Why ? I don’t quite follow that.
Let’s imagine Peter is looking at a tree and says “there is a tree” . Peter is stating an objective fact. Does Peter’s utterance “there is a tree” mean that Peter is not “objective” ? Or ?
Yes, the tree is certainly outside of Peter. And vice-versa. By definition every object is outside all other objects.
Objects are outside of the observer. Both observer and objects are part of reality.
If you say objectivity or facts are “out there” and independent of the observer, then where does that leave the observer? As to Peter’s utterance, what’s objective?
Ok, I think we’ve moved on a bit here and clarified more. First you were saying what is objective is observer-independent and objectivity is “out there” and objectivity is “reality”. So “reality” is “out there”. Thus why I wondered where the observer was ‘floating’. But now you state the observer and the objects are part of reality. So the observer and objects are reality. Then what’s subjectivity if objectivity is observer, objects, and reality? Where’s subjectivity ‘floating’?
Wilderness,
I’m afraid I don’t follow you.
Yes, I took that for granted. Isn’t it obvious ? This is like asking what’s the meaning of the word “meaning”. I don’t think it’s fruitful.
If you have any metaphysical position you want to advocate, go ahead. But I don’t think that can be done by objecting to the standard usage of a couple of words.
ok, my point is you, not I, you said that what is objective is reality. It therefore begs the question what about the observer, which as you stated is independent from reality. But then you say the observer is with reality. You changed your position. You are running around in circles not knowing what to do it seems.
Subjective and objective intellectual thinking isn’t a ‘given’ or “granted”. People have reasoned this kind of thinking out since Greece, at least that far back as the records show. They have become what are called logical positivist which include utilitarian philosophies of today.
Not at all. I’m simply answering your confused or maybe purposely misleading questions. YOU are going in circles. I think your position may be described as sophism.
Now, if you have some sort of metaphysical declaration to make go ahead and make it. You already said that physical reality is not objective and ‘proved’ it by repeating what the physics establishment says. In a word, you’re just appealing to authority.
So, for the time being, I’ll keep on using the words subjective and objective as I see fit. Oh, and I’ll stick to realism, too.
What I took for granted is that subject and objects ‘exist’ or ‘are part of reality’. Feel free to disagree or doubt existence, tho. I on the other hand consider skepticism and similar philosophies to be uninteresting.
Also, if you think my position is ‘logical positivism’, you are wrong, again.
No, solipsism means only subjectivity exists. I never said objectivity doesn’t exist. Forget the whole “going in circles” crap. I apologize if I offended you.
That’s fine. Stick to them. They are decent analogies, but they are not reality. And according to your defining physical reality as objective you still can’t account for the observer in this reality of yours. For only reality is objective to you and objective is “observer-independent” to you. So no observer in your reality.
I didn’t say solipsism, tho it applies too. I said sophism. Maybe sophistry would have been clearer.
You didn’t offend me. It just bothered me a bit because you are not making an argument.
I wish you would clarify what you mean by “accounting for the observer”. You asked a couple of times “what about the observer” but the question is too broad, almost meaningless. So, what about him ?
Sorry I don’t see what you mean.
What don’t you understand about your own words: “observer-independent”?
I do understand my words. I don’t understand yours.
Then define “observer-independent”, which is your definition of reality.
i think he means, if there really is a man in a room:
then there really is a man
and there really is a room
and there really is a man in a room.
yet subjectively the man might think he wasnt a man. that he wasnt in the room, that there wasnt a room
the map is not the territory and all that stuff…
Sorry, I got tired of your game. Please tell me what does the verb “to mean” mean.
Well if you don’t know the concepts you are using, then no wonder.
Again, you are just a sophist. Perhaps you should explain your position or else remain silent.
You advocate the term and seem to think just by stating you’re being “objective” it makes you right, but apparently you don’t know what you are talking about.
I made my position clear whereas all you did was ask loaded (and silly) questions. So, now, explain your bright take on metaphysics or else admit YOU don’t know what you’re talking about.
Don’t give me concepts if you can’t define them. That’s what “not knowing what you’re talking about” means.
Evasive much eh ? Who do you think you are fooling ? I take it you can’t explain your position.
I illustrated what I mean by objective and subjective and also pointed out my usage is not very different than standard usage.
But maybe you are going to get language reformed ? Newspeak or something ?