Subject / Object Distinction

[Skepdick]

It simply doesn't follow that the ability to recognize yourself implies an identity.

Yes...it does.

How could it not?

Why would it?

Occam’s razor - if you can explain what’s going on even without it then you don’t need it.

[Trajk Logik]

I don't see the distinction between "subject" and "object" as meaningful.

It's meaningful because it distinguishes what is true and false to most people. People, by default, cling to their subjective opinions as 'true', and confirm with their emotionality and personal sentiments. This is why most people are easily deceived by Western propaganda, indoctrination, religious dogma, etc. Logic, reason, and rationality help raise a person's mental faculties "out of" engrossment in subjective emotionality and sentimentality, to a degree. Most humans cannot use logic—and those that can, tend not to do it well, falling again and again into fallacious reasoning, usually returning back to appeals to emotion (Subjectivity).

Subjectivity refers to the strong bias an individual has, to his/her own preference, which can be manipulated, or flawed through many other, physical manners. People are born with genetic defects, for example. People have audial and visual 'blind spots'. And "objective" outlook, again, allows a person some mental abilities to compensate or 'overcome' these deficiencies, through greater knowledge, awareness, information. If you become aware of your visual blind-spots and deficiencies, for example, it would make you better at...baseball, tennis, racquet sports in general, anytime fast ball objects fly toward and away from you. MMA fighters, for example, take advantage of blind-spots and faints, to overcome other fighters.

I'm surprised that you don't see any of that as 'meaningful'...?

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

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? 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?

[Lacewing]

None of that is true.

You're just making up shit.

It's obviously true, to everybody

So you speak for everyone?

Moslems and Islam shrouds their women for specific and purposeful reasons.

Apparently many of those women are seeking to evolve beyond those conditions... so I guess they don't consider it a privilege.

"Currently in many Muslim communities women are not consider according to the rights given them in Islam. In many societies Muslim are practicing their own cultures and customs and women are being subject to cultural issues, patriarchal features of their society and also political oppression (Sechzer, 2004)."

"Today female Muslim scholars are making their voices heard through their re-readings of Islamic text, and their call for the Qur’anic approach in uprooting the patriarchal principles that are very difficult to change. This alternative reading of the Qur’an and the Islamic approach to change are essential components for achieving women’s rights in the Middle East."

It's not that hard to see and understand, but you apparently are incapable of doing either for your own specific and purposeful reasons.

[Wizard22]

Why would it?

Occam’s razor - if you can explain what’s going on even without it then you don’t need it.

Because when you or any mammal identifies itself in a photo...or a mirror, for example, it demonstrates a sub-conscious recognition.

And that sub-conscious recognition is your Self-Identity. This can take place, obviously as you just argued and proved, without being self-aware of it.

[Wizard22]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Wizard22]

So you speak for everyone?

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, yes, I do speak for every human alive and in existence. Until you can provide me an example of...when it matters, life & death situations, that women (and children) are not the privileged genders??

Moslems and Islam shrouds their women for specific and purposeful reasons.

Apparently many of those women are seeking to evolve beyond those conditions... so I guess they don't consider it a privilege.

"Currently in many Muslim communities women are not consider according to the rights given them in Islam. In many societies Muslim are practicing their own cultures and customs and women are being subject to cultural issues, patriarchal features of their society and also political oppression (Sechzer, 2004)."

"Today female Muslim scholars are making their voices heard through their re-readings of Islamic text, and their call for the Qur’anic approach in uprooting the patriarchal principles that are very difficult to change. This alternative reading of the Qur’an and the Islamic approach to change are essential components for achieving women’s rights in the Middle East."

It's not that hard to see and understand, but you apparently are incapable of doing either for your own specific and purposeful reasons.

I can't speak to Moslem morality completely, but when I see them shrouding their women, 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. You and I may not agree with how Moslems do it...but that's what I feel is their core motivation. And I can't fault them for that.

How am I mistaken here?

[Skepdick]

Because when you or any mammal identifies itself in a photo...or a mirror, for example, it demonstrates a sub-conscious recognition.

It's merely demonstrating awareness of one's own appearance.

Yes - I appear in some particular way that is different to other people.
No - I do not have an identity.

And that sub-conscious recognition is your Self-Identity.

No it isn't. It's a recognition of my appearance.

This can take place, obviously as you just argued and proved, without being self-aware of it.

All you keep proving is that you'll dig your heels in and double down on being an idiot even when it's time to admit you were mistaken about having an identity.

Are you self-aware to recognize this fact about yourself?

[Wizard22]

Because when you or any mammal identifies itself in a photo...or a mirror, for example, it demonstrates a sub-conscious recognition.

It's merely demonstrating awareness of one's own appearance.

Yes - I appear in some particular way that is different to other people.
No - I do not have an identity.

And that sub-conscious recognition is your Self-Identity.

No it isn't. It's a recognition of my appearance.

This can take place, obviously as you just argued and proved, without being self-aware of it.

All you keep proving is that you'll dig your heels in and double down on being an idiot even when it's time to admit you were mistaken about having an identity.

Are you self-aware to recognize this fact about yourself?

You have an identity, but you're not self-aware nor self-conscious of it.

[Skepdick]

You have an identity, but you're not self-aware nor self-conscious of it.

That's a statement of faith.

How long should one search for, and fail to find their "identity" before they conclude that the reason they can't find it is because it doesn't exist?

The answer is much simpler, of course. You are member of the Aristotelian religion. The religion which treats identity as a Law. With a capital "L".

Like the capital "G" in "god".

[Wizard22]

The whole point of my line of questioning toward you, was to indicate exactly how and why any Self-Identity can exist.

As demonstrated with animals and young children, there is a range and level of intelligence that allows for self-recognition (mirror test).

This demonstrates evidence of Self-Identity, which is implied. This is only the first step. To then "have" a self-identity, means that you must begin to define your 'self'. How do most people do this? Names are a good start. People respond to their given names, audial information feedback which is an extension of the mirror test. The more intelligent an animal/human is, the more their self-identity can be built up, over and across a lifetime. You're correct to argue that 'self' is not any single instance in time, but, it is a duration. A lifetime duration.

You can identify through your Username, Skepdick. This name identifies you. It separates, to others, and to yourself, apart from my Username, for example. I don't use your login for mine, and you do not use mine for yours. This is evidence...proof even, that we have our own, unique, individual, identities. Our 'selves' are not the same. Because our experiences are not the same. Because our memories are not the same. Because our bodies are not the same.

Because our minds are not the same.

[Skepdick]

The whole point of my line of questioning toward you, was to indicate exactly how and why any Self-Identity can exist.

As demonstrated with animals and young children, there is a range and level of intelligence that allows for self-recognition (mirror test).

This demonstrates evidence of Self-Identity, which is implied. This is only the first step. To then "have" a self-identity, means that you must begin to define your 'self'. How do most people do this? Names are a good start. People respond to their given names, audial information feedback which is an extension of the mirror test. The more intelligent an animal/human is, the more their self-identity can be built up, over and across a lifetime. You're correct to argue that 'self' is not any single instance in time, but, it is a duration. A lifetime duration.

You can identify through your Username, Skepdick. This name identifies you. It separates, to others, and to yourself, apart from my Username, for example. I don't use your login for mine, and you do not use mine for yours. This is evidence...proof even, that we have our own, unique, individual, identities. Our 'selves' are not the same. Because our experiences are not the same. Because our memories are not the same. Because our bodies are not the same.

Because our minds are not the same.

These sound like the crazy ramblings of a religious zealot whose God has been usurped by critical thought.

If identity exists then our minds are the same up to having a shared identity. That's why you call them "our minds" - a single category to which both entities exist. Despite you claiming that "they are not the same".

This is the contradiction of the zealots of identity. How can two different things be refered to with one identifier?

[Wizard22]

These sound like the crazy ramblings of a religious zealot whose God has been usurped by critical thought.

If identity exists then our minds are the same up to having a shared identity. That's why you call them "our minds" - a single category to which both entities exist. Despite you claiming that "they are not the same".

This is the contradiction of the zealots of identity. How can two different things be refered to with one identifier?

I didn't build this system; I was born into it like you are.

What's in a Name?

Humans use identifiers to use as a totem, a compass, a bearing of Reality. Your name is used to remember who you were, who you are, who you will be.

[Skepdick]

I didn't build this system; I was born into it like you are.

And yet you worship at the altar of identity and I don't.

Humans use identifiers to use as a totem, a compass, a bearing of Reality. Your name is used to remember who you were, who you are, who you will be.

Of all the uses I have for language and thinking, trying to "remember who I am" is not a use-case I find any value in...

My name is useful in so far as you want to address me and nobody else in a group, but if I am the only other person in the room my name serves no purpose. Certainly not a purpose of identification.

[Wizard22]

I didn't build this system; I was born into it like you are.

And yet you worship at the altar of identity and I don't.

Humans use identifiers to use as a totem, a compass, a bearing of Reality. Your name is used to remember who you were, who you are, who you will be.

Of all the uses I have for language and thinking, trying to "remember who I am" is not a use-case I find any value in...

My name is useful in so far as you want to address me and nobody else in a group, but if I am the only other person in the room my name serves no purpose. Certainly not a purpose of identification.

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

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

[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.