Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Mercury]

It's rather that subjectivity is an artefact of radical scepticism; of the idea we cannot know an objective world exists 'out there.' Insofar as it is notionally true, it has no practical value.

It has one very practical value, I think. It reminds us that the truth — the truth(s) that we can know — is often inaccessible to us, that uncertainty can be an unavoidable feature of our reality. That is surely a very useful reminder, when we are always so keen to assume our opinions or guesses are more reliable than they actually are?

So you think subjectivism has led to a practical scepticism, and not to nihilism, absurdism, and post-modern epistemic/moral relativism? You think it leads people to carefully examine and form their own values, rather than make a cathedral of their egos and insist no-one can tell them different? It hasn't undermined a common concept of truth and/or set of established social values, leading to solipsistic individualism, and in turn to polarisation unto extremes of political tribalism, no? Because had it done so, it might be worth asking whether Galileo wasn't right after all, and if he were, what are the implications of that?

Yes, I think I agree with most of that...

Ideally, had the Church welcomed Galileo, and science had been pursued and integrated over the past 400 years, I think it would have led to a situation wherein is/ought would not be a dichotomy, but a continuum - with the ideal of truth as the fulcrum. i.e. is/truth/ought. Truth extends in both directions - truth, science, fact, technology, functionality. And in the other dimension, truth, honesty, justice. I think it begins with a regard for truth; and accordingly, I always try to speak truth to the good. I don't always succeed. But if I bear this in mind, it helps me understand if I'm not being true enough, or not being good enough, and leads to the kind of practical scepticism you describe.

[value]

Ideally, had the Church welcomed Galileo, and science had been pursued and integrated over the past 400 years, I think it would have led to a situation wherein is/ought would not be a dichotomy, but a continuum - with the ideal of truth as the fulcrum. i.e. is/truth/ought. Truth extends in both directions - truth, science, fact, technology, functionality. And in the other dimension, truth, honesty, justice. I think it begins with a regard for truth; and accordingly, I always try to speak truth to the good. I don't always succeed. But if I bear this in mind, it helps me understand if I'm not being true enough, or not being good enough, and leads to the kind of practical scepticism you describe.

I find your perspective interesting, especially since it concerns the role of Descartes in shaping the intellectual evolution of Western society. However, your idea that when humanity had integrated science wholly, since that event in the 1600s, is/ought would not be a dichotomy, occurs to be questionable.

You mention specifically that adopting science would prevent the subjective/objective dichotomy because truth (presumably 'the scientific truth'?) would add the moral 'ought' dimension in the form of honesty and justice.

You write "it (all/the cosmos) begins with truth".

A scientist once described their ethical position as "being humble in the face of observation (of the scientific truth)". Would that be the moral position that you seek to establish for humanity?

In my view, it would result in a dogmatic fallacy that the facts of science are valid without philosophy. As if truth is a 'given' as it were. Some philosophers speak of the Givenness of the world, or of an Absolute.

Is the Truth that you seek to place before good comparable of nature as the philosophical Absolute?

[popeye1945]

Subject/object dichotomy does not exist, their infusion is subjective reality—oneness of necessity.

[value]

Ideally, had the Church welcomed Galileo, and science had been pursued and integrated over the past 400 years, I think it would have led to a situation wherein is/ought would not be a dichotomy, but a continuum - with the ideal of truth as the fulcrum. i.e. is/truth/ought. Truth extends in both directions - truth, science, fact, technology, functionality. And in the other dimension, truth, honesty, justice. I think it begins with a regard for truth; and accordingly, I always try to speak truth to the good. I don't always succeed. But if I bear this in mind, it helps me understand if I'm not being true enough, or not being good enough, and leads to the kind of practical scepticism you describe.

...You write "it (all/the cosmos) begins with truth".

A scientist once described their ethical position as "being humble in the face of observation (of the scientific truth)". Would that be the moral position that you seek to establish for humanity? ... Is the Truth that you seek to place before good comparable of nature as the philosophical Absolute?

I am eager to learn about your defence of the notion that Truth should be placed before the idea of good.

I can understand that one can find a 'highest ethics' in adherence to truth or 'reality', and that science facilitates a human endeavour in line with that path, which legitimizes one to 'blindly follow the science', but from a philosophical perspective I believe that it is not a 'good' path, and that it deviates from what is good, by fundamentally being dogmatic of nature.

Nietzsche described it well in my opinion, in response to his observation that "science attempted to dispose of philosophy and to become the master of itself", an ethical position with science (or scientific 'truth') as central to humanity, an ideal that you appear to be advocating for.

"...and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

... the IDEAL man of learning in whom the scientific instinct blossoms forth fully after a thousand complete and partial failures, is assuredly one of the most costly instruments that exist, but his place is in the hand of one who is more powerful. He is only an instrument, we may say, he is a MIRROR - he is no "purpose in himself

...he [scientific man] is no goal, not outgoing nor upgoing, no complementary man in whom the REST of existence justifies itself, no termination—and still less a commencement, an engendering, or primary cause, nothing hardy, powerful, self-centred, that wants to be master; but rather only a soft, inflated, delicate, movable potter's-form, that must wait for some kind of content and frame to "shape" itself thereto—for the most part a man without frame and content, a "selfless" man."

Nietzsche complained that science (the scientific man as embodiment of the pursuit of truth) is 'no purpose in itself'. That seems to imply that he would seek to place the (philosophical) good before truth. Philosophy BEFORE science.

What do you think about the concepts Givenness and Absolute? Does Truth before good necessarily imply the idea Absolute Truth?

[popeye1945]

Truth is experience and entirely subjective, the dialogue seem to be traveling in the direction of what kind of delusion is the most preferable. To consciousness and its apparent reality there is no such thing as objectivity. The physical world as an object is the experience of the surrounding energies altering one's biology creating meaning for consciousness, which it then bestows upon a meaningless world through the projections of consciousness. So far as we know, subjectivity is inescapable and there is meaning only for subjective consciousness. The objective world is entirely subjective. One can only know experience as truth and experience is always true to the biology doing the experiencing. Experience necessarily seeks that which is life sustaining which is the good. Change biology and change reality/truth.

[Good_Egg]

It is a wise man who knows how much of what he perceives is really there, and how much is an artefact of the act of perceiving.

That's one of those cases where there are two ways to be wrong. We can be foolish by attributing too much or too little of what is perceived to the object itself.

The notion that a tree that falls in the forest doesn't really do so unless someone is there to see and hear it fall is nonsense. A philosophy that has fallen trees popping into existence when someone stumbles across them leads nowhere.

Such a tree may become of interest to or relevance to you at the point where you stumble over it (either literally or figuratively). But that's a different thing.

It's a self-absorbed philosophy that deems something to exist only when it is relevant to me...

[Pattern-chaser]

It is a wise man who knows how much of what he perceives is really there, and how much is an artefact of the act of perceiving.

Do you really think that even the wisest man can or could 'see through' his own (wholly unconscious = pre-conscious) sensing/perception process?

[Good_Egg]

Maybe we don't need superhuman wisdom to recognise the fact that our perception is not free from error and bias ? And respond to that by seeking evidence to support or correct our perception ? Isn't this what science is about ?

(Such evidence might include the perceptions of others with different cultural biases ?)

You're right that we cannot make our perception accurate. But we can seek to allow for this and compensate...

[Pattern-chaser]

Maybe we don't need superhuman wisdom to recognise the fact that our perception is not free from error and bias ? And respond to that by seeking evidence to support or correct our perception ? Isn't this what science is about ?

(Such evidence might include the perceptions of others with different cultural biases ?)

You're right that we cannot make our perception accurate. But we can seek to allow for this and compensate...

Yes, we have convincing evidence that our sensing/perception process has shortcomings. But can we know those shortcomings well enough to try to avoid their pitfalls, as you suggest? The indirection seems to make what you suggest very difficult, wouldn't you say?

[value]

It is a wise man who knows how much of what he perceives is really there, and how much is an artefact of the act of perceiving.

That's one of those cases where there are two ways to be wrong. We can be foolish by attributing too much or too little of what is perceived to the object itself.

The notion that a tree that falls in the forest doesn't really do so unless someone is there to see and hear it fall is nonsense. A philosophy that has fallen trees popping into existence when someone stumbles across them leads nowhere.

Such a tree may become of interest to or relevance to you at the point where you stumble over it (either literally or figuratively). But that's a different thing.

It's a self-absorbed philosophy that deems something to exist only when it is relevant to me...

I don't think that the argument is about existence per se. The argument doesn't intend to make a case about what exists, rather that what exists might have a dependency outside the scope of existence, in this case being the observer.

Therefore the 'fallen tree' argument might be more interesting than it might appear, and the answer doesn't resolve around trees actually falling or not, but rather about more fundamental questions about the potential for a tree to 'have fallen' (into existence) in the first place.

I cited an argument by Terrapin Station a few posts back who claimed that there are just 2 options to explain the universe:

1) the universe either magically sprung into existence
2) the universe magically always existed

He reasoned the following:

For any given initial existent, either it "spontaneously appeared" or it always existed. Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

The mentioned options are all based on the assumption that the concept 'begin' (existence) is applicable to the universe on a fundamental level and that causality is required to explain the origin of the Universe.

At question would be how a philosophical 'option' (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice.

That would be what transcending the subjective/objective dichotomy is about, in my opinion.

The question whether a tree has fallen when there were people around or not, is the same question whether the facts of science are valid without philosophy.

Some more perspectives of TP to illustrate the importance of the fallen tree argument when it concerns an explanation for the fundamental nature of reality.

Facts in no way depend on any declarations or naming. Truth propositions do NOT obtain whether people exist or not.

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

[Gertie]

Value

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 28th, 2021, 10:01 pm
For any given initial existent, either it "spontaneously appeared" or it always existed. Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

The mentioned options are all based on the assumption that the concept 'begin' (existence) is applicable to the universe on a fundamental level and that causality is required to explain the origin of the Universe.

At question would be how a philosophical 'option' (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice.

That would be what transcending the subjective/objective dichotomy is about, in my opinion.

The nature of the problem is neatly put, we're apparently faced with two illogical options. This suggests to me logic can't resolve a question like Why is there something rather than nothing. But we've no reason to expect logic to answer questions about the origin of the universe if human logic is a way we understand the nature of the universe as we experience it once it exists. If logic is a concept which helps us makes sense of our experiential model of the universe as it is now, we can't assume it works beyond that. And as we can't observe reality from outside the universe, we have nothing left to go on except speculation imo. So to say ''It can then be seen that...'' wouldn't follow. Rather we should just say we don't know, but this or that might make sense of this to us.

The question whether a tree has fallen when there were people around or not, is the same question whether the facts of science are valid without philosophy.

Agreed. Philosophy tends to be left with the questions Science and Empiricism can't explain, but these methods themselves are subject to philosophical enquiry and justification too.

[popeye1945]

You're talking about the collective subjective experience, which would only differ from the subjective individual by the degree of dissimilarity within the common species. To the individual truth is experience, to the collective it is agreement.

Right, with physicalism at least, despite our own 'private' experience is all each of us can know for certain, we can share notes and inter-subjectively agree that 'publicly' observable and measurable (physical stuff) exists, as the world we share and both are experiencing. Including biological bodies and brains which correlate with our individual first person perspectives. So if I stub my toe you can third person observe that, but not feel it through some literal collective consciousness. We can also agree about norms and values, etc, but these aren't third person observable or falsifiable in that way which objects are.

I believe the collective is less fallible, as the collective most greatly represents the species.

Per physicalism, I'd think most agree when it comes to third person falsifiable observable (physical) stuff. If 99 people see a green tree and 1 person sees it as a red tree, we can reasonably assume the one person has some visual defect like colour blindness. Their visual modelling has an anomaly. But it's still a matter of comparing experiential models, and as it turns out science tells us colour is experientially created by us somehow, rather than being a property of the tree.

When it comes to 'subjective' desires, tastes, values, opinions, etc that's a different ballgame. You can go for the 'wisdom of crowds' approach, but it's not 'objectively' falsifiably reliable in the same way. Social norms change for all sorts of reasons.

The major reason for the variation in tastes, values, opinions and the like is due mainly to the fact that context defines, it is through context that we derive our sense of identity, and identity is desires, tastes, values and opinions, and the like. We have when arriving into this world only the knowledge of our species and our first context is our mother. Her experiences at the time of gestation profoundly affect the physiology and psyche of the yet-unborn. A stressed mother is not good news for the potential of the yet-unborn. Mother and context here are the same things, and you are not in your mother, you are your mother. The melody/reality of the mother governs the chemistry and the complexity of the creation of life, you are one until birth. The first concern of humanity should always be the context, for what could be more profoundly important to life? Getting a little off track here.

[popeye1945]

Some more perspectives of TP to illustrate the importance of the fallen tree argument when it concerns an explanation for the fundamental nature of reality.

The argument for the tree was if it falls in the forest with no life form around does it make a sound, of course, and it does not, for sound is the effect of vibrations altering the standing eardrum, no eardrum, no sound, no eye, no color. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.

Facts in no way depend on any declarations or naming. Truth propositions do NOT obtain whether people exist or not.

So very wrong, biological consciousness is the measure and the meaning of all things, truth is experience and always is true to the biology experiencing it, the fact that it is fallible does not subtract from this. Truth is a subjective experience and in the absence of a conscious subject, there is nothing including your TRUTH PROPOSITIONS. Everything of your apparent reality is relative to your biology or biological consciousness.

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Because apparent reality is a biological readout, you are the source of your apparent reality, in a sense, you are the center of your universe, and it's called subjectivity. Spinoza pointed out, that the way one comes to know the world of objects is by the alteration those things make to your biology to experience, your experience/apparent, is the projection of those experiences and their meanings to your biology to the outside world. In Spinoza's time, the objects were not doubted, but presently modern physics tells us that all is energy, so, one might consider that it is the surrounding energies processed through biology that create the world of objects. Something to ponder, perhaps stranger than we can imagine.

[value]

The nature of the problem is neatly put, we're apparently faced with two illogical options. This suggests to me logic can't resolve a question like Why is there something rather than nothing. But we've no reason to expect logic to answer questions about the origin of the universe if human logic is a way we understand the nature of the universe as we experience it once it exists. If logic is a concept which helps us makes sense of our experiential model of the universe as it is now, we can't assume it works beyond that. And as we can't observe reality from outside the universe, we have nothing left to go on except speculation imo. So to say ''It can then be seen that...'' wouldn't follow. Rather we should just say we don't know, but this or that might make sense of this to us.

The argument of the topic is that philosophy IS able to transcend the subjective/objective dichotomy, and thus that the argument "It is then seen that..." can be rendered valid in light of philosophical argumentation.

The question whether philosophical reason can be considered equal to logic, is a separate question, that appears to have been addressed by Robert Pirsig on this forum in topic Logic is it's own fallacy..

"Not everything can and should be defined, some things lie outside of our scope; which is what this feed is about. We cannot grasp all things with the logic and other tools which we presently hold. "

You write: "If logic is a concept which helps us makes sense of our experiential model of the universe as it is now, we can't assume it works beyond that."

While you may be right, at question would be whether philosophical reason can be considered equal to logic, and bound by logic's limitations.

Is Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will or Pirsig's Quality logic? Pirsig himself argued that Quality cannot be defined, and thus cannot be grasped by logic, but in the same time he dedicated his life to making a case for its philosophical plausibility.

[Gertie]

You're talking about the collective subjective experience, which would only differ from the subjective individual by the degree of dissimilarity within the common species. To the individual truth is experience, to the collective it is agreement.

Right, with physicalism at least, despite our own 'private' experience is all each of us can know for certain, we can share notes and inter-subjectively agree that 'publicly' observable and measurable (physical stuff) exists, as the world we share and both are experiencing. Including biological bodies and brains which correlate with our individual first person perspectives. So if I stub my toe you can third person observe that, but not feel it through some literal collective consciousness. We can also agree about norms and values, etc, but these aren't third person observable or falsifiable in that way which objects are.

I believe the collective is less fallible, as the collective most greatly represents the species.

Per physicalism, I'd think most agree when it comes to third person falsifiable observable (physical) stuff. If 99 people see a green tree and 1 person sees it as a red tree, we can reasonably assume the one person has some visual defect like colour blindness. Their visual modelling has an anomaly. But it's still a matter of comparing experiential models, and as it turns out science tells us colour is experientially created by us somehow, rather than being a property of the tree.

When it comes to 'subjective' desires, tastes, values, opinions, etc that's a different ballgame. You can go for the 'wisdom of crowds' approach, but it's not 'objectively' falsifiably reliable in the same way. Social norms change for all sorts of reasons.

The major reason for the variation in tastes, values, opinions and the like is due mainly to the fact that context defines, it is through context that we derive our sense of identity, and identity is desires, tastes, values and opinions, and the like. We have when arriving into this world only the knowledge of our species and our first context is our mother. Her experiences at the time of gestation profoundly affect the physiology and psyche of the yet-unborn. A stressed mother is not good news for the potential of the yet-unborn. Mother and context here are the same things, and you are not in your mother, you are your mother. The melody/reality of the mother governs the chemistry and the complexity of the creation of life, you are one until birth. The first concern of humanity should always be the context, for what could be more profoundly important to life? Getting a little off track here.

I think you're right about the nature/nurture thing, from what little I know what happens inside the womb, while we are part of the same 'melody' as you put it, can be very significant.

I'd add that our species' evolutionary niche is our ability to continue learning and adapting, with our large, plastic and complex brains. So as we mature and environmental contexts change, we can still play significant variations on the melody we're gifted, for better or worse. Still I suspect a lot of our ideas of who we are and why we do stuff are post-hoc rationalisations, and maintaining a coherent and self-justifiable sense of our character, a healthy ego, is a powerful factor. It's perhaps a reason to give ourselves and others a little grace over our imperfections.