Subject / Object Distinction

[Wizard22]

"Worship", that's your impression, not mine.

Oh no! Do you feel triggered by that word? Pick another one then.

You believe in the existence of Identity like theists believe in the existence of God.

Your name is useful...because it represents your identity.

Names doesn't represent anything any more than your phone numbers or ID numbers represent your identity.

It's just a way of picking you out and addressing you in a crowd.

You missed the point long ago, so I'll remind you and posit it again.

Within you, what you call "you", somewhere, in your body, in your brain, in your mind, your cognition re-cognizes "yourself" in a mirror, in your phone numbers, ID numbers, your forum Username, any Identification, and that is how you identify yourself. But you are not aware, not conscious, of your cognization and re-cognization. That's why you're bringing in magic, worship, divinity, to justify why and how this process is done, and is achieved, within you.

Become aware of your Self.

[Skepdick]

"Worship", that's your impression, not mine.

Oh no! Do you feel triggered by that word? Pick another one then.

You believe in the existence of Identity like theists believe in the existence of God.

Your name is useful...because it represents your identity.

Names doesn't represent anything any more than your phone numbers or ID numbers represent your identity.

It's just a way of picking you out and addressing you in a crowd.

You missed the point long ago, so I'll remind you and posit it again.

Within you, what you call "you", somewhere, in your body, in your brain, in your mind, your cognition re-cognizes "yourself" in a mirror, in your phone numbers, ID numbers, your forum Username, any Identification, and that is how you identify yourself. But you are not aware, not conscious, of your cognization and re-cognization. That's why you're bringing in magic, worship, divinity, to justify why and how this process is done, and is achieved, within you.

Become aware of your Self.

Much like trying to explain to a theist that God doesn't exist, trying to explain to you that identity doesn't exist is futile.

I am aware of myself. It's precisely from that place of self-awareness that I keep pointing out to you: I am perfectly aware of my lack of identity.

[Trajk Logik]

Subjectivity is simply a category mistake. To say that "chocolate ice cream is delicious" is not saying anything about the chocolate ice cream.

It can be, but not always. I disagree with your rationalization and assessment. What is the 'objective' interpretation or experience of chocolate ice cream? Start with the things pretty much everybody, or everybody, agree-upon about chocolate ice cream—it's sweet; it's sugary. That says something about ice cream, sugary frozen milk, much deeper. It's chemical/chemistry. So the S-O distinction here is between the subjective experience (consuming and enjoying a chocolate ice cream) versus the "objective reality", chemical composition of sugar, why sugar and calories are highly demanded by mammals, the processing of milk and sugar into the food, etc. The "objective facts" are presumed, and posited, 'outside' direct subjective experience. So even if a person never eats chocolate ice cream, or opines that it tastes horrible (humans can lie btw), then these subjective interpretations are subsets of the 'objective' reality—that of sugar, milk, processing, how the product is made, how it's packaged, its history of development and cuisine.

"Sweet" is part of the experience. "Sweet" is part of the map, not the territory. According to your statements, the chemical composition is the territory. But how did you get at the chemical composition if not via some part of your "subjective" experience? Again, you can only get at the world via your experiences. All of your knowledge comes from your experiences. What form does your awareness of the chemical composition of ice cream take? How do you know that you know that? What is it that you can point to if not some other "subjective" experience? For instance, if you read an online article about the chemistry of ice cream, doesn't it take the form of your visual of the computer screen, with a white background and black letters, and your prior meaningful memories and experiences that are integrated with the meaning of the words you are reading? How does that experience get at the objective nature of ice cream?

It is saying something about your relationship with the chocolate ice cream. Someone else might think that chocolate ice cream is disgusting. This isn't to say that these relationships are false or don't exist. They do. It's just the way we use language that confuses what it is we are actually talking about because it is instinctive to believe the world is as you see, or experience, it. We are naturally naive realists.

I agree that human language, across the globe, does not 'interface' the S-O distinction as well as it could. Languages are naturally favored to Subjects and Subjectivity. When language began, those proto-humans developing it used purely their own imagination, labels, naming conventions/grunts, to Name the world. Thus language is an extension of subjectivity. But the pursuit and 'end', is toward Objective-Reality. Language, especially philosophical convention, demands that we (subjective humanity) utilize language in better, superior, more objective ways, to "get at" any object or item described.

Actually, I think language use is grounded more in "objectivity". There is no logical reason why an individual would need to label and name things on their own. If you were the only human in existence there would be no reason to label and name things. Those labels and names are only useful when you have the intention to communicate your own experiences to others, and you have to understand their own knowledge and experience with the same labels and names, or else how do you know what labels and names to use to be able to communicate? This is why we might change the way we speak when talking with a child or someone that is learning our language. We want to make sure that we get our point across, or else why say anything in the first place? You could want to lie, but that still requires you knowing what they know for your lie to be effective.

It cannot be matters of opinion-only. That's where subjectivity gets bogged-down...politics, pedantic arguments, regression, endless debate about whose 'opinion' reigns supreme. Objectivity is beyond our subjective claims, beyond mine too. I, nor you, nor anyone can be held 'accountable', in a way, about our objective-interpretations. This is why prehistoric Mystics immediately connected the ideal of Objectivity to mysticism, supernatural worlds, divinity, mythology, etc.

It is only subjective if you don't take into account the person's life experiences. People aren't born democrats or republicans. People aren't born racists. There is a history of causal relationships that lead to their current understanding and positions, no different than the causal relationships that led to the evolution of humans, the formation of a hurricane, or how your vehicle overheated and is now not drivable. Given some individuals history and life experiences and their development as a child, it would be expected that they think and believe the things that they do now. In thinking that their views map onto some "objective" aspect of the world is the category mistake I was talking about. Labeling someone's belief that Democrats are saints and Republicans are evil as "subjective" is a category mistake. Both you of you are mistaking the use of language what is really being said. If one merely moves where the language-use is pointing to - at the person's beliefs, and not something outside of that (like the nature of Democrats and Republicans), then you dissolve the S-O distinction because a person's beliefs is as much a part of the world as the Sun and ice cream.

If you see human minds, consciousness, or whatever you want to call it as separate, or distinct, from nature then I can see why you believe in a S-O distinction. But for someone like me who sees it all as part of the same world there is no S-O distinction. Only a misuse of language.

If all we have access to is our models of the world (our minds, or conscious experiences of the world), and not the world, how do we know when, if ever, that we are talking about the world and not our experiences?

Intuition, people make a rational/logical "leap of faith", presuming that we talk about the same things, items, objects, "outer world".

Philosophy degrades into Religion/Faith, upon this transition. Objectivity must be grounded in 'Reality'. Objects can be more-or-less. More real, referring to "Science", empiricism, logic, rationality, reasoning, intelligence, healthy mind—less real, referring to mental illness, schizophrenia, paranoia, delusion, tricked into propagated lies, fantasy realms, misplacing Fiction for Fact, politicking, religious dogma, etc.

I agree that logic is the method for understanding how language is used, and how it should be used correctly with "correctly" meaning pointing at the correct things in the world with our words. Logical paradoxes are the result of a misuse of language. They often do not take into account that words refer to processes and states in the world. There are no contradictions in reality, only in the misuse of language.

Even when we compare our own experiences, we are comparing our models of the world. So how do we ever know that we are talking about a world? How do I know that you have a mind? Why would it be useful to know that you have a mind and the contents of your mind if subjectivity is false?

Because it's not Absolutely true nor false. It's a gradient. Humans have developed the 'scientific method' and 'empiricism', from philosophy, to move toward "Objective fact/reality". It's never complete. It's always a matter of progression and improvement.

Consider all the things in your own life, that you cannot disbelieve its Reality, what are those moments, or things, or experiences?

What do you consider most real in life?

My own mind/consciousness. It is part of reality, not distinct from it. It is the one thing I have direct access to. From there I assume that my consciousness is about the world. It does seem quite natural to do that though.

[Skepdick]

There are no contradictions in reality, only in the misuse of language.

Something tells me you failed basic logic...

P1. There are no contradictions in reality
P2. Language is part of reality.
C There are no contradictions in language.

Are you misusing language or something?

[Lacewing]

If a ship is sinking without enough life boats, like Titanic, I've never heard of or conceived, in my entire life, that all the women and children stay on board the sinking ship, while the men take all the life boats...

So, 'what you don't hear about' makes you somehow qualified to claim what is and isn't. (I've provided a link for you below.)

so, yes, I do speak for every human alive and in existence.

That's because you're being as arrogant as you are idiotic!

Until you can provide me an example of...when it matters, life & death situations, that women (and children) are not the privileged genders??

“Women and children first” is a maritime disaster myth—it’s really “every man for himself”

https://qz.com/321827/women-and-childre ... %2C%202014.

Of further note... women and children are considered weaker... which is why they're also preyed upon by men. Protecting a 'weaker' person does not mean the weaker person is privileged.

Maybe this is why you can't see what privilege actually is...

"The long-standing and unquestioned nature of patriarchal systems, reinforced over generations, tends to make privilege invisible to holders; it can lead males who benefit from such privilege to ascribe their special status to their own individual merits and achievements, rather than to unearned advantages."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_privilege

I imagine what it would be like to have a 13 and 14-year-old, sexually attractive and hormonal daughter. As her biological father, I'd probably want to shroud her in public too, to dampen the effect of all the male perverts out there oogling and lusting for her.
So, males naturally want to protect their women.

That's control, not privilege. Focus on controlling the men.

Females are not possessions -- they are vibrant souls/beings in human form and deserve every freedom of expression and inclusion and movement and intellect accorded to males. This is regardless of whatever excuses males come up with to restrict or suggest otherwise. It's up to the female to choose what she wants.

[Wizard22]

I am aware of myself.

Okay...so you *ARE* aware of your self-identity...

Do you not see how you're contradicting yourself over the last few pages??

[Skepdick]

I am aware of myself.

Okay...so you *ARE* aware of your self-identity...

Do you not see how you're contradicting yourself over the last few pages??

It's almost like you can't comprehend basic English.

I said that I am aware of myself.
I also said that I am aware that I lack an identity.
What I DIDN'T say (yet you are making it out as if I did say it) is that I am aware of my (self)identity.

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand --Bertrand Russel

The "contradictions" are all in your head...

[Wizard22]

"Sweet" is part of the experience. "Sweet" is part of the map, not the territory. According to your statements, the chemical composition is the territory. But how did you get at the chemical composition if not via some part of your "subjective" experience? Again, you can only get at the world via your experiences.

"Sweet" is a descriptor, referent, to the chemical compound. My original assertions state that, sugar, the chemical will be 'sweet' whether I ever taste it or not. The relationship, unexperienced, is Objective. It is beyond my experience. In the same way, that a gold nugget will remain gold, chemically composed and alloyed, whether I ever find it in the ground or not. I can have no experience of gold. It would not change the 'thing' of "gold-ness". This is the disconnection, the S-O Distinction.

All of your knowledge comes from your experiences.

Not just my experiences, but the experiences of others, and of all other life really.

What form does your awareness of the chemical composition of ice cream take? How do you know that you know that? What is it that you can point to if not some other "subjective" experience? For instance, if you read an online article about the chemistry of ice cream, doesn't it take the form of your visual of the computer screen, with a white background and black letters, and your prior meaningful memories and experiences that are integrated with the meaning of the words you are reading? How does that experience get at the objective nature of ice cream?

I agree with your presumptions of subjective experience rooting our knowledge. That's Epistemology.

But when it comes to Objectivity, the objects, where experience is not required, it's as-if the world of objects are waiting as potentiality, as to the experiences that we already have. For example, if we've never eaten chocolate ice cream in our lives, it doesn't change the 'potentiality' of the sugary chemical composition that "awaits" our taste buds. It's there, waiting to be proven. That's the empirical difference, when subjective perception, observation, experience, confers with (objective)-reality.

Objectivity is always a Hypothetical, Theoretical, because subjects cannot confer with it until it is perceived/experienced.

However, that does not mean that Objects depend upon Subjects, to Exist. This is basic Existentialism.

Actually, I think language use is grounded more in "objectivity". There is no logical reason why an individual would need to label and name things on their own. If you were the only human in existence there would be no reason to label and name things. Those labels and names are only useful when you have the intention to communicate your own experiences to others, and you have to understand their own knowledge and experience with the same labels and names, or else how do you know what labels and names to use to be able to communicate? This is why we might change the way we speak when talking with a child or someone that is learning our language. We want to make sure that we get our point across, or else why say anything in the first place? You could want to lie, but that still requires you knowing what they know for your lie to be effective.

You kind of missed the point. Language is subjective because of how humans originally named all the phenomena we currently use to communicate. This is why any respective language is optional, no "objective language" insofar as one language has precedence over all others. Which language you choose, is preferential, opinionated. Perhaps some languages are more effective at communication than others though.

The objects referred to by and through language, are again, 'outside' of the means of communication. We can talk, discuss, debate, argue the chocolate ice cream, but that's not the same as you and I in an ice cream shop, with ice cream, tasting the physical/actual/objective differences between them.

It is only subjective if you don't take into account the person's life experiences. People aren't born democrats or republicans. People aren't born racists. There is a history of causal relationships that lead to their current understanding and positions, no different than the causal relationships that led to the evolution of humans, the formation of a hurricane, or how your vehicle overheated and is now not drivable. Given some individuals history and life experiences and their development as a child, it would be expected that they think and believe the things that they do now. In thinking that their views map onto some "objective" aspect of the world is the category mistake I was talking about. Labeling someone's belief that Democrats are saints and Republicans are evil as "subjective" is a category mistake. Both you of you are mistaking the use of language what is really being said. If one merely moves where the language-use is pointing to - at the person's beliefs, and not something outside of that (like the nature of Democrats and Republicans), then you dissolve the S-O distinction because a person's beliefs is as much a part of the world as the Sun and ice cream.

If you see human minds, consciousness, or whatever you want to call it as separate, or distinct, from nature then I can see why you believe in a S-O distinction. But for someone like me who sees it all as part of the same world there is no S-O distinction. Only a misuse of language.

Objects are not "distinct from nature".

They are distinct from my or your understanding with and experience of nature.

I agree that logic is the method for understanding how language is used, and how it should be used correctly with "correctly" meaning pointing at the correct things in the world with our words. Logical paradoxes are the result of a misuse of language. They often do not take into account that words refer to processes and states in the world. There are no contradictions in reality, only in the misuse of language.

Agreed

My own mind/consciousness. It is part of reality, not distinct from it. It is the one thing I have direct access to. From there I assume that my consciousness is about the world. It does seem quite natural to do that though.

One of the 'realest' experiences I've had in life, was during a nightmare in which a strange being was in my bedroom, and the terror I felt was "most real". So I think that humanity in general, base reality on their emotions and direct physical impressions, extreme pain or pleasure for example, traumatic losses, depression, sadness, the pivotal events of life which most deeply ingrain upon the Psyche.

However, logically, I think it's very important to consider that reality is not based on you or I subjectively, but 'reality' has premise in Objectivity instead. This would be "purely rational", or as Kant described it, "Pure Reason".

[Wizard22]

I am aware of myself.

Okay...so you *ARE* aware of your self-identity...

Do you not see how you're contradicting yourself over the last few pages??

It's almost like you can't comprehend basic English.

I said that I am aware of myself.
I also said that I am aware that I lack an identity.
What I DIDN'T say (yet you are making it out as if I did say it) is that I am aware of my (self)identity.

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand --Bertrand Russel

The "contradictions" are all in your head...

What is your self, if not your identity?

[Wizard22]

If a ship is sinking without enough life boats, like Titanic, I've never heard of or conceived, in my entire life, that all the women and children stay on board the sinking ship, while the men take all the life boats...

So, 'what you don't hear about' makes you somehow qualified to claim what is and isn't. (I've provided a link for you below.)

so, yes, I do speak for every human alive and in existence.

That's because you're being as arrogant as you are idiotic!

You are not counter-arguing the point...there is no case, no example in history, where men save themselves en masse and leave the women and children behind to die, during a disaster/emergency. Why not? Because women and children are more privileged than men, have more value, are more valuable. Calling me 'idiotic' only reaffirms my belief, because you can't argue the point.

You should accept my argument, and understand you-yourself, as a woman, are more privileged than men. But truth hurts, doesn't it?? You've been lied to your whole life, and those lies are easy and comfortable to hold onto. You've been propagated, indoctrinated, as typical Westerners are, that men are "more privileged" than women...yet you can't argue against the case I just made, can you?

Until you can provide me an example of...when it matters, life & death situations, that women (and children) are not the privileged genders??

“Women and children first” is a maritime disaster myth—it’s really “every man for himself”

https://qz.com/321827/women-and-childre ... %2C%202014.

Every man for himself refers to military naval disasters, or piracy, where there are no women and children on the ships...

Common sense, Lacewing...

Of further note... women and children are considered weaker... which is why they're also preyed upon by men. Protecting a 'weaker' person does not mean the weaker person is privileged.

Maybe this is why you can't see what privilege actually is...

"The long-standing and unquestioned nature of patriarchal systems, reinforced over generations, tends to make privilege invisible to holders; it can lead males who benefit from such privilege to ascribe their special status to their own individual merits and achievements, rather than to unearned advantages."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_privilege

Women and children are weaker, which is why they must be protected, and protected things are privileged things. Unprotected things, are NOT privileged things.

When your house is on fire, do you take the privileged items first, or last?

That's control, not privilege. Focus on controlling the men.

Females are not possessions -- they are vibrant souls/beings in human form and deserve every freedom of expression and inclusion and movement and intellect accorded to males. This is regardless of whatever excuses males come up with to restrict or suggest otherwise. It's up to the female to choose what she wants.

Exactly the point I originally made...I stated that Feminists have convinced Westerners, and the world really, that it is 'sexist' that men treat women "as objects"...but the hidden half of that argument are a series of implications. Do women treat men as objects? (Yes, you do) What does it mean to be treated as an object, as a possession, as owned? Is it necessarily bad? Do house pets hate being treated as possessions? Do they hate being cared for? Do children? At what point in life, do we as adults, become un-possessed? Do we become our own Persons? Our own Subjects?

Are we born Subjects, Objects, what?

[Skepdick]

Okay...so you *ARE* aware of your self-identity...

Do you not see how you're contradicting yourself over the last few pages??

It's almost like you can't comprehend basic English.

I said that I am aware of myself.
I also said that I am aware that I lack an identity.
What I DIDN'T say (yet you are making it out as if I did say it) is that I am aware of my (self)identity.

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand --Bertrand Russel

The "contradictions" are all in your head...

What is your self, if not your identity?

As before...

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand --Bertrand Russell

I don't have a "self". I am myself.

[Wizard22]

Skepdick your arguments are breaking down... I think you should meditate a bit on your self =/= identity contradiction...

How is your self, not your identity???

[Skepdick]

Skepdick your arguments are breaking down... I think you should meditate a bit on your self =/= identity contradiction...

How is your self, not your identity???

Wizard22 I think you should read this over and over until your brain understands it: you are not an identity. You are you.

If you are struggling to grasp this consider some rudimentary introduction to recursion/self-reference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference

[Wizard22]

Myself includes identification...my brain recognizes my image as "mine", not somebody else's.

Without this process of (ongoing) self-identification, my brain would not recognize my face, my body, my experience, apart from anybody else. My 'self' is attached to these identifications. Pretty much everybody has ingrained memories, of who they are, what they are, their names, what they look like, experience in general, etc. These are all cognitive processes, producing our respective, unique, individual "Consciousness". I am not you. You are not me. We do not "share" consciousness. Consciousness is the name of a phenomenon, in which human brain cognition, Re-presents itself through time. It maintains consistency (through memorization).

Identity can be added to, and subtracted from. People can "lose themselves", in many different ways. Children need to have their identity 'built' over time. Some people, for example, identify strongly with their job, their occupation, being a soldier, a police officer, a doctor, a lawyer, etc. Reputations are for many, "who you are".

[Skepdick]

Myself includes identification...my brain recognizes my image as "mine", not somebody else's.

Without this process of (ongoing) self-identification, my brain would not recognize my face, my body, my experience, apart from anybody else. My 'self' is attached to these identifications. Pretty much everybody has ingrained memories, of who they are, what they are, their names, what they look like, experience in general, etc. These are all cognitive processes, producing our respective, unique, individual "Consciousness". I am not you. You are not me. We do not "share" consciousness. Consciousness is the name of a phenomenon, in which human brain cognition, Re-presents itself through time. It maintains consistency (through memorization).

Identity can be added to, and subtracted from. People can "lose themselves", in many different ways. Children need to have their identity 'built' over time. Some people, for example, identify strongly with their job, their occupation, being a soldier, a police officer, a doctor, a lawyer, etc. Reputations are for many, "who you are".

So according to you blind people who can't recognize their own faces, and deaf people who can't recognize their own voice don't have that "identity" thing you have.

Good to know...