    What do you make of how he uses "subjective"?
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    2.1k


    I think Banno is correct here. "Experience of remembering" is a more detailed reference to what is present in the instance of someone "remembering." It's specially talking about how an experience is occurring aninstance of "remembering".
  • Banno
    23.1k
    I might give @frank a chance to respond before I do.
  • frank
    14.5k



    Forcing Newtonian beliefs and assumptions onto our perceptions forces us to see the world in a restricted, limited way, and to me that's what people are doing when they are using their Newtonian beliefs to construct an objective world in their minds supposedly existing independently of what physicist's call observation, without realizing that what they see as an objective world was constructed in part through their own Newtonian beliefs.leo

    In the light of our recent thread on QM, do these edits to Leo's post make it acceptable?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    @frank

    It is easy to explain in terms of language games. "Subjective" and "objective" have a fairly clear use, as set out in the OP.

    Philosophers tend to take words of this sort out for a walk, away from their home. When they do this it is important to keep an eye on what is going on. It is apparent that when we talk of a memory being subjective, we are using "subjective" in a way that is different from when we talk about my preference for vanilla being subjective.

    So, let's take care to set out that difference.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    2.1k


    I tend to think there is less of a difference in that context than we might expect. In either case, I think "subjective" is referring to the fact the object of discussion is one person and never any other.

    It saying the fact, be it the presence of a memory or a preference for vanilla, in question is formed entirely in this individual and so cannot be true on other terms (often referred to as "objective." ).
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Recent thread on QM? You might remind me.

    Leo talks of an "objective world". Again, I think it incumbent that he explain how an objective world differs from a world.

    Instead, in the post above,
    you (and people agreeing with you) assume that there exists an objective world, existing independently of us, and that our perception is a window to this objective world.leo

    Now I hope it clear that I am not assuming the existence of an objective world, but instead rejecting the distinction between subjective and objective in this context.

    Which way do you go, @frank?

    @TheWillowOfDarkness?
  • frank
    14.5k
    Leo's post needs tweaking in order not to seem self-contradictory. I think I understand what he's trying to say, though. It just needs more sorting out.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    2.1k


    I'm going to be a little bit meaner. In terms of the "independent world" set out in leo's quote, I don't think it can be coherently rejected. Even if we take existing things depend upon u to exist, they are still distinct from us.

    If the tree is only there when I am looking at, it doesn't make my experience the tree.

    Even if the presence of our experiences is causal of the things we see, our experience is still a window into the independent (i.e. things which are not our experiences). You cannot get out of this even taking an idealist position in which things we experience only exist due to the presence of our experience.
  • leo
    882
    Leo talks of an "objective world". Again, I think it incumbent that he explain how an objective world differs from a world.Banno

    An objective world is a world many seem to have in mind when they say things such as Jupiter has an objective existence independently of us. In contrast, I say that anyone is subjectively involved in constructing their world through their perceptions and beliefs. That what people call an objective world is nothing more than a subjectively constructed world they have agreed on.
  • leo
    882
    In what way is it self-contradictory?
  • frank
    14.5k
    In what way is it self-contradictory?leo

    Look at this section:

    The root of the disagreement I see here is that you (and people agreeing with you) assume that there exists an objective world, existing independently of us, and that our perception is a window to this objective world. Whereas I (and presumably others) don't make such an assumption. I have noticed how different beliefs can make us see the world in very different ways, how believing in something make us see it exist.leo

    You started by rejecting the "objective world", but then speak of noticing how people see the world in different ways. What's the difference between the objective world and the world?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    I think I understand what he's trying to say, though.frank

    So would you be incline to agree with Leo?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    I'm going to be a little bit meaner.TheWillowOfDarkness

    And I'd be meaner still. @Leo concludes that the tree disappears when unobserved despite there being no evidence to support this.
  • frank
    14.5k
    So would you be incline to agree with Leo?Banno

    Not as written, no.
  • leo
    882
    You started by rejecting the "objective world", but then speak of noticing how people see the world in different ways. What's the difference between the objective world and the world?frank

    I see thanks, that was just a poor formulation on my part, when I say people "see the world in different ways", I mean to say people have their own subjective world, depending on their beliefs and perceptions. And that what many call an "objective world" is a subjective world they agree on.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    An objective world is a world many seem to have in mind when they say things such as Jupiter has an objective existence independently of us. In contrast, I say that anyone is subjectively involved in constructing their world through their perceptions and beliefs. That what people call an objective world is nothing more than a subjectively constructed world they have agreed on.leo

    Leo, and all, take a look at how this uses "we". Perceptions are only ever in one person's mind, and yet we construct the world.

    Some might recall a debate from long ago in which I argued that the approach Leo is using leads to solipsism.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    2.1k


    I like to disrupt that thought process because people cannot beyond the object they are no longer seeing.

    My question in these situations runs more like this: since the person has looked away, how do they have any evidence the tree is gone? They aren't looking that spot anymore... they don't have a leg to stand on empirically.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    I see thanks, that was just a poor formulation on my part, when I say people "see the world in different ways", I mean to say people have their own subjective world, depending on their beliefs and perceptions. And that what many call an "objective world" is a subjective world they agree on.leo

    And the meta-point, the one this thread is about, is how this has so misled Leo.
  • leo
    882
    Leo concludes that the tree disappears when unobserved despite there being no evidence to support this.Banno

    I didn't conclude this, I said that saying the tree exists independently of us when we do not perceive it is a belief. Do you agree that this is a belief, or do you see it as an objective fact?
  • frank
    14.5k
    I see thanks, that was just a poor formulation on my part, when I say people "see the world in different ways", I mean to say people have their own subjective world, depending on their beliefs and perceptions. And that what many call an "objective world" is a subjective world they agree on.leo

    So I have a subjective world (my world) and you have yours (your world). Where we agree, we call that the objective world.

    But what's up with agreement? Do we agree on portions of worlds? Or do we agree on statements?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Where we agreefrank

    How could you ever know that you agree, as opposed to appearing to agree...?

    After all, all you have is your perceptions of agreement...

    (and so on... this is how the counterargument goes.)
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Leo concludes that the tree disappears when unobserved despite there being no evidence to support this.Banno
    I didn't conclude this, I said that saying the tree exists independently of us when we do not perceive it is a belief. Do you agree that this is a belief, or do you see it as an objective fact?leo
    So many issues squeezed into such a small space.

    I don't plan to answer this here. realism-idealism debates are fun, and we can have one if you like. Set it up.
  • Merkwurdichliebe
    2.6k


    We definitely depend on statements that attempt to mediate the subject into objective understanding. But this mediation is indirectly related to the subject's actual existence. So with the mediation we lose the essence of subjectivity by making it something objective.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.