value wrote: ↑February 11th, 2024, 2:10 amtranscending the subjective/objective dichotomy... it shows its practical value for philosophical progress. It is vital to align progress with both 'ought' (morality) and 'adherence' (truth).
Gertie wrote: ↑February 13th, 2024, 12:53 pmI think I understand. You're saying that because we can't understand how the universe could either begin or be eternal, then ... the most fundamental thing isn't to do with reducibility or causal chronological emergence over time, it's to do with the nature of the universe as it presents to our conscious experience. And it presents as a package of both objects and subjective feelings, values, desires, joy, suffering, etc. A phenomenological type of approach.
OK, thanks.
In my opinion, while there may be diverse other perspectives, transcending the subjective/objective dichotomy as intended by Robert Pirsig, in general, concerns a philosophical case for the fundamental nature of reality of which it can be said that it is plausible despite not being empirical.
I've seen many attempts to describe the fundamental nature of reality, that received serious consideration and that, when examined, could appear philosophically plausible.
I recently managed to get an AI to confirm that the concept 'Dominance' in Gottfried Leibniz Monad theory is the most fundamental aspect in the universe with a 'nature by itself' for consideration.
"
According to Gottfried Leibniz, dominance can be considered the fundamental aspect that underlays the universe. Leibniz believed that the universe is made up of eternal monads, which are indivisible and indestructible units of reality. These monads are unified by a dominant monad, which is responsible for the form and soul of the universe. Leibniz believed that dominance is a direct expression of God because all change of monads must come from within and only the ultimate monad which is God can change monads from within."
https://www.perplexity.ai/
It seems that it can be concluded that several philosophies consider a 'most fundamental aspect' with a nature by itself
that can be philosophically considered despite not being either objective or subjective.
- Good (the Good) by Plato, Wittgenstein and others
- Will (energy) by Schopenhauer
- Love (a gift of a non-being aspect) by Jean-Luc Marion or the founder of this forum (@Scott,
An inspirational book aligned with the philosophy of Jean-Luc Marion)
- Dominance (that unifies eternal monads for form and soul) by Gottfried Leibniz
- Truth
- Beauty
- ... more?
What do those 'most fundamental aspects' that would fundamentally underlay the universe have in common?
For one: they share an apparent origin or source that is '
beyond comprehension' (e.g. 'cannot be named' as in the Tao Te Ching). They concern an aspect that is neither objective nor subjective, but of which a whole philosophy is produced that would argue that that aspect is 'plausible'.
The same process involved in making a case for plausibility in the mentioned fundamental concepts, has been involved in the creation of the scientific method, in an attempt to achieve an optimal 'adherence' to the philosophical concept truth.
American philosopher William James once said the following about truth:
Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.
When truth is again viewed as part of the good, one naturally arives back again at the philosophical position before the scientific method was invented, and can see that what underlays the whole process of science, involves an aspect that is neither subjective nor objective.