Subjective problems with philosophies on Morals and ethic such as Moral Tralism

[PureX]

I know that I may be intruding, but I want to put my two cents into this pot. We are talking about perceiving and understanding here. Any act of perceiving and understanding has an animate perceiver/understander (the “subject”) and that which is perceived or understood (the “object”), which may be a material or non-material object, a phenomenon, or a set of circumstances. That being taken, “subjective” simply means an act of perceiving and/or understanding which “pertains to the subject”, or more expansively, it is the appearance of the object as perceived and understood from the subject’s perspective, as it’s abilities to perceive (physically sense) and understand (mentally assess) the object dictate. In contrast, “objective” means “pertaining to the object, the object, phenomenon, or set of circumstances in question. It refers to the object of the act of perceiving and understanding as it actually is, without the limitations caused by the subject’s abilities to perceive (physically sense) and understand (mentally assess) being involved. To myself, that is what is meant by the terms subjective and objective.

The difficulty is that the latter isn't possible without the former. The subject is perceiving the object, always. And the object is always being perceived. "As it actually is" is always a subjective assessment of an "objective" phenomena. In fact, objectivity itself is a subjectively applied determination.

We are aware that our perception of the world around us is often not accurate, yet we can only compare and contrast it with past perceptions of it (which may also be inaccurate) to try and ascertain any discrepancies. It's a very weak system in terms of producing an accurate grasp of the world.

 

[Zwing]

Well, yes. That is a part of it. But it also gets used as to how something exists and connects to the idea of real, reality and so on.

I see no need to complicate the matter of our perceptions, which is complicated enough, unless one is doing formal or professional philosophy, that is.

 

[Zwing]

difficulty is that the latter isn't possible without the former. The subject is perceiving the object, always. And the object is always being perceived. "As it actually is" is always a subjective assessment of an "objective" phenomena. In fact, objectivity itself is a subjectively applied determination.

Quite true, but there are many avenues towards objectivity, such as the use of technology to improve our perception, theorization based upon discovery, thought experimentation, etc., etc… Our perceptions will always be subjective in nature, but our understanding departs from our naked perceptions and attains greater objectivity as we learn more about reality and are able to further contextualize the objects of our scrutiny.

 

[MikeF]

Okay, this is going to be long. Because no word is in itself, but rather all words are interconnected as an understanding for those humans, who have the cognition to do so.
But there are several ways to do that understanding and this post in one, but not the only way to do.

Using analytical and phenomenological philosophy integrating in effect biology and more broadly cause and effect, I can make the following model of the universe where the model is a part of the universe and not independent of the universe.
The universe is assumed to be real, orderly and knowable, but not objective or subjective as only the one or the other.
Rather if I say I know something I account for all 3 parts of I know something.

So how does that work for objective and subjective if I include cause and effect and biology?
Well, first version for the 5 senses as objective:
2a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So something objective is an experience not caused by the brain, but coming to the brain/mind. I will add biology more in depth latter.
Then there is the other version of objective, which is not objective as the first version but rather non-objective in the above sense.
1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. Again MW.
Notice express or deal. Those are active human behaviors, they cause something and they require a brain. They are not independent of the brain/mind.

Then there are the standard ones for subjective, again subjective as per MW.
3a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL compare OBJECTIVE sense 2a
b: relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4a(1): peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL
(2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
c: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes

And now comes the joke for cause and effect. If all causes are objective as independent for brains/minds then they, brains/minds, can't work, because they can't cause any behavior, but they do. You are reading the result of one such case right now.

So the biology part of the replication of the fittest genes and the organism, who do that.
In a proto sense all life is subjective as all processes are in the organism and not independent of the organism.
Now here are the 4 classes of behavior for life in general for which only humans match all 4.
-"Automated" behavior.
-Behavior learned to testing out the behavior, e.g. higher motor skills.
-Behavior learned by mimicking and then internalizing the behavior.
-Behavior using abstract signs learned by internalizing the behavior as meaning and understanding.

And now comes the joke of Western culture. Objectivity is so useful to what we do, that some of us have learned the folk belief that everything can be done objectively, because objectivity is better than subjectivity.
Well, no. Everything is not objective. Rather if something is subjective, then someone can claim it is objective and get away with that, because they can do it subjectively. But I can catch that for my model and do it differently.

So this model is a model in the landscape of both the model and landscape as parts of the same.
So now feelings about independent. I hate that word in philosophy as the folk dualism of objective reality is independent of the brain/mind as really independent, because it end up being impossible to explain for cause and effect.
But in the broad sense it is the same dualism some people use for objective and subjective.

So back to I know something. I can know something is subjective and I describe it as subjective as I. I just have to understand that I am describing a relationship in 3 parts: I know something and some of it is objective in relationship to my mind, but not independent in toto.

For objectivity, and as relates to our discussions, I think we are on the same page using the definition 2a above:

“of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.”

I think you get a little off track, though, when you say: “If all causes are objective as independent for brains/minds then they, brains/minds, can't work, because they can't cause any behavior, but they do.”

Per definition 2a, the neuro-physiology of any person is an objective and physical phenomenon in reality. The central nervous system is an objectively existing system that controls an objective physical body that in turn objectively interacts with its objective environment. When definition 2a refers to phenomena independent of individual thought, the thought that is being referenced is that of the observers, not the subject individual under observation. In other words, as an example, observers of the subject individual can observe (with instrumentation) objective neuronal activity in the CNS that produces specific objective movements of the body, or certain visual stimulations that can cause specific neuronal activity in specific regions of the subject's brain. These are perceptible by all observers and are independent of the *observers* individual thought.

The subjective thoughts, therefore, of the observed subject individual *can* be the cause of objective phenomena in reality.

As to the definitions provided for ‘subjective’, I don’t have any problem with them. What is subjective essentially boils down to the *contents* of the thoughts of the observed subject individual.

I wanted to quickly address this comment:

because objectivity is better than subjectivity.

It is not about objectivity being better or worse than subjectivity. It is simply about keeping track of the difference. It is ok and appropriate to want to distinguish what constitutes objective reality and to verify whether or not something we think is objective actually is objective.

 

[MikeF]

I know that I may be intruding, but I want to put my two cents into this pot. We are talking about perceiving and understanding here. Any act of perceiving and understanding has an animate perceiver/understander (the “subject”) and that which is perceived or understood (the “object”), which may be a material or non-material object, a phenomenon, or a set of circumstances. That being taken, “subjective” simply means an act of perceiving and/or understanding which “pertains to the subject”, or more expansively, it is the appearance of the object as perceived and understood from the subject’s perspective, as it’s abilities to perceive (physically sense) and understand (mentally assess) the object dictate. In contrast, “objective” means “pertaining to the object, the object, phenomenon, or set of circumstances in question. It refers to the object of the act of perceiving and understanding as it actually is, without the limitations caused by the subject’s abilities to perceive (physically sense) and understand (mentally assess) being involved. To myself, that is what is meant by the terms subjective and objective.

Sounds good to me.

(No problem jumping in. All are welcome)

 

[PureX]

Quite true, but there are many avenues towards objectivity, such as the use of technology to improve our perception, theorization based upon discovery, thought experimentation, etc., etc… Our perceptions will always be subjective in nature, but our understanding departs from our naked perceptions and attains greater objectivity as we learn more about reality and are able to further contextualize the objects of our scrutiny.

We don't actually know that, though. All these methods you mention are as likely to confirm our error/bias as to enlighten us objectively because they are based on a subjectively assessed "object paradigm" to begin with.

In philosophy it is said that all we can ever know for sure is that, "I think therefor I am". Because everything that comes after that is me thinking. That I think is self-evident. What I think is speculation.

 

[MikeF]

We don't actually know that, though. All these methods you mention are as likely to confirm our error/bias as to enlighten us objectively because they are based on a subjectively assessed "object paradigm" to begin with.

In philosophy it is said that all we can ever know for sure is that, "I think therefor I am". Because everything that comes after that is me thinking. That I think is self-evident. What I think is speculation.

We can have some sense of objectivity. Our model of reality is not mere unsupported speculation. I think you know this quite well. We would not have the level of "functionality" (one of your favorite terms) that we have if we were wholly unable to discern reality in a consistent and predictable way.

The greater our understanding of how the world works has done little to change our perceived reality. The world of our macroscopic perception is essentially the same as it has been for every generation before us. I'm not sure what it is you assume we are not seeing, and whatever it may be, whether it actually matters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For objectivity, and as relates to our discussions, I think we are on the same page using the definition 2a above:

“of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.”

I think you get a little off track, though, when you say: “If all causes are objective as independent for brains/minds then they, brains/minds, can't work, because they can't cause any behavior, but they do.”

Per definition 2a, the neuro-physiology of any person is an objective and physical phenomenon in reality. The central nervous system is an objectively existing system that controls an objective physical body that in turn objectively interacts with its objective environment. When definition 2a refers to phenomena independent of individual thought, the thought that is being referenced is that of the observers, not the subject individual under observation. In other words, as an example, observers of the subject individual can observe (with instrumentation) objective neuronal activity in the CNS that produces specific objective movements of the body, or certain visual stimulations that can cause specific neuronal activity in specific regions of the subject's brain. These are perceptible by all observers and are independent of the *observers* individual thought.

The subjective thoughts, therefore, of the observed subject individual *can* be the cause of objective phenomena in reality.

As to the definitions provided for ‘subjective’, I don’t have any problem with them. What is subjective essentially boils down to the *contents* of the thoughts of the observed subject individual.

I wanted to quickly address this comment:



It is not about objectivity being better or worse than subjectivity. It is simply about keeping track of the difference. It is ok and appropriate to want to distinguish what constitutes objective reality and to verify whether or not something we think is objective actually is objective.

So you agree with this definition:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.
And this:
arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli

Those 2 are in contradiction in effect.

 

[PureX]

We can have some sense of objectivity.

Just as we can have "some sense" of God. And justice. And beauty, and truth. The point is that we live inside an envelop of our own cognitive design. And even as we claim to be seeking the "objective truth" of things, all we're really seeking is a cohesive, functional theory about whatever exists outside and beyond ourselves.

"Some sense of" is NOT a definition of objective truth by any stretch of the meaning. "Some sense of" is a distinctly 'subjective' for of reality.

Our model of reality is not mere unsupported speculation.

But unfortunately for us, what support is has remains entirely subjective. Inventing a new gizmo to make our fingers longer or our eyes sharper or our ears more acute doesn't change the simple fact that we are just extending the same flawed apprehension mechanisms that were already there. And the new input is still being sifted through by the same brains. Using the same vision of reality and truth to decipher that information and to make it "make sense to us", as always.

I think you know this quite well. We would not have the level of "functionality" (one of your favorite terms) that we have if we were wholly unable to discern reality in a consistent and predictable way.

Functional knowledge is useful, but it's dangerous without the accompaniment of existential knowledge (wisdom).

The greater our understanding of how the world works has done little to change our perceived reality.

Yes, and we are now in danger of destroying ourselves as a result. Understanding how the world works without understanding why it exists in the first place is a recipe for disaster.

The world of our macroscopic perception is essentially the same as it has been for every generation before us. I'm not sure what it is you assume we are not seeing, and whatever it may be, whether it actually matters.

The world is the same. We are the same. The tools and weapons we wield, however, are not.

 

[MikeF]

So you agree with this definition:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.
And this:
arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli

Those 2 are in contradiction in effect.

I'm not seeing the contradiction. Your first highlighted bit concerns what constitutes being objective, correct? Remember, when the phenomenon under observation is the neuro-physiology of an individual subject, we must differentiate between the thoughts of the subject individual and the thoughts of observers. If your complaint is that the observers cannot perceive independent of thought, I do not disagree. The thoughts of any one individual should be considered subjective. However, that is why we have the principles and standards of scientific inquiry, to actively mitigate the subjective nature of any one fallible human observer by a variety of means, including not relying on a single subjective observer. If you see in definition 2a it specifically refers to plural observers. We gain objectivity through intersubjective corroboration and by the use of other means and methods to identify and mitigate sources of human error in the observation and investigative process.

Your second highlighted text is from one of the dictionary sub-definitions of 'subjective'. This definition is specifically referencing the content of the thoughts of an individual subject. The meaning or content of the abstractions of thought are subjective.

Your two highlighted segments are not referring to the same thing, in my opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not seeing the contradiction. Your first highlighted bit concerns what constitutes being objective, correct? Remember, when the phenomenon under observation is the neuro-physiology of an individual subject, we must differentiate between the thoughts of the subject individual and the thoughts of observers. If your complaint is that the observers cannot perceive independent of thought, I do not disagree. The thoughts of any one individual should be considered subjective. However, that is why we have the principles and standards of scientific inquiry, to actively mitigate the subjective nature of any one fallible human observer by a variety of means, including not relying on a single subjective observer. If you see in definition 2a it specifically refers to plural observers. We gain objectivity through intersubjective corroboration and by the use of other means and methods to identify and mitigate sources of human error in the observation and investigative process.

Your second highlighted text is from one of the dictionary sub-definitions of 'subjective'. This definition is specifically referencing the content of the thoughts of an individual subject. The meaning or content of the abstractions of thought are subjective.

Your two highlighted segments are not referring to the same thing, in my opinion.

Yes, there are no individual thoughts in individual brains. Right, because that is what you are claiming.
independent of individual thought versus the thoughts of an individual subject.

 

[MikeF]

But unfortunately for us, what support is has remains entirely subjective.

I contend that we have means and methods to get beyond our individual subjective nature. We have learned how to mitigate our biological limitations and other fallibilities and biases. That is what a scientific approach provides. So while I agree with your comments about subjectivity on the individual level, we have means of moving past subjective personal observation and understanding.

Functional knowledge is useful, but it's dangerous without the accompaniment of existential knowledge (wisdom).

Yes, and we are now in danger of destroying ourselves as a result. Understanding how the world works without understanding why it exists in the first place is a recipe for disaster.

The world is the same. We are the same. The tools and weapons we wield, however, are not.

I agree with much of the sentiment above. It is a common theme from you. I don't think there will ever be an answer as to why reality exists so we cannot rely on that as a means of saving us from disaster. We are here and we have to make the best of it on our own, not rely on a hail mary rescue from mythical entities or other sources outside of humanity itself. If we don't succeed it'll just be too bad for us. (but more likely too bad for our decendents, which is a contributing factor to why non-acute chronic problems grow. They do not come due on our watch.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I contend that we have means and methods to get beyond our individual subjective nature. We have learned how to mitigate our biological limitations and other fallibilities and biases. That is what a scientific approach provides. So while I agree with your comments about subjectivity on the individual level, we have means of moving past simple personal observation and understanding.
...

Yeah, if you have solved the reason how come science is based on methodological naturalism, please explain how you have actually done it and not just claim it.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, there are no individual thoughts in individual brains. Right, because that is what you are claiming.
independent of individual thought versus the thoughts of an individual subject.

I guess you are struggling with the concept. And it is not just me claiming it. You got the definition out of the dictionary for heaven's sake.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess you are struggling with the concept. And it is not just me claiming it. You got the definition out of the dictionary for heaven's sake.

Okay, I see a cat. That I see it, doesn't mean that the cat is in my brain. The cat is independent of my individual thoughts and brain. We agree on that.
I then notice that when I choose to write something I consider my thoughts as to what I ought to write. That is not independent of my brain and my thoughts. It is in my brain and thus not independent of individual thoughts.
Now you claim that my thoughts are independent of my thoughts and observable by external sensory experience by all humans.
In effect you are claiming you can read thoughts as you.

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, if you have solved the reason how come science is based on methodological naturalism, please explain how you have actually done it and not just claim it.

I don't know what baggage is contained in the philosophical concept of methodological naturalism, but it is not something I identify with or ascribe to. My comments are what they are and can be judged or criticized on their own merits or lack thereof.

I don't know to what "reason" you refer or what specifically you say I have claimed to solve.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what baggage is contained in the philosophical concept of methodological naturalism, but it is not something I identify with or ascribe to. My comments are what they are and can be judged or criticized on their own merits or lack thereof.

I don't know to what "reason" you refer or what specifically you say I have claimed to solve.

You claim to be able to prove what objective reality is in itself as independent of your mind. That is the end game of your belief system.
You are a product of culture as much as everybody else. You just think you have solved something nobody in recorded history have solved.

 

[MikeF]

You claim to be able to prove what objective reality is in itself as independent of your mind. That is the end game of your belief system.
You are a product of culture as much as everybody else. You just think you have solved something nobody in recorded history have solved.

Wow. Really? You think all those folks currently engaged in scientific pursuits have no expectation of finding objective answers to their questions? Also be aware that I have never once claimed that subjectivity has ever been solved or eliminated, I only claim that it can be mitigated. This is still significant as knowledge acquisition is an incremental process. Our objective understanding improves and becomes more refined over time.

You keep bringing it back to me, but the process I describe has nothing to do with me, but is the product of generations of very bright women and men. I think their track record of success speaks for itself as to the efficacy of this approach in making progress understanding the objective world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wow. Really? You think all those folks currently engaged in scientific pursuits have no expectation of finding objective answers to their questions? Also be aware that I have never once claimed that subjectivity has ever been solved or eliminated, I only claim that it can be mitigated. This is still significant as knowledge acquisition is an incremental process. Our objective understanding improves and becomes more refined over time.

You keep bringing it back to me, but the process I describe has nothing to do with me, but is the product of generations of very bright women and men. I think their track record of success speaks for itself as to the efficacy of this approach in making progress understanding the objective world.

Yeah, something subjective as dependent on individual thought is independent of individual thought.
So for the philosophy of what objective reality is in itself, I will leave that for another moment.

 

[PureX]

I contend that we have means and methods to get beyond our individual subjective nature. We have learned how to mitigate our biological limitations and other fallibilities and biases. That is what a scientific approach provides. So while I agree with your comments about subjectivity on the individual level, we have means of moving past subjective personal observation and understanding.

What you aren't grasping is that any information that comes to us, regardless of the means, it's still we who are fitting it into our already preconceived idea of what the world external to ourselves, is. And there is no way to escape this. That preconceived external worldview determines what questions we ask, how we explore them, and how we interpret what we discover. The bias of that is so huge and overwhelming that we can't even see it. Any information that does not fit into that "objective world" paradigm we live in does not even get recognized. We can't even formulate a question that isn't already 90% planted within our field of presumed "answers".

I agree with much of the sentiment above. It is a common theme from you. I don't think there will ever be an answer as to why reality exists so we cannot rely on that as a means of saving us from disaster.

That's because you want an "objective" answer. And that's a fool's demand. We need to face this fact of the matter and begin to look to other methods and means BESIDES SCIENCE for the wisdom we need to seek.

Right now, our whole global culture is obsessed with money and technology. The twin 'false gods' that everyone believes will save them from themselves, and from each other, and from the looming catastrophe. When in fact all they do is keep making everything more dangerous, and more brutal, as we become more and more stupid. We've relegated art to the role of entertainment, religion to mindless social superstition, philosophy to utter uselessness and politics to blatant boorishness. Humanity's salvation now rest entirely on the accumulation of wealth and the magic of "science". Or so we seem to believe.

God help us all!

We are here and we have to make the best of it on our own, not rely on a hail mary rescue from mythical entities or other sources outside of humanity itself.

I agree. But we've rejected and pimped out all the traditional means humanity had of looking into itself, and seeking value and wisdom from within. Now all we seek is wealth and technology.

If we don't succeed it'll just be too bad for us. (but more likely too bad for our decendents, which is a contributing factor to why non-acute chronic problems grow. They do not come due on our watch.)

We've become stupid and selfish to the point of just not caring about the future of humanity. Not even our own progeny.