Objectivity is relatively simple

Demonstrably false. Anything actually known to be true is known specifically because it can be tested and verified by anyone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I understand better than you think. "I exist", is that not the most obvious conclusion that we all reach? You can pull any idiot off the street who agrees. It's easy for me to concede to that, I had only wished to discuss the possibility that maybe it's not so.

If our discussion had continued maybe we would have found ourselves, once again, discussing qualia and how that, more than anything else, is the only real confirmation of our experiences. Eliminate qualia and you can effectively eliminate the self.

I also wished to purvey the same awe I have over the possibility a mathematical conclusion of our universe would have no real semantic meaning to us. We would continue to use concept to help visualize these proofs but no matter what model we use it'd be inadequate to the real concept behind those numbers. Certainly we could say this "list of equations" explains what consciousness and experiences are, but to assign a meaning other than what it is essentially (what is math?) would be fallacy.


"I don't know what thought is, therefore I don't know what I am"
"I don't know what existence is, therefore I don't know if I exist"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How many tests can a layman perform? Very, very few.
Most of the things that a person considers "true," she takes on faith from those who claim to have performed the experiments, or from from those who claim they trust those who claime to have performed the experiments. Esp. scientific "truths."

The scientific method sounds extremely promising in theory, but for all practical intents and purposes, is impossible to carry out for an actual person with limited time and resources.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Philosophical certainty: knowing the absolute truth (- that would require omniscience).
Psychological certainty: believing that one knows the absolute truth.

The point is psycho-social wellbeing:
Humans are not at ease when they feel uncertain, and they try to end the uncertainty somehow, by seeking truth, clarity.
As social beings, humans also have a need to think and feel in synchronisation with other humans, and are generally not at ease when there are differences.

That works fine in a relatively homogenous monoculture, but it breaks down in a modern multicultural society.

Things that are completely unproblematic in a monoculture, may become highly contentious when that monoculture morphs into a multiculture (such as by immigration).
Epistemological principles that earlier on everyone took for granted, are now questioned.
This brings up problems in communication, people become more easily confused, unease, distrusting, tired, stressed-out, hopeless.
We can't just let such things pass.

 

I'll grant you one thing: When someone speaks in a hostile-sounding, objectivist tone, I feel intimidated, and then become defensive, which can show as lack of clarity.

You indeed tend to speak in an objectivist tone, as if what you say wouldn't be merely your opinion, but something more.

I am very fond of defining terms and formulating an argument in the form of premises (to the point that some people here think that it is awkward).
But yes, I do have an issue with being negatively affected by pressure from others.



(As for the definitions, see my replies to MoM.)

 

it is what enabled that sentence
trivially speaking that is

not knowing what thought is does not preclude you from having them
how you care to define yourself is dependent on the thought

i think____________ therefore i am ________________

i think about my son therefore i am a dad

oh dear

 

I'll take this to the Cogito thread - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113329

Gustav - see you in the other thread too.

 

Any layman is free to study up and learn how to perform any test he may wish. If the possibility reasonably exists then you must assume all knowledge can be so known. You cannot present a generality which can so easily be shown false.

Like I've already said, you're not discussing objectivity here, you're discussing epistemology of the individual, and you have yet to connect the two.

Sounds like a personal problem.

Actually, being so isolated wouldn't provide you with any way to distinguish your subjective experience. Objectivity mean not only that people agree with you, but that they would agree if they performed that same tests you have.

 

This seems wrong. How anyone could know they are omniscient? How could they possibly know there wasn't one tiny, itsibitsy little thing they were ignorant of, knowledge of which would turn them inside-out?

In any event, if objective truth is about real facts then the proof of the pudding is whether our body of knowledge is useful, and most definitely it is. Whether or not it is absolute truth, whether we can ultimately know that we know what we know, seems irrelevant in the real world outside philosophers’ ivory towers.

Richard Feynman made a little joke about philosophers who get trapped like bunnies in headlights. youtube keywords "Richard Feynman on hungry philosophers (or do we see objects or only their light)"

 

Like I said earlier:
Objectivity is about knowing; and issues of knowing are a matter of epistemology.

It is only a particular person who knows things. Knowledge of things doesn't just somehow exist on its own, regardless of any knower.

While I agree that it is an important skill to be able to keep one's cool even (and esp.) when dealing with hostile people, this in no way makes hostility acceptable.

It is an impossible scenario to begin with. A human baby cannot survive on its own.

Humans seem to exist in a paradoxical predicament: On the one hand, we are aware that we are bound to subjectivity; and on the other hand, we seek objectivity.

 

Some of us already established that philosophical certainty as defined earlier is impossible for humans. It is, however, often assumed or desired.

I think that philosophy is actually the most practical, the most pragmatic discipline there is.

Granted, it's easy to lose one's way if we take the philosophical route, hence all that about ivory towers and not being able to endure a toothache.

But if we posit that a human's best chances to find meaning and satisfaction in life is via action, then the proper understanding that precedes action is of vital importance, and philosophy is necessary for that understanding.

 

Can you demonstrate here?

Yes and no.

To me the value of philosophy is in the process, not the end result. In other words no philosophical conclusion should ever be taken as more than one tentative theory amongst others. Otherwise philosophy becomes a religion, a belief that the world can be explained purely by theorizing from the comfort of our armchair, a belief in absolutes based on squidgy constructs which might even be incoherent and meaningless outside our species or culture.

I guess I'm a pragmatist, believing that to gain real knowledge means having to get our hands dirty. I mean we know how to be objective, it’s called the scientific method. It's not perfect especially when studying ourselves, but it's pretty good when it comes to dealing with things objectively.

 

First, you don't seem to have differentiated objectivity from subjectivity, so you seem to hold to an agnostic epistemology. Do you even have ANY means to judge the truth value of anything? Or is your world a big, vague, and perpetually mysterious place? You cannot make any supportable claims from such a position.

Second, you've just created a false dilemma. You're saying that if one individual cannot know all (be omniscient) then none of the knowledge that people have come by directly implies anything of knowledge in general. The opposite is actually true. It is because each fact can be directly known and verified by some people that we can have any confidence in objective truth values at all.

You seem to labor under a very uncertain solipsism, where you judge the entirety of knowledge solely on what you can personally have direct knowledge of. Sounds like an excuse not to learn.

Still a personal problem, as the only hostility here has been inferred by you, not implied by me. Do not be so naive as to assume a challenge to your assertions is anything other than just that. If you make assertions, you are expected to support them. Incapable of that much, you should have the good sense to withdraw them.

Blatant straw man argument. The question is isolation from human social contact, not complete, ad absurdum isolation. You still have yet to support your solipsist view.