What is objective?

[godnotgod]

But that isn't just training, it's a product of language. In the English language, a verb demands a subject. Quid pro quo.


I don't think Descartes is to blame. Rather, the very nature of English grammar.

The language is part and parcel of the social indoctrination*, first to establish the self, and then to reinforce it throughout one's life. Whatever system of reward and punishment the applicable culture has in place galvanizes it, even after death.

Descartes may not be to blame, but his logic was mistaken. However, the whole idea of existentialism must have come about within a larger social context/paradigm which nurtured it.

BTW, Zen would jokingly ask: "So when not thinking, you don't exist?"

*For example, we say 'It is raining', when there is no such 'it' that rains. Or we may think a tree is made of wood. It is not. A tree IS wood. We call a body of flowing water a 'river', but no such 'river' exists; there is only flowing water. Same for a 'whirlpool', and ultimately, for the 'I' that thinks.

 

[Willamena]

The language is part and parcel of the social indoctrination*, first to establish the self, and then to reinforce it throughout one's life. Whatever system of reward and punishment the applicable culture has in place galvanizes it, even after death.

No argument.

Descartes may not be to blame, but his logic was mistaken. However, the whole idea of existentialism must have come about within a larger social context/paradigm which nurtured it.

I, too, wanted to blame him or his generation, once. But then I learned that philosophy that is about having the answer is a myth. Cue Hagel.

BTW, Zen would jokingly ask:

"So when not thinking, you don't exist?"

*For example, we say 'It is raining', when there is no such 'it' that rains. Or we may think a tree is made of wood. It is not. A tree IS wood. We call a body of flowing water a 'river', but no such 'river' exists; there is only flowing water. Same for a 'whirlpool', and ultimately, for the 'I' that thinks.

Those are grammar examples.

 

[godnotgod]

Those are grammar examples.

You're missing the all important point. To conceive of, say, a 'whirler' of whirling water that is called a 'whirlpool' separates whirling water into an agent of whirling water and whirling water, where no such agent exists. This is also true of a 'self' which thinks:

'I think, therefore, I exist'

...where there is an agent of thinking that in turn, exists. There is no such agent called 'I' which thinks. There is only thinking/existing.

I strongly suspect that all of our language and culture in terms of an agent of action is inherited from Judeo-Christianity, where the ultimate agent of action, The Creator, is The Maker of all things. And we are patterned after this concept.

 

[Willamena]

You're missing the all important point. To conceive of, say, a 'whirler' of whirling water that is called a 'whirlpool' separates whirling water into an agent of whirling water and whirling water, where no such agent exists. This is also true of a 'self' which thinks:

'I think, therefore, I exist'

...where there is an agent of thinking that in turn, exists. There is no such agent called 'I' which thinks. There is only thinking/existing.

I strongly suspect that all of our language and culture in terms of an agent of action is inherited from Judeo-Christianity, where the ultimate agent of action, The Creator, is The Maker of all things. And we are patterned after this concept.

No, that IS the point: grammar, and our investment in word/idea, is responsible for the insertion of an agent where none exists. A verb demands a subject.

It's inherited from the Indo-European languages.

 

[godnotgod]

No, that IS the point: grammar, and our investment in word/idea, is responsible for the insertion of an agent where none exists. A verb demands a subject.

It's inherited from the Indo-European languages.

Yes, of course, but there is an idea behind the grammatical insertion of an agent developed by how the culture sees reality. Grammar and language are not just automatic; they are products of and reinforced by our social indoctrination, evolved over a long period of time, both of the individual and of the society within which he is nurtured. Joe Blow, who is 35, grew up in Dogpatch USA, went to such and such schools, married so and so, has 3 children, is Catholic, American, and an engineer for XYZ Corp, all become the identity that is 'I' called 'Joe Blow'.

 

[crossfire]

Yes, of course, but there is an idea behind the grammatical insertion of an agent developed by how the culture sees reality. Grammar and language are not just automatic; they are products of and reinforced by our social indoctrination, evolved over a long period of time, both of the individual and of the society within which he is nurtured. Joe Blow, who is 35, grew up in Dogpatch USA, went to such and such schools, married so and so, has 3 children, is Catholic, American, and an engineer for XYZ Corp, all become the identity that is 'I' called 'Joe Blow'.

"Boys will be boys."

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

You mean Realism?

Few people in the know support that these days.

LOL! Ok, and by "in the know" you are pretty much eliminating all scientists? And any others that have contributed to increasing knowledge? By "in the know" you mean philosophers that ignore all sensation, senses, and input, and relie entirely on their subjective ... reality ... oh my, did I use that term again.

OK. If I can put my ignorant rambling aside for a moment, can you explain to me (a pedant) what you mean?

BTW/ What does, "In the know?" mean?

 

[Willamena]

BTW/ What does, "In the know?" mean?

"In the know" is a figure of speech that refers to a group, usually small, who possess knowledge on a particular subject.

LOL! Ok, and by "in the know" you are pretty much eliminating all scientists? And any others that have contributed to increasing knowledge? By "in the know" you mean philosophers that ignore all sensation, senses, and input, and relie entirely on their subjective ... reality ... oh my, did I use that term again.

OK. If I can put my ignorant rambling aside for a moment, can you explain to me (a pedant) what you mean?

I wasn't excluding any particular group by their occupation or cleverness. Rather, I was including the group with a philosophical basis for doubting realism.

By realism, I was referring to the attitude, a belief, that assumes a truth value for objects for which there is no knowledge, only certainty.


As an example, a person is running along a path in the dark. They have no knowledge that the ground before them has a gaping hole that they could fall into, so they continue on, taking each step with the upmost confidence. Their belief that the ground ahead will be similar to the ground they are on and the ground of the past moments is realism.

The arguments for and against realism rely on that truth value, as well as the nature of what it is "to know." As far as an existent universe goes, discussions on doubt can branch into subjects that range from The Matrix movie to quantum physics.

 

[godnotgod]

By "in the know" you mean philosophers that ignore all sensation, senses, and input, and relie entirely on their subjective ... reality ...

That does occur, but what also can occur is the tuning out of external sensory input which is a distraction, and tuning in to, not the subjective self that is 'I', but to the core being which in itself is none other than The Universe. This, however, is not the realm of the philosopher, but of the mystic.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

"In the know" is a figure of speech that refers to a group, usually small, who possess knowledge on a particular subject.


I wasn't excluding any particular group by their occupation or cleverness. Rather, I was including the group with a philosophical basis for doubting realism.

By realism, I was referring to the attitude, a belief, that assumes a truth value for objects for which there is no knowledge, only certainty.


As an example, a person is running along a path in the dark. They have no knowledge that the ground before them has a gaping hole that they could fall into, so they continue on, taking each step with the upmost confidence. Their belief that the ground ahead will be similar to the ground they are on and the ground of the past moments is realism.

The arguments for and against realism rely on that truth value, as well as the nature of what it is "to know." As far as an existent universe goes, discussions on doubt can branch into subjects that range from The Matrix movie to quantum physics.

Thank you for the rather lucid explanation! Do you agree that there is an apparent existence that can be described by (operates by) natural laws which apparently are knowable through observation? I freely admit that this is an assumption on my part. But it results, day-in-and-day-out, in useful, accurate predictions.

RESULTS!

One day I may wake up in a vat of goo with super-human powers! Just like Keanu.

How is philosophy any different. I agree that humans have differing levels of rational thought. (Not nearly as consistent as natural laws.) Perhaps one day you'll wake up in an asylum and realize everything you thought was rational, was not.

 

[Willamena]

Thank you for the rather lucid explanation! Do you agree that there is an apparent existence that can be described by (operates by) natural laws which apparently are knowable through observation? I freely admit that this is an assumption on my part. But it results, day-in-and-day-out, in useful, accurate predictions.

RESULTS!

One day I may wake up in a vat of goo with super-human powers! Just like Keanu.

I believe that it's not possible to genuinely disagree with that.

Except the "goo" part.

How is philosophy any different. I agree that humans have differing levels of rational thought. (Not nearly as consistent as natural laws.) Perhaps one day you'll wake up in an asylum and realize everything you thought was rational, was not.

 

[godnotgod]

Do you agree that there is an apparent existence that can be described by (operates by) natural laws which apparently are knowable through observation? I freely admit that this is an assumption on my part. But it results, day-in-and-day-out, in useful, accurate predictions.

RESULTS!

Depending on whether one is observing with a conditioned awareness, or an unconditioned awareness, one will see things only as manifested Outcomes, or as the Source itself.


“Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences”;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes.
These two things issued from the same mould, but nevertheless are different in name.

Tao te Ching, Ch. 1

"Desire" as it pertains to objectivity, would be the desire to see things 'objectively' as defined by the mind , whereas the desireless mind just sees things as they are. The mind of desire has (unwittingly) already predetermined how reality is to be seen by fabricating a conceptual framework it calls 'objectivity'.

 

[crossfire]

Depending on whether one is observing with a conditioned awareness, or an unconditioned awareness, one will see things as only manifested Outcomes, or as the Source itself.


“Only he that rids himself forever of desire can see the Secret Essences”;
He that has never rid himself of desire can see only the Outcomes.
These two things issued from the same mould, but nevertheless are different in name.

Tao te Ching, Ch. 1

"Desire" as it pertains to objectivity, would be the desire to see things as defined by the mind as being 'objective', whereas the desireless mind just sees things as they are. The mind of desire has (unwittingly) already predetermined how reality is to be seen by fabricating a conceptual framework it calls 'objectivity'.

So this "conceptual objectivity" is herd mentality in that it influences individuals to get the same results when compared?

 

[shunyadragon]

I have read much of the posts, but unfortunately far most address religious and spiritual beliefs concerning what is the objective view of the world based on subjective world views.

I prefer a more functional realistic consideration of what my be considered objective and, of course, subjective. It is fine and all well to speculate, and philosophize concerning what is real and illusion in the physical world from a spiritual perspective, but not productive.

For practical real world reasons I view objective as follows:
[cite=[URL="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/"]Scientific Objectivity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)[/URL]]
Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society.

Many central debates in the philosophy of science have, in one way or another, to do with objectivity: confirmation and the problem of induction; theory choice and scientific change; realism; scientific explanation; experimentation; measurement and quantification; evidence and the foundations of statistics; evidence-based science; feminism and values in science. Understanding the role of objectivity in science is therefore integral to a full appreciation of these debates. As this article testifies, the reverse is true too: it is impossible to fully appreciate the notion of scientific objectivity without touching upon many of these debates.

The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its value and its attainability. This article focuses on the question of how scientific objectivity should be define, whether the ideal of objectivity is desirable, and to what extent scientists can achieve it. In line with the idea that the epistemic authority of science relies primarily on the objectivity of scientific reasoning, we focus on the role of objectivity in scientific experimentation, inference and theory choice. [/cite]

On the other hand . . .
Subjectivity - Beliefs, qualia, thoughts, and other propositions of the mind that cannot be objectively verified, tested and confirmed in by objective evidence outside the mind.

 

[godnotgod]

So this "conceptual objectivity" is herd mentality in that it influences individuals to get the same results when compared?

As the Tao te Ching stated, via desire, only the manifestations (ie; characteristics) of reality can be seen, rather than the nature of Reality. Is who you really are the color of your hair, your eyes, your body, or even your personality? I am not saying there is anything wrong with factual knowledge, but don't mistake it for a true understanding of the nature of Reality. 'Objectivity' is still based upon perceptual reality, and not Ultimate Reality. It is based upon what the mind thinks rather than what consciousness sees.

As TS Elliot said in his Prufrock poem:

"Oh do not ask 'what is it?'
Let us go and make our visit"

Consistent results just means that some things can be predicted. Science is essentially a method of prediction of patterns, ie; 'manifestations'. But science has no insight into the nature of those patterns, that is to say, what is manifesting them. As long as the desire to know via 'objectivity' is present, there will be an obstacle to deeper insight.

 

[godnotgod]

I prefer a more functional realistic consideration of what my be considered objective and, of course, subjective. It is fine and all well to speculate, and philosophize concerning what is real and illusion in the physical world from a spiritual perspective, but not productive.

.

True, if one is just speculating/philosophizing, but the authentic spiritual experience is not philosophy or speculation.

How can knowing the difference between what is 'real' and illusion not be productive?

Even science, via Quantum physics, is now providing us a radical new view into the nature of what we used to think of as 'the physical world'. It is now a 'superposition of possibilities'.

For decades, science has looked to the 'material' world for answers, but now even that notion of materiality is no longer valid. Mystics, OTOH, once having seen into the illusory nature of the 'material' world, abandon that path and seek higher ground, and in doing so, realize that the notion of 'objectivity' is just a subject/object split in the mind which vanishes upon such realization.

You are not an agent of observation looking AT phenomena; you are the process of observation thinking yourself to be a separate observer OF phenomena. You, the observed, and the entire process of observation are a single Reality. The notion of a separate 'this and that' is purely mental.

 

[shunyadragon]

True, if one is just speculating/philosophizing, but the authentic spiritual experience is not philosophy or speculation.

The problem remains the claim of an 'authentic spiritual experience' remains anecdotal and subjective, because it remains of the mind only, without objective verifiable evidence one cannot begin to different which is an 'authentic' spiritual experience. The problem remains many claims are contradictory and conflicting. For example: You may claim such an experience, but from my perspective I have no other option, but to acknowledge it is your experience, but I have no way of objectively verifying that experience.

How can knowing the difference between what is 'real' and illusion not be productive?

Well, it is best to differentiate the 'objective' versus 'subjective,' and not 'real' versus 'illusion,' because it is a reach in judgement to claim someones spiritual experience is an 'illusion.'

Even science, via Quantum physics, is now providing us a radical new view into the nature of what we used to think of as 'the physical world'. It is now a 'superposition of possibilities'.

The science of 'Quantum Physics' has been determined by Methodological Naturalism through the objective verifiable evidence.

For decades, science has looked to the 'material' world for answers, but now even that notion of materiality is no longer valid.

Well, it is more like hundreds of years that scientists have looked to science, and most of the rest of the world for answers for the nature of our 'material physical existence,' and still do, and likely will continue to do so for millennia in the future, because it works. This is Methodological Naturalism, the assumption of 'Materialism' must be made by a subjective Philosophical Naturalism conclusion.

Mystics, OTOH, once having seen into the illusory nature of the 'material' world, abandon that path and seek higher ground, and in doing so, realize that the notion of 'objectivity' is just a subject/object split in the mind which vanishes upon such realization.

This remains a 'subjective' approach of the mind only, and religious assumption of mysticism religious belief systems such as Buddhism and other Vedic religions such as variations of Hinduism.

You are not an agent of observation looking AT phenomena; you are the process of observation thinking yourself to be a separate observer OF phenomena. You, the observed, and the entire process of observation are a single Reality. The notion of a separate 'this and that' is purely mental.

This assumption of the 'notion of a separate 'this and that' is purely mental.' remains a 'subjective' philosophical belief based of the mind only.

 

[crossfire]

True, if one is just speculating/philosophizing, but the authentic spiritual experience is not philosophy or speculation.

How can knowing the difference between what is 'real' and illusion not be productive?

Even science, via Quantum physics, is now providing us a radical new view into the nature of what we used to think of as 'the physical world'. It is now a 'superposition of possibilities'.

For decades, science has looked to the 'material' world for answers, but now even that notion of materiality is no longer valid. Mystics, OTOH, once having seen into the illusory nature of the 'material' world, abandon that path and seek higher ground, and in doing so, realize that the notion of 'objectivity' is just a subject/object split in the mind which vanishes upon such realization.

You are not an agent of observation looking AT phenomena; you are the process of observation thinking yourself to be a separate observer OF phenomena. You, the observed, and the entire process of observation are a single Reality. The notion of a separate 'this and that' is purely mental.

I have a silly question: If everything is consciousness (including the "physical/material,") and the only way to realize this is to drop "mind," then how does this actually differ from materialism with a different fancy-schmancy label?

 

[godnotgod]

I have a silly question: If everything is consciousness (including the "physical/material,") and the only way to realize this is to drop "mind," then how does this actually differ from materialism with a different fancy-schmancy label?

I fail to understand your question. If one realizes that everything is consciousness, where do you see any 'material'?

 

[shunyadragon]

I fail to understand your question. If one realizes that everything is consciousness, where do you see any 'material'?

The 'realization that everything is consciousness' remains an anecdotal subjective assertion of belief without any objective supporting evidence outside the mind.

Nice belief, but nothing here based on objective evidence.