But your definitions are weak and shoddy, and most people here appear to find them unacceptable for an edifying philosophical discourse. So they been attempting to clean up your mess.

But your definitions are weak and shoddy, and most people here appear to find them unacceptable for an edifying philosophical discourse. So they been attempting to clean up your mess. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's one of those comments made of words, but which says nothing. Cut the rhetoric and skip to the supposed problem.

But in answer; it (starfish) can be both, depending on how it is considered. It has an umwelt or sensorium dominated by temperature gradients and the textural elements of water currents. The water around it is structurally similar to our own environment (in terms of the S/O distinction), impressing itself upon its sensory apparatus in a manner that reflects environmental properties. — fdrake

I think there is a difference between organisms with a central nervous system and those with a nerve net like starfish. I think that only organisms with a central nervous systems have some form of mind, or perspective of the world, where all the sensations come together, or overlap, and the world takes on an appearance relative to the senses.

This view from somewhere is what we usually refer to as subjectivity, and a view from everywhere, or a God's eye view, would be objectivity. So when we talk about things from a view from everywhere, we are speaking objectively. When our statement includes a perspective, then we are speaking subjectively.

The problem seems to be when we use language in a way that commits a category error, where we imply that our feelings or perspectives are part of the thing we are talking about instead of part of the thing doing the feeling or perceiving.

The problem: your definitions of subject and object are whack, lame, played-out doo doo. They have only confused things.

The problem: your definitions of subject and object are whack, lame, played-out doo doo. They have only confused things. — Merkwurdichliebe

No, that's another one of those comments made of words, but which says nothing. If that's the best that you can come up with, I will end up losing interest. I will give you another chance to cut out the rhetoric and skip to the supposed problem: something substantial instead of a bunch of negative-sounding adjectives you seem to have picked up from a school playground.

Talk of Jupiter, for example, seems sufficient to use as an example in my argument for realism, and I've made clear what I mean by talking of the existence of Jupiter as something which is objective. — S

That's just it, you haven't made it clear, and you saying you "made it clear" doesn't mean you have done so. And that is why you find everyone challenging you here.

I think yours is about cultural identity: east/west, naturalism/supernaturalism. True? — frank

I can see why you would think that, and it's true that do see the question in terms of cultural dynamics and history of ideas. But what interests me is the role of the subject in the 'construction' or 'construal' of the apparently objective.

Here's a graph that is provided with the internet definition of "objective", showing the usage pattern over the last few centuries.



I think it's significant that the growth of the term mirrors the rise of modernity. Because moderns will be reflexively inclined to say that what is 'objective' is 'just so', or 'actually the case' (as the second part of the internet definition states). But that is very much what has been called into question by (for example) phenomenology (Husserl) and philosophy of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend, Polanyi).

What interests me is how to acknowledge that without collapsing into relativism or subjectivism.

phenomenology is a response to the critical errors of empiricism. Phenomenology begins with the immediate, exactly where empiricism does. But instead of stopping there and getting lost in absolute doubt or solipsism, it introduces a dialectic that clarifies the subject-object distinction. — Merkwurdichliebe

:up:

Naturalism - what you see out of the window.

Phenomenology - you looking out of the window.

So, phenomenology takes into account 'the act of looking', which naturalism brackets out and then neglects to consider.

That's just it, you haven't made it clear, and you saying you "made it clear" doesn't mean you have done so. And that is why you find everyone challenging you here. — Merkwurdichliebe

1. Stop appealing to those around you in an attempt to inflate yourself.

2. Tell me what you find unclear.

The way things are going, we're proceeding at a snail's pace, and that it isn't my fault.

I'm going to review everything you have said and break it down. Standby

I reviewed everything (goddam it was excruciating), and now I understand what Janus was saying.




And it is clear that you occupy the position described by Wayfarer:

...the assumed stance of naturalism, which assumes the perspective of the subject, attempting to arrive at as objective a view as possible, through eliminating everything other than what can be quantified

Or alternatively explaied, but identical in meaning

...views the subject-object quantitatively, as occupying the extreme ends of a gradient, which in turn represents the varying degrees of subjectivity and objectivity. Truth is found in objectivity, so the less subjective one becomes, the closer he is to obtaing truth — Merkwurdichliebe

My first impression is that you are not a philosopher, you are a commentor. My second impression: You have made little to no relevant points because you do not explain your reasoning for anything you claim, the only support you give to your claims is by saying things like: because I said so, because it's the relevant sense, because that's the way it is, etc. The frequency at which you posit your groundless statements is to such a degree, that it can be considered nothing else but an indication that you simply lack philosophical acumen.

It is especially important, therefore, to keep an eye on their use in mundane contexts.
— Banno

What is the grounds for such a mandate besides personal preference concerning how philosophy should be practiced? — Merkwurdichliebe

The words subjective and objective are such that we are prone to allow them to lead us up and down various garden paths. It is especially important, therefore, to keep an eye on their use in mundane contexts. — Banno

That the process leads to muddles. Keep it simple. There's more, but it's about Wittgenstein and stuff, so...

That the process leads to muddles. Keep it simple.  — Banno

That doesn't necessarily mean that Witgensteinian philosophy (or ordinary language philosophy - OLP) will clarify things any better.
For all we know, it could confuse things more, like with Descartes and Kant. Afterall, the fact that wittgenstein is dead and we're still talking means that OLP has yet to settle any of the central philosophical questions, and it's been around nearly 80 years...at least.

But, isn't that the crux of the debate here, to argue the merits of OLP against other methods and perspectives.

And the guiding topic that we are using to test OLP against other methods and perspectives is subject-object

And it is clear that you occupy the position described by Wayfarer:
...the assumed stance of naturalism, which assumes the perspective of the subject, attempting to arrive at as objective a view as possible, through eliminating everything other than what can be quantified

Or alternatively explaied, but identical in meaning

...views the subject-object quantitatively, as occupying the extreme ends of a gradient, which in turn represents the varying degrees of subjectivity and objectivity. Truth is found in objectivity, so the less subjective one becomes, the closer he is to obtaing truth
— Merkwurdichliebe — Merkwurdichliebe

Completely wrong.

I don't use the terms such that it is a matter of degree, such that something can be more or less objective. I don't try to reach as objective a view as possible. Objective view? That's Wayfarer's transparent attempt at using language that seems to imply a contradiction. I am not foolish enough to be trapped like that.

If you were unclear on something, you could have simply asked. I even encouraged you to do so. Yet you respond in this way, which is foolish.

we're still talking — Merkwurdichliebe

The problem here is of course simply that you have not accepted Wittgenstein's explanation.

I don't try to reach as objective a view as possible.  — S

Then what's up with your sick desperation in trying to convince everyone.

Oh, so this is just and evangelical attempt at conversion, how lame

And, what are you here talking for if you have accepted lord wittgenstein's great decree, Don't believe too much in authority, you'll get taken.

Shh!

Tcha!

That was a joke.

But apparently not

...

I laughed

(But you have taught me never to embellish my jokes, its lame)

Some few of us chose to remain behind, to help the flies out of the bottle...

And it gives me something to chew on while I watch the telly.

(...maybe I should re-phrase that... I'm not chewing on the flies... )

And it gives me something to chew on while I watch the telly. — Banno

Flies you mean?

(Edit: Lol)

Not you.

Poached Chicken, avocado mash, aioli, assorted greens, between multigrain.

The end result is the realisation that nothing can be said about the stuff that counts.

Silence.

But where's the fun in that?

Exactly, and your descriptions are right on

SO what now? I gather there has been some male fragility going on while I was meditating.

Did someone get kicked in the balls?

So what now? — Banno

I don't know. You're effectively the chair of the discussion. You tell us.

I objected to presenting an alternative definition of the term "objective" here on The Philosophy Forum, because it isn't what people typically mean in the context in which it's used here, which seems like an obvious problem. This ain't a science lab.

Then the other guy unhelpfully chimed in.

And now here we are.