The big misunderstanding about “I”

[Atla]

I think that talking about subjectivity in an objectified way, omitting consideration of our being personally involved in the topic from its very inside, is just a lie, most probably an unintentional lie, but it’s a lie, it means working with false assumptions. The false assumption is this one: “Let’s assume that we can talk about subjectivity leaving aside our involvement in it”.

If you think that everyone including every philosopher makes this wrong assumption, I think you're very mistaken. Actually there's no topic at all which can fully leave aside our involvement in it.

[Angelo Cannata]

It depends on how my words are interpreted. I’m aware that, when I talk about anything, about lie, I’m in this very moment inside my subjectivity as well, so, I know that I can’t refer to any objective difference between true and false. So, when I say that we should consider our involvement, because otherwise what we say is a lie, I use the word “lie” borrowing it from the objective ways of thinking. I said that objective thinking can’t be considered true, but I think that it can still be appreciated, because it is part of our culture, language, history, it’s impossible not to use it. So, in other words, when I say that we should try to follow truth rather than falsehood, it’s not because of any reliability of these notions, but just because, from inside my subjectivity, considering the history of our cultures, after trying to make a synthesis of our human present condition, what truth means in our existence seems better to me.

[Atla]

It depends on how my words are interpreted. I’m aware that, when I talk about anything, about lie, I’m in this very moment inside my subjectivity as well, so, I know that I can’t refer to any objective difference between true and false. So, when I say that we should consider our involvement, because otherwise what we say is a lie, I use the word “lie” borrowing it from the objective ways of thinking. I said that objective thinking can’t be considered true, but I think that it can still be appreciated, because it is part of our culture, language, history, it’s impossible not to use it. So, in other words, when I say that we should try to follow truth rather than falsehood, it’s not because of any reliability of these notions, but just because, from inside my subjectivity, considering the history of our cultures, after trying to make a synthesis of our human present condition, what truth means in our existence seems better to me.

I meant that any worthwhile thinker knows that objective thinking is a construct 'inside our subjectivity', all human thinking is 'inside our subjectivity'.

[Angelo Cannata]

Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hegel, St. Thomas, they all thought about something essentially true and objective, that is, independent from our subjectivity. Shall we consider these people not to be worthwile thinkers?

[Atla]

Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hegel, St. Thomas, they all thought about something essentially true and objective, that is, independent from our subjectivity. Shall we consider these people not to be worthwile thinkers?

Plato and Descartes were complete idiots, I don't know enough about the philosophical views of the other three.

[Angelo Cannata]

Considering people idiots doesn’t put you in a good position to understand them, because this way your intepretation of them is automatically biased by your judgement. We are humans, emotional, it’s normal feeling an instinct to consider certain people idiots, but, if we want to seriously understand them, we need the patience to put aside any judgement and, instead, try to understand the reasons of what they say.

[Atla]

Considering people idiots doesn’t put you in a good position to understand them, because this way your intepretation of them is automatically biased by your judgement. We are humans, emotional, it’s normal feeling an instinct to consider certain people idiots, but, if we want to seriously understand them, we need the patience to put aside any judgement and, instead, try to understand the reasons of what they say.

Nothing emotional about it. Plato for example believed in the realm of pure forms, and in actual subjects and objects and their relationships, he reified abstractions left and right, which made the Western world pretty insane for 2400 years. Descartes made it worse with his mind/body split for example, and his misguided cogito ergo sum. We have destructive thinkers like them to thank for that even today, 99%+ of Westerners have no idea what the 'I' refers to, what the real nature of consciousness is.
At least Kant fixed this slightly no? He showed that it's not possible to escape our subjectivity.

[Terrapin Station]

Whenever we, or any philosopher of past or present time, talk about “I”, or “subjectivity”, a big mistake is made. The mistake consists in treating it as an object.

That's a mistake because . . . ? Are you doing something like using a definition of "objectivity" that amounts to "talk about objects"?

[Angelo Cannata]

Can you better explain your question?

[Terrapin Station]

Can you better explain your question?

Really I was just wondering why you feel it's a mistake to treat "I" or subjective experience as an object?

[Angelo Cannata]

I have already explained it: what is not clear?

[Terrapin Station]

I have already explained it: what is not clear?

None of it is clear.

For example: "When I say that subjectivity is so and so, I am actually talking not about subjectivity, but about an objectified idea of subjectivity." What's the difference?

And then: "If I want to talk about real subjectivity, I must talk about my own subjectivity"--okay, even assuming that's the case (which I don't agree with, but it's okay to assume that for a moment), how does that have anything to do with whether it's a mistake to talk about it as an object? Why would it be a mistake to talk about your own subjectivity as an object?

Etc.

[Terrapin Station]

I suppose, for one, we're going to have to figure out what definition of "object" you'd use.

[Angelo Cannata]

I’ve already explained it here

[Terrapin Station]

I’ve already explained it here

If the definition you're using it "to throw" that makes this murkier than if you didn't define it.

What the hell is "to throw"? (I'm no Heidegger fan, by the way.)