There is also the fact that people sense things differently. IE some people can run faster then others. This is subjective to each person. Objectivity morality is to me senses that we all share. However each person is subjective. But objetivly to me is reconising what other people feel as well as you. But to an extent it is all subjective. Its objective when we can be pretty sure that we all feel it. I was worried the other day that I was creating everything around me to feel solid... haha
@TheaDragonSpirit - by this I mean I was creating what everyone though and how i feel everything... and therefor how I view it would change everything. Then I realised if this was true another person could never say something I didn't understand or didn't know... as I would know it. So there for I can know that at least there is one dimention above this one I don't understand. Could be god or could be matrix... I would say it was closer to Tai Chi's philosophy. Its interesting!
I am thinking relativity has overrun subjectivity. While relativity wants to do the thinking in language, subjectivity is closer to experience. And this is happening because our process of thinking is becoming more explicitly linguistic. Therefore inputable in computers. (As Lyotard says, our knowledge favors what can be put in the computers.)
I guess relativism (metaphysics) is eating up subjectivity (epistemology). And this is not good for moderns because epistemology was the modern project.
If "the idea of "sujbecitivity" is objective". I don't know how "subjectivity" can stand on its own.
The idea of "nebulous" and "subjectivity is closer to experience" are both pretty murky, and not useful as philosophy. At most we can say the language becomes approximate or we will project our thoughts on the nebulous.
I'm not sure where you are going with this but it is interesting. I wonder if you'd make a video on these thoughts. I don't think "subjectivity is closer to experience" is a murky or non-philosophical statment. I consider objectivity a subjective model of the material universe, so it seems correct to me.
I just think objective/subjective is not so interesting as absolute/relative (and here, I am not talking about the non-philosophical relativism. or called moral relativism.)
Actual experience has structure. We see a black cat and a white cat. Therefore The objects that are sensed has external reality. Otherwise, we have raw experience. Which means we don't even have sensing organs. (Because, sense organs are part of the external objects. Without two eyeballs we will not see things 3D.)
So, what do you think? Is the world nebulous or structured? If the world is nebulous then the language we use will also be nebulous. On the otherhand with the world is structured then the language is structured as well. Experience comes through language. It will be nice to think we are talking about something structured.
I think it's nebulous and structured... which to most desiring structure means it's ultimately nebulous, we exhaust the areas we can structure, and meet this ultimate limitation of the nebulous, or indeterminate.
Personaly, however, I think structure bounded by nebulosity is still structure, namely, local structure, which is enough to build a theory of material relativity on so I'm good with that and no more as a basis for feeling it's worthwhile ordering the universe in our minds.
Nebulous language gives us approximate language. While structured language gives us certain language.
A lot of nonphilosophers think that language is only nebulous.
But certainty can be a bit strange. For certainty to be true, we need to use this word "ideal". To speak of a horse we need to say "ideal horse". And in order to speak that one needs to speak of the "ideal world". Because "the ideal horse" exist only in the "ideal world". Plato here.
It is tempting to think that the world is completely mathematical. Especially in this virtual reality world. But we can also think of the world thoroughly linguisically.
Hey, anyone has problems with a non-Cartesian space-time world? I think its quite disturbing myself. But then the Reason leads me there. "The Ideal World" is where there are ideal dogs. Plato seems nuts to me.
Objective if it is truly objective then it is a certain knowledge. While subjective knowledge is approximation. (I guess, you can have absolute subjectivity as phenomenology.)
By the way, I just realized that mathematics is just another descriptive language. But the the spoken language and mathematics have so much tention.
objective does not mean structure, and subjective does not mean nebulous, and if anything, it would be reversed because objective truth is always known and incompletely formed for us, and all the s tructure we ascertain is between subjective experiences.
Wilfred Sellars once told me that you should not be too worried about circles in philosophy, its more important that the circles you make are as large as possible.
lol... I'm not familiar with him but... large circles are harder to recognize as circles, how would that be better?
I think classical western philosophy has tolerated too many cirlces, especially in epistemology, all to defend their desire to become Gods among ideas.
Your criticism may apply to geometric circles, but I believe Sellars meant hermeneutic circles. This is not circular reasoning whereby we simply prove what we originally thought, but rather the dialectical movement between our understanding and beings. Vide: "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."
I sent you an email: But I did not emphasize that when Heidegger put ontology "on its feet" (because traditional ontology is already standing on its head), he did not diminish your traditional view as much as he showed that it is not what is most primordial in experience.
(1/2) Great video! I completely agree with your position, and greatly appreciate the lucidity of your explanation.
Now, after having found out where to start in philosophy, as you evidently have, the next question is *how* does subjectivity produce its model of reality? What are the constraints?
Myself, I believe the constraints are computational, i.e. everything is made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
I would love to discuss the progression to simplicity, how it breaks back into complexity, and the whole theory and faith in unification and what may happen as well as how it seems now.
Other than that, cognitively (analagous to computationally but allowing for the possibility that our brains are not merely computational) objectivity simply is a theory we create out of our subjective experiences... i.e. it's a subset of subjectivity.
(2/2) One product of the computational constraint is the field of mathematics. Another is that of myth (as mythical conceptions can be characterized by their "archetypal" simplicity and generality).
I think of our model of objective reality is something very similar to a virtual reality, one rendered from an epistemological palette of geometric shapes, colors, emotions, faces, personalities, harmonies etc.
I'm very curious what you think about this metaphor, and the worldview it creates.
the subjective is within the objective and the objective is within the subjective love is the force that holds them together governments know this and so does the church thats why they school our children that is there subjective objective ,
I actually believe this, that is, it's part of my theory of objectivity that it contains us as objects... HOWEVER, a human epistemology is still inherently subjective... that's what we have to build from. At no point, building an "objective model" from subjective pieces does it becomes objective. Just like building a model of building from balsa... at no point does the resemblance of your model to the original mean the model is not made of balsa.
Correct me if this is wrong, but it goes something like this:
4% of mass energy content is normal matter (protons, neutrons and electrons). One eighth of that is optically visible. Another 23% is some other kind of matter we know very little about. The rest, 73% of the universe, is dark energy. And no one knows what that is either.
Eleven years ago, we did not even know that we did not know about 96% of the universe.
Agreed. Humility, it seems to me, is an underrated, underused component of philosophy.
I think from this whole debate it's easy to see how some people can get trapped in their "-ism", and defend it like a fortress, while all they are defending is the four walls and their own imprisonment within.
To stretch the analogy somewhat, I think it's better to be free to walk between fortresses, taking what you need from each.
I think it's going to become more and more obvious to them why this is not so... it's more fair to say that nihilists think anything goes, but even then, that's not really fair as the nihilist could say, "no, nothing goes", and the derivation of "anything goes" from "nothing goes" is, while I do believe it, a bit tricky.
It may be tricky but I believe it too. This reminds me of a conversation I once had where I was explaining why I wasn't agnostic only to be informed that I was (an "agnostic atheist" in fact) because agnostic means not having knowledge. However I pointed out that the definition that he gave me would make me technically agnostic about almost everything. A word that means everything is a word that means nothing, and I have no use for meaningless words. Hence I'm still not agnostic.
This has been flagged as spam show
thats kind of weird
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
thats kind of weird
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
This is a great video.
natedaug1 7 months ago
Really good pair of videos and sorry for commenting so late, haven't seen it earlier. I largely agree modulo insignificant nuance.
socrates856 1 year ago
There is also the fact that people sense things differently. IE some people can run faster then others. This is subjective to each person. Objectivity morality is to me senses that we all share. However each person is subjective. But objetivly to me is reconising what other people feel as well as you. But to an extent it is all subjective. Its objective when we can be pretty sure that we all feel it. I was worried the other day that I was creating everything around me to feel solid... haha
TheaDragonSpirit 1 year ago
@TheaDragonSpirit - by this I mean I was creating what everyone though and how i feel everything... and therefor how I view it would change everything. Then I realised if this was true another person could never say something I didn't understand or didn't know... as I would know it. So there for I can know that at least there is one dimention above this one I don't understand. Could be god or could be matrix... I would say it was closer to Tai Chi's philosophy. Its interesting!
TheaDragonSpirit 1 year ago
@TheaDragonSpirit - Zen Mind - watch?v=XK_4Z5DZcNM - Tai Chi philosophy: watch?v=fa74hPHOHCM
TheaDragonSpirit 1 year ago
great videos
asdfgasdfasdful 2 years ago
I am thinking relativity has overrun subjectivity. While relativity wants to do the thinking in language, subjectivity is closer to experience. And this is happening because our process of thinking is becoming more explicitly linguistic. Therefore inputable in computers. (As Lyotard says, our knowledge favors what can be put in the computers.)
Israe5l 2 years ago
I guess relativism (metaphysics) is eating up subjectivity (epistemology). And this is not good for moderns because epistemology was the modern project.
If "the idea of "sujbecitivity" is objective". I don't know how "subjectivity" can stand on its own.
Israe5l 2 years ago
The idea of "nebulous" and "subjectivity is closer to experience" are both pretty murky, and not useful as philosophy. At most we can say the language becomes approximate or we will project our thoughts on the nebulous.
Israe5l 2 years ago
I'm not sure where you are going with this but it is interesting. I wonder if you'd make a video on these thoughts. I don't think "subjectivity is closer to experience" is a murky or non-philosophical statment. I consider objectivity a subjective model of the material universe, so it seems correct to me.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
I just think objective/subjective is not so interesting as absolute/relative (and here, I am not talking about the non-philosophical relativism. or called moral relativism.)
Israe5l 2 years ago
The idea of "subjectivity" is objective.
Actual experience has structure. We see a black cat and a white cat. Therefore The objects that are sensed has external reality. Otherwise, we have raw experience. Which means we don't even have sensing organs. (Because, sense organs are part of the external objects. Without two eyeballs we will not see things 3D.)
Israe5l 2 years ago
So, what do you think? Is the world nebulous or structured? If the world is nebulous then the language we use will also be nebulous. On the otherhand with the world is structured then the language is structured as well. Experience comes through language. It will be nice to think we are talking about something structured.
Israe5l 2 years ago
I think it's nebulous and structured... which to most desiring structure means it's ultimately nebulous, we exhaust the areas we can structure, and meet this ultimate limitation of the nebulous, or indeterminate.
Personaly, however, I think structure bounded by nebulosity is still structure, namely, local structure, which is enough to build a theory of material relativity on so I'm good with that and no more as a basis for feeling it's worthwhile ordering the universe in our minds.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
agree on the first part.
Nebulous language gives us approximate language. While structured language gives us certain language.
A lot of nonphilosophers think that language is only nebulous.
But certainty can be a bit strange. For certainty to be true, we need to use this word "ideal". To speak of a horse we need to say "ideal horse". And in order to speak that one needs to speak of the "ideal world". Because "the ideal horse" exist only in the "ideal world". Plato here.
Israe5l 2 years ago
"Ideal world" does not mean Cartesian space-time.
It is tempting to think that the world is completely mathematical. Especially in this virtual reality world. But we can also think of the world thoroughly linguisically.
Israe5l 2 years ago
Hey, anyone has problems with a non-Cartesian space-time world? I think its quite disturbing myself. But then the Reason leads me there. "The Ideal World" is where there are ideal dogs. Plato seems nuts to me.
Israe5l 2 years ago
(objective=structure)/(subjective=nebulous)
Objective if it is truly objective then it is a certain knowledge. While subjective knowledge is approximation. (I guess, you can have absolute subjectivity as phenomenology.)
By the way, I just realized that mathematics is just another descriptive language. But the the spoken language and mathematics have so much tention.
Israe5l 2 years ago
objective does not mean structure, and subjective does not mean nebulous, and if anything, it would be reversed because objective truth is always known and incompletely formed for us, and all the s tructure we ascertain is between subjective experiences.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Ok, structure and nebulous are ontological terms while objective and subjective are epistemological terms. They go hand in hand tho.
Objective has structure in it. While subjective creates the description of its nebulous object.
Nebulous objects after transformation by the subject turns into objective objects.
Israe5l 2 years ago
Wilfred Sellars once told me that you should not be too worried about circles in philosophy, its more important that the circles you make are as large as possible.
notonewhit 2 years ago
lol... I'm not familiar with him but... large circles are harder to recognize as circles, how would that be better?
I think classical western philosophy has tolerated too many cirlces, especially in epistemology, all to defend their desire to become Gods among ideas.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
Your criticism may apply to geometric circles, but I believe Sellars meant hermeneutic circles. This is not circular reasoning whereby we simply prove what we originally thought, but rather the dialectical movement between our understanding and beings. Vide: "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."
T. S. Eliot
notonewhit 2 years ago
well that sounds good, I think of it like spiraling in, there is definitely cycle. Sounds interesting.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
I sent you an email: But I did not emphasize that when Heidegger put ontology "on its feet" (because traditional ontology is already standing on its head), he did not diminish your traditional view as much as he showed that it is not what is most primordial in experience.
notonewhit 2 years ago
I didn't get it... !
maybe it'll show in a bit... but the thing is, my view on this is not traditional.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
good fucking video. favourited
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago
(1/2) Great video! I completely agree with your position, and greatly appreciate the lucidity of your explanation.
Now, after having found out where to start in philosophy, as you evidently have, the next question is *how* does subjectivity produce its model of reality? What are the constraints?
Myself, I believe the constraints are computational, i.e. everything is made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
demrings 3 years ago
I would love to discuss the progression to simplicity, how it breaks back into complexity, and the whole theory and faith in unification and what may happen as well as how it seems now.
Other than that, cognitively (analagous to computationally but allowing for the possibility that our brains are not merely computational) objectivity simply is a theory we create out of our subjective experiences... i.e. it's a subset of subjectivity.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
The first part of my comment got lost somehow? That's annoying. I'll try to rewrite it tomorrow.
demrings 3 years ago
(2/2) One product of the computational constraint is the field of mathematics. Another is that of myth (as mythical conceptions can be characterized by their "archetypal" simplicity and generality).
I think of our model of objective reality is something very similar to a virtual reality, one rendered from an epistemological palette of geometric shapes, colors, emotions, faces, personalities, harmonies etc.
I'm very curious what you think about this metaphor, and the worldview it creates.
demrings 3 years ago
it brings the whole archityple psychomotor into view and makes higher sense of it
cardellacole1 4 years ago
within its self above as it is below read my intro
cardellacole1 4 years ago
the subjective is within the objective and the objective is within the subjective love is the force that holds them together governments know this and so does the church thats why they school our children that is there subjective objective ,
cardellacole1 4 years ago
I actually believe this, that is, it's part of my theory of objectivity that it contains us as objects... HOWEVER, a human epistemology is still inherently subjective... that's what we have to build from. At no point, building an "objective model" from subjective pieces does it becomes objective. Just like building a model of building from balsa... at no point does the resemblance of your model to the original mean the model is not made of balsa.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Correct me if this is wrong, but it goes something like this:
4% of mass energy content is normal matter (protons, neutrons and electrons). One eighth of that is optically visible. Another 23% is some other kind of matter we know very little about. The rest, 73% of the universe, is dark energy. And no one knows what that is either.
Eleven years ago, we did not even know that we did not know about 96% of the universe.
bipolarcooksoldlady 4 years ago
Agreed. Humility, it seems to me, is an underrated, underused component of philosophy.
I think from this whole debate it's easy to see how some people can get trapped in their "-ism", and defend it like a fortress, while all they are defending is the four walls and their own imprisonment within.
To stretch the analogy somewhat, I think it's better to be free to walk between fortresses, taking what you need from each.
iamkarl 4 years ago
It was worth it :-)
tvfrihed 4 years ago
*sigh*... subjectivity "comes" first? I'm willing to bet they occur simultaneously. It's good to see another human being...being.
rrawwbb 4 years ago
exactly: both three points of view have their validity ;) here is to the future senses. will the real asymptote of approximation stand up? ;)
jogayot 4 years ago
I find that same thing in Moral Objectivists in that they think Subjectivism means "anything goes."
CousinoMacul 4 years ago
I think it's going to become more and more obvious to them why this is not so... it's more fair to say that nihilists think anything goes, but even then, that's not really fair as the nihilist could say, "no, nothing goes", and the derivation of "anything goes" from "nothing goes" is, while I do believe it, a bit tricky.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
It may be tricky but I believe it too. This reminds me of a conversation I once had where I was explaining why I wasn't agnostic only to be informed that I was (an "agnostic atheist" in fact) because agnostic means not having knowledge. However I pointed out that the definition that he gave me would make me technically agnostic about almost everything. A word that means everything is a word that means nothing, and I have no use for meaningless words. Hence I'm still not agnostic.
CousinoMacul 4 years ago