Subjective/objective dichotomy
Posted: January 30th, 2024, 2:00 am
A user on this forum that might be a pseudonym of Robert Pirsig, author of the most sold philosophy book ever, said the following:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18771
Robert Pirsig, the author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," is known for his criticism of the subjective/objective dichotomy. He challenged the traditional Western philosophy's "fact-value" or "subject-object" division, arguing that it has banished the questions of quality, values, and morality from the objective realm, relegating them to the subjective.
Philosophy can make a case for "the why of existence (e.g. 'the philosophical God', Schopenhauer's Will or Robert Pirsig's Quality) and that means that philosophy can transcend the subjective/objective dichotomy without losing touch with an aspect that is fundamental to reality. That ability does not spring from existence itself, but from an aspect that is more fundamental than existence itself.
The idea of the ability to transcend the subjective/objective dichotomy, implies that science is fundamentally dogmatic, and that science is fallacious when used as a guiding principle. It implies that the idea that science can emancipate from philosophy, is a fallacy.
Nietzsche wrote the following observation in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 β We Scholars), in 1886:
"Freedom from all masters!
The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy ... science now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the βmasterβ β what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account."
Science has attempted to rid itself of moral constraints in order to become the master of itself and to "advance immorally", for the the greater good interests of science.
Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To most scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/
Most scientists today believe that science has nothing to do with philosophy.
"Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else."
The belief that science can be practiced autonomously, independent of philosophy, is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism, which is the belief that the facts of science are fundamentally valid without philosophy, independent of mind and time.
Uniformitarianism provides science with a fundamental inclination to break free from morality, to "advance immorally", without thinking about whether it is actually good what is being done.
William James: "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."
Science is a method invented by philosophy to acquire knowledge from truth, which is a belief-based concept (dogma).
Questions:
1) What is your opinion on the subjective/objective dichotomy?
2) Do you believe that Robert Pirsig was right that philosophy can transcend the subjective/objective dichotomy?
ChaoticMindSays wrote: βSeptember 21st, 2010, 4:45 pmI think there are serious problems with the whole... subjective/objective idea. It does not allow for a wide enough range of possibility, it is an either or system. It shouldn't be a either or system.New reading material for fans of Robert Pirsig (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18771
Robert Pirsig, the author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," is known for his criticism of the subjective/objective dichotomy. He challenged the traditional Western philosophy's "fact-value" or "subject-object" division, arguing that it has banished the questions of quality, values, and morality from the objective realm, relegating them to the subjective.
Philosophy can make a case for "the why of existence (e.g. 'the philosophical God', Schopenhauer's Will or Robert Pirsig's Quality) and that means that philosophy can transcend the subjective/objective dichotomy without losing touch with an aspect that is fundamental to reality. That ability does not spring from existence itself, but from an aspect that is more fundamental than existence itself.
The idea of the ability to transcend the subjective/objective dichotomy, implies that science is fundamentally dogmatic, and that science is fallacious when used as a guiding principle. It implies that the idea that science can emancipate from philosophy, is a fallacy.
Nietzsche wrote the following observation in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 β We Scholars), in 1886:
"Freedom from all masters!
The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy ... science now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the βmasterβ β what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account."
Science has attempted to rid itself of moral constraints in order to become the master of itself and to "advance immorally", for the the greater good interests of science.
Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To most scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/
Most scientists today believe that science has nothing to do with philosophy.
"Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else."
The belief that science can be practiced autonomously, independent of philosophy, is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism, which is the belief that the facts of science are fundamentally valid without philosophy, independent of mind and time.
Uniformitarianism provides science with a fundamental inclination to break free from morality, to "advance immorally", without thinking about whether it is actually good what is being done.
William James: "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."
Science is a method invented by philosophy to acquire knowledge from truth, which is a belief-based concept (dogma).
Questions:
1) What is your opinion on the subjective/objective dichotomy?
2) Do you believe that Robert Pirsig was right that philosophy can transcend the subjective/objective dichotomy?