Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:50 pm"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.
Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:50 pmAll of your knowledge comes from your experiences.
Not just my experiences, but the experiences of others, and of all other life really.
Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:50 pmWhat 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.
Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:50 pmActually, 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.
Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:50 pmIt 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.
Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:50 pmI 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
Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 1:50 pmMy 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".