Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Sculptor1]

I certainly agree with Tamminen. There is no world without subjects.

And yet the earth will abide regardless of humans; began before we existed and shall persist long after we are extinct.

[RJG]

I certainly agree with Tamminen. There is no [perceived] world without subjects.

"[perceived]" inserted by RJG for clarity.

You mean to say "There is no perceived world without subjects." ...right?

A "perceived world" is not the same as a "real world", ...true?

Falsely conflating the "perceived world" (subjective) as the real "world" (objective) is the error in Tamminen's philosophy.

[Tamminen]

I'd like to see your logical proof (reductio ad absurdum)!

In fact we cannot apply logic in the normal way to prove that logic cannot be applied to the world without subjects. We can only try to show a way of seeing reality from the perspective we think is true and appropriate. In this task we must follow the examples of our great philosophers like Kant, Husserl, Wittgenstein and others.

The situation is something like this: If we apply logic to a world without subjects, so as to posit its possibility, the world we posit must be another world, as I said. But this is not what we are trying to do: we are claiming that it is possible to consistently imagine the one and only world we live in, but so that there is no one there. This goes beyond logic, and I think this should be obvious. I have used many words to make this as clear as possible, but there is no strictly logical path to prove it. What I have tried is something like a transcendental reduction so that the reasoning destroys its own conditions, and the situation shows itself as absurd and logically self-contradictory. But I do not think I ever succeed to convince people like Consul who have strong commitments to their own ways of thinking. We all have these sort of fixed ideas, and seeing the world from another perspective may be too much to ask. All I have tried to do is to introduce to my way of seeing our existence. We all write our own monologues.

Philosophical insights do not happen every day, and we cannot compel them to happen.

[Atla]

Science is about description. There are NO explanations, and I do not see you offering any.
Consider this. How come water and oxygen, both gasses at the same temperature make water which can exist as a solid lighter than its liquid? There is no explanation. But by more and more detailed and knowledgeable description we achieve more understanding of how. Science is making in roads into HOW the brain works.
Materialism is providing more in this way.
What have you got?
Nothing but ghostly spirits!

So you don't know why experiental states go with matter. Materialism explains everything just fine, except this one. So why can't you just accept that there is one big anomaly that the materialist worldview can't explain, therefore it must be incomplete, to put it mildly?

(Nice accusations btw but I don't believe in immaterial things or ghostly spirits. I have a non-dual worldview that's outside Western philosophy.)

[Tamminen]

Why are we here? And not just the world? A coincidence?

Where would the world be if we were not here?

What would the world be like if we were not here?

Strange questions. Or am I the only one who sees them strange?

[Tamminen]

On the subject/consciousness/object dependence:

By 'object' I mean material objects, not objects of consciousness.

Consciousness needs the being of objects to be conscious of them, and the being of the subject to determine whose consciousness it is.

An object does not need consciousness of itself for its being, but it needs the being of the subject for its own being. This is what makes the difference compared with materialism.

The subject needs consciousness of objects, and the being of objects in general, for its being.

[RJG]

Where would the world be if we were not here?

If I were not here, the world would still be here for you.
And if you were not here, the world would still be here for me.

The subject needs consciousness of objects, and the being of objects in general, for its being.

Yes, agreed. But be careful not to misconstrue the reverse relationship similarly. Although the subject needs the objects, the objects certainly don't need the subject!

In other words, although the "subject" is reliant on the "being of objects" for its existence, this does not mean that the "being of objects" is reliant on the "subject" for its existence. --- For example, although 'applesauce' is reliant on 'apples' for its existence, this does not mean that apples are reliant on applesauce for its existence.

[Felix]

Tamminen: "On the subject/consciousness/object dependence"

Thank you for the summation, please allow me to dissect it. Fear not, I have injected it with a strong anesthetic prior to surgery.

Tamminen said: "By 'object' I mean material objects, not objects of consciousness."

No, you do not mean that, if you did, you would not say that objects are dependent upon subjects for their being. Material objects are clearly not dependent upon subjects for their existence, subjects come and go, but material objects persist. Since they persist when individual subjects pass away, it is reasonable to assume (as Consul has), that they would persist if all subjects passed away. But you refuse to acknowledge this.

Tamminen said: "Consciousness needs the being of objects to be conscious of them, and the being of the subject to determine whose consciousness it is."

If Consciousness is truly transcendental and eternal, it does not "need" material subject/objects, it's existence does not depend on them, they are instruments for Its creative expression.

Tamminen said: "An object does not need consciousness of itself for its being, but it needs the being of the subject for its own being."

This is just a reiteration of your first statement, which, as I pointed out, is incorrect: objects of consciousness need the subject for their being but material objects apparently do not.

Tamminen said: "This is what makes the difference compared with materialism."

The main difference I see is that, agree with it or not, materialistic theory is logically consistent while your thesis is not.

You cannot construct a metaphysical skyscraper on a foundation of empirical logic. Envision it, yes, but not construct an edifice that any empirically minded person can see. The only people who will be able to see and enter your building are those who have swallowed the red metaphysical pill and left the empirical matrix.

To quote Alan Watts, from his book, The Supreme Identity:
"The metaphysical doctrine as found in the Vedanta (i.e., that Consciousness is the very ground of all being) and elsewhere does not rest on theory but on realization. The proposition tat twam asi, the Self is the infinite, is based on an experience of its truth. When the Self is no longer identified with the ego, when, in certain spiritual practices, it penetrates and realizes its own depths, it simply knows that it is eternal and all-inclusive. Words can convey no proof, no conviction, of this experience. But, when realized, this knowledge is of a certainty so much greater than any other kind of knowledge that doubt seems impossible.

Because there is not the slightest possibility that an experience of this type can be checked by scientific instruments, it can be criticized only from the standpoint of theory. One can only say that it seems unreasonable or that one does not like the idea. We shall therefore have to content ourselves with showing that, it is not unreasonable, but that, on the contrary, it continues to give light beyond that point where other doctrines lapse into contradictions compared with which even paradox is clarity. Beyond that remains the supremely important matter of describing the preparations for realization, wherein lies the only satisfactory means of verification."

[Sculptor1]

Science is about description. There are NO explanations, and I do not see you offering any.
Consider this. How come water and oxygen, both gasses at the same temperature make water which can exist as a solid lighter than its liquid? There is no explanation. But by more and more detailed and knowledgeable description we achieve more understanding of how. Science is making in roads into HOW the brain works.
Materialism is providing more in this way.
What have you got?
Nothing but ghostly spirits!

So you don't know why experiental states go with matter. Materialism explains everything just fine, except this one. So why can't you just accept that there is one big anomaly that the materialist worldview can't explain, therefore it must be incomplete, to put it mildly?

(Nice accusations btw but I don't believe in immaterial things or ghostly spirits. I have a non-dual worldview that's outside Western philosophy.)

You can't explain ANYTHING. Science is about description and materialism is the method of science.
All matter experiences.
Since you have nothing better - in fact nothing at all, you can't even describe your problem.

[Consul]

Science is about description…

Not only, because it does explain things.

[Consul]

In other words, although the "subject" is reliant on the "being of objects" for its existence, …

…the simple reason being that subjects are conscious, experiencing objects.

[Consul]

I certainly agree with Tamminen. There is no [perceived] world without subjects.

"[perceived]" inserted by RJG for clarity.

You mean to say "There is no perceived world without subjects." ...right?
A "perceived world" is not the same as a "real world", ...true?

Falsely conflating the "perceived world" (subjective) as the real "world" (objective) is the error in Tamminen's philosophy.

It's a fundamental error in idealistic philosophy: That all world-representations (perceptions, conceptions, descriptions) are mind-dependent/-generated doesn't mean that the world is mind-dependent/-generated. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about the idea of a world without world-experience.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I think the fundamental ontology that is so often employed in this thread is that of substance and attribute. Matter is the underlying substance and all the phenomena that we see, that appear to our observing mind, are a form, an attribute, an appearance of matter. The question then becomes what the connection is between matter and its attributes. There is no connection because those attributes, Forms, appearances are not things that are separate from matter. They, of themselves, are literally nothing. Therefore, no connection is necessary.

They are mere appearances that are nothing. They are an illusion. Matter, that great god or goddess, works magic. The phenomenal world is deception, delusion, hallucination, misprision. You are free to believe it is real, but in the end – nothing.

That is the ontology, the logic, of materialism. Yes, it is absurd. All magic is absurd, but it is also very entertaining.

I am not a materialist. Not because it is illogical – it isn’t. Or because it is absurd – I often enjoy the absurd. But because … .

[BigBango]

"[perceived]" inserted by RJG for clarity.

You mean to say "There is no perceived world without subjects." ...right?
A "perceived world" is not the same as a "real world", ...true?

Falsely conflating the "perceived world" (subjective) as the real "world" (objective) is the error in Tamminen's philosophy.

It's a fundamental error in idealistic philosophy: That all world-representations (perceptions, conceptions, descriptions) are mind-dependent/-generated doesn't mean that the world is mind-dependent/-generated. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about the idea of a world without world-experience.

A real world that we cannot perceive has nothing to do with us. It does not matter whether it exists or not! Of course if that "real world" bites us in the butt then we revise our world view. What is more important to us the "perceived world" or the world that cannot be perceived.

[Felix]

Consul: "There is absolutely nothing contradictory about the idea of a world without world-experience."

That would mean that any world we can imagine is real, doesn't matter if we experience it or not, because experience does not count.