|
|
#1 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
Objectivity is shared subjectivity
Everything we perceive is dependent upon our biological nature and reality has meaning only in what our sense and perception biology provide us. Real for me is only what I perceive to be real. Someone said that objectivity is shared subjectivity; this phrase resonates for me; really. What we can say about reality is based upon our shared objectivity, it does not say anything significant about reality in-it-self, except in its constancy, but it is significant in that we humans share it universally; it is reality-for-humans Each different comprehension of a situation provides a commitment to what is real about a situation. Each such real commitment is a version of a commitment to truth. The arts and the sciences endeavor to discover and communicate to the world the meaning of reality. There came a time in the evolution of the human psychic when we became semantic creatures; we discovered the power of symbolic representation of events. Art focuses on the inner reality of the subject whereas science focused on the reality that was external to the subject. “From this traditionalist standpoint information and the perception of meaning in the information is the central content of both arts and sciences. Hence when we speak of progress in the arts and sciences we can really refer to only one thing, namely that progress is taking place as long as the sum total of meaningful artistic and scientific statements waxes.” “The Coming of the Golden Age” by Gunther Stent What we mean by “real” is what we need to postulate conceptually in order to be realistic, i.e., in order to function successfully to survive, to achieve ends, and to arrive at a workable understanding of the situation we are in. (Example—“verb”, “concept”, “image schema”, “energy” “charge”—none can be directly observed but play a crucial role in our understanding). “Philosophy in the Flesh” |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4
|
ok i'm totally new to this, but here's an attempt to further your argument:
Would it be correct to say that our perceptions of reality are all we have to make scientific inferences (by the scientific method), and since our perceptions are shared and subjective, then the so called 'objective' scientific method is built on such subjectivity? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Super Scooter Happy
|
Of course all "objectivity" is based on what we percieve as reality. It's the practical thing to do. Why would it makes sense to acknowledge that the entirety of humanity may be suffereing from simultaneous multi-sense mass hallucination or that what we percieve may not be the case in an alternate universe every time we "prove" a "fact"? What's the point? The only thing you're doing is trying to be right purely for the sake of being right, which isn't helpful or meaningful in the slightest.
Incidentally, this is why all the recent relativism and objectivity arguing that's been going on lately is a waste of time and space and why I'm disappointed in CT for being so goddamn stupid.
__________________
I watched clouds awobbly from the floor o' that kayak. Souls cross ages like clouds cross skies, an' tho' a cloud's shape nor hue nor size don't stay the same, it's still a cloud an' so is a soul. Who can say where the cloud's blowed from or who the soul'll be 'morrow? Only Sonmi the east an' the west an' the compass an' the atlas, yay, only the atlas o' clouds. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 256
|
Quote:
If we could list all the things that all normal humans share we could then say anything out side of this container of objectivity is subjective. Perhaps the container of objectivity contains 1000 things and we found one thing in a particular situation that was out side this container. Then would the matter under consideration to be objective or subjective? I would be inclined to say that the difference between objective and subjective is a matter of degree. Some things would be very, very, subjective whereas some things might be only somewhat slightly subjective. I think that we might recognize that everything is subjective to some degree. I am inclined to say that a professional physicist who is very careful and is not dealing with something that impinges on her ideology would make most measurements in only a very small subjective way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | ||
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
Quote:
You see, sure, this may be true. However, this doesn't mean it's going to do us any good. This is exactly why you need a sort of primer that lays the foundation for not just your reality, but everyones reality so you don't end up with bogus interpretations of data. Basically, we need to develop rules that we need to follow in order to remain objective within a context that is practical, IE the scientific method. I don't mind philosophy. I actually do like it, but I suppose some people here are sick of it >.>
__________________
|
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|