Objectivity is shared subjectivity (tradition, beliefs, elder, evolution, America)

[coberst]

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”

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by coberst

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.

I've often argued against this existential crap - "I create my own reality" - by noting that the scientific method is based on replication and so everything is not subject to our observation. That is, if different scientists can replicate the same results using the same methods in labs all over the world, this is not a conicidence of "shared subjective experience" but objective observation of natural phenomenon that would replicate itself on its own if nature were to combine the same elements.

You should abandon this philosophical refuse for something more useful. Its pathetically empty BS, and nothing more.

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah, here is a test from Scottish common sense philosophy:

The nature of trains (eg., locomotives) is that they are made of a hard material that we call steel. The reality of steel is the same in China, America, and everywhere else in the world that produces steel. It is not subject to our personal interpretation of steel - steel is steel is steel.

If your personal interpretation of steel makes reality "real" to you, you are welcome to stand on rail-road tracks as a train is rushing toward you. If you can, you can perceive the train as a marshmellow and be saved, or you can be crushed by the objective reality of the train as it destroys your pathetic philosophy.

note:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

[JMoum04]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I've often argued against this existential crap - "I create my own reality" - by noting that the scientific method is based on replication and so everything is not subject to our observation. That is, if different scientists can replicate the same results using the same methods in labs all over the world, this is not a conicidence of "shared subjective experience" but objective observation of natural phenomenon that would replicate itself on its own if nature were to combine the same elements.

You should abandon this philosophical refuse for something more useful. Its pathetically empty BS, and nothing more.

Well maybe in the world of science, the philosophy isn't really applicable. But what makes you so sure there might not be some truth to it when it comes to our social perspectives or our perspectives of the world around us?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by jmoum

Well maybe in the world of science, the philosophy isn't really applicable. But what makes you so sure there might not be some truth to it when it comes to our social perspectives or our perspectives of the world around us?

Philosophy must interact with science or it has no place in history and cannot interact with us. Science tells us that we are actual beings - we exist natually - and we use scientific methods to understand everything in our world: or physiology, psychology, history, cosmology. Philosophy is nothing more than an interpretation of science (metaphysics is dead) and therefore must relate to it or it is utterly useless to us.

EDIT: I used the previous example because the existential philosophy of the OP makes a naturalistic claim that can be falsified by science. The naturalistic claim of the existential fool is that he can manipulate nature by his perception: 'reality is made real to me' implying that all reality is subject to perception. This foolish claim is easily falsified by a simple test: the challenge to subjectively perceive a train as a marshmellow before it crushes you.

A less threatening test would be to email me all your credit card numbers (only ones with very high available credit lines) and you can attempt for as long as you like to subjectively perceive that the debt disappears from my shopping spree at Elderly Music. (Some folks in PA subjectively actualize some excellent sounding guitars).

[angellous_evangellous]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

it is appropriate to ridicule the denial of common sense

[JMoum04]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Philosophy must interact with science or it has no place in history and cannot interact with us. Science tells us that we are actual beings - we exist natually - and we use scientific methods to understand everything in our world: or physiology, psychology, history, cosmology. Philosophy is nothing more than an interpretation of science (metaphysics is dead) and therefore must relate to it or it is utterly useless to us.

That's not entirely true. I mean yes, some of the very first philosophers tried to answer the scientific questions of the day, such as what are things made out of, why do some things float on water while others sink, etc. and so forth. However, philosophy doesn't have to always interact with science. For example, if you look at ethical philosophy, there is almost no (if any) scienetific basis behind the beliefs or the applications of the various schools of thought. So while philosophy can work with science, it is not always dependent upon science to be legitimate. Then again, some people would also debate whether philosophy is really legitimate to begin with . . .