Subjectivity and objectivity

[Alaric177]

Hi,

I was wondering about subjectivity and objectivity, specifically, what exists in each category in ‘reality’.

One thing I find strange is the idea of spatial dimensions. For example, ‘objects’ appear to interact as though they exist in 3D space (ignoring for now time as a possible 4th dimension). Mathematical operations can be carried out on this assumption, and appear to describe objective reality well. However, dimensions also seem to exist in the subjective world; my visual representation of the world seems to be effectively a 2D ‘screen’, whereby I can look at a view and say that object A appears to be above or below, or to either side of object B (I don’t really think we see in 3D, but I’m happy to accept that for the purpose of this post, as it’s not really what I’m getting at.)

Anyway, I can be reasonably sure that a subjective world really exists, within which are my experiences of colour, shape, sound, feelings etc., and I am also assuming that an objective world really exists, within which exist objects with properties such as mass and charge, which I can only infer indirectly through my experience of their representations in my subjective world.

However, I’m not sure about dimensions; is it possible that dimensions exist in the objective world, but are somehow different to dimensions in the subjective world? It’s not something that I can really conceptualise (surprise, surprise), Perhaps the question I’m asking is much like the more typical one about the objective world being ‘colourless’; can it also therefore be ‘shapeless’? In that case, how do things interact in a manner that seems to be so well represented by my mental 2D/3D reality?

It also brings to mind another question; how is it that we can conceptualise objectivity? It seems strange to me that we can think in terms of these concepts. Do we just deceive ourselves in this regard - for example, I can say that I can ‘imagine a world before I was born’, but any mental image of course still requires myself as an observer. Perhaps it’s a bit like conceptualising ‘nothing’ - is it a ‘thing’, or ‘no thing’? I certainly can’t imagine ‘no thing’, but I can imagine a ‘placeholder thing’ standing in for ‘no thing’. Maybe it’s just because humans are good at thinking in terms of metaphors that we can express these concepts?

I’d welcome any thoughts or opinions, no matter how vague

Thanks,

[h_k_s]

Hi,

I was wondering about subjectivity and objectivity, specifically, what exists in each category in ‘reality’.

One thing I find strange is the idea of spatial dimensions. For example, ‘objects’ appear to interact as though they exist in 3D space (ignoring for now time as a possible 4th dimension). Mathematical operations can be carried out on this assumption, and appear to describe objective reality well. However, dimensions also seem to exist in the subjective world; my visual representation of the world seems to be effectively a 2D ‘screen’, whereby I can look at a view and say that object A appears to be above or below, or to either side of object B (I don’t really think we see in 3D, but I’m happy to accept that for the purpose of this post, as it’s not really what I’m getting at.)

Anyway, I can be reasonably sure that a subjective world really exists, within which are my experiences of colour, shape, sound, feelings etc., and I am also assuming that an objective world really exists, within which exist objects with properties such as mass and charge, which I can only infer indirectly through my experience of their representations in my subjective world.

However, I’m not sure about dimensions; is it possible that dimensions exist in the objective world, but are somehow different to dimensions in the subjective world? It’s not something that I can really conceptualise (surprise, surprise), Perhaps the question I’m asking is much like the more typical one about the objective world being ‘colourless’; can it also therefore be ‘shapeless’? In that case, how do things interact in a manner that seems to be so well represented by my mental 2D/3D reality?

It also brings to mind another question; how is it that we can conceptualise objectivity? It seems strange to me that we can think in terms of these concepts. Do we just deceive ourselves in this regard - for example, I can say that I can ‘imagine a world before I was born’, but any mental image of course still requires myself as an observer. Perhaps it’s a bit like conceptualising ‘nothing’ - is it a ‘thing’, or ‘no thing’? I certainly can’t imagine ‘no thing’, but I can imagine a ‘placeholder thing’ standing in for ‘no thing’. Maybe it’s just because humans are good at thinking in terms of metaphors that we can express these concepts?

I’d welcome any thoughts or opinions, no matter how vague :-)

Thanks,

Much of this is science fiction and simply as such does not actually exist. That's why it is hard to philosophize about it.

[Hereandnow]

Alaric177
I was wondering about subjectivity and objectivity, specifically, what exists in each category in ‘reality’.

One thing I find strange is the idea of spatial dimensions. For example, ‘objects’ appear to interact as though they exist in 3D space (ignoring for now time as a possible 4th dimension). Mathematical operations can be carried out on this assumption, and appear to describe objective reality well. However, dimensions also seem to exist in the subjective world; my visual representation of the world seems to be effectively a 2D ‘screen’, whereby I can look at a view and say that object A appears to be above or below, or to either side of object B (I don’t really think we see in 3D, but I’m happy to accept that for the purpose of this post, as it’s not really what I’m getting at.)

Anyway, I can be reasonably sure that a subjective world really exists, within which are my experiences of colour, shape, sound, feelings etc., and I am also assuming that an objective world really exists, within which exist objects with properties such as mass and charge, which I can only infer indirectly through my experience of their representations in my subjective world.

However, I’m not sure about dimensions; is it possible that dimensions exist in the objective world, but are somehow different to dimensions in the subjective world? It’s not something that I can really conceptualise (surprise, surprise), Perhaps the question I’m asking is much like the more typical one about the objective world being ‘colourless’; can it also therefore be ‘shapeless’? In that case, how do things interact in a manner that seems to be so well represented by my mental 2D/3D reality?

It also brings to mind another question; how is it that we can conceptualise objectivity? It seems strange to me that we can think in terms of these concepts. Do we just deceive ourselves in this regard - for example, I can say that I can ‘imagine a world before I was born’, but any mental image of course still requires myself as an observer. Perhaps it’s a bit like conceptualising ‘nothing’ - is it a ‘thing’, or ‘no thing’? I certainly can’t imagine ‘no thing’, but I can imagine a ‘placeholder thing’ standing in for ‘no thing’. Maybe it’s just because humans are good at thinking in terms of metaphors that we can express these concepts?

I’d welcome any thoughts or opinions, no matter how vague

h_k_s is right, there is a lot of fiction going on in this. But that just leads to the question, what is the standard for determining what is more or less fiction? In other words, you have to ask questions about the questions you ask. Subjective? Not that this has no meaning, but rather, it is its very meaning that causes the problem: its meaning and the way it plays against its opposite, objectivity.

To ask questions about these questions, you have to take a hard look at idealism. Idealists, I will briefly end my response with, are those who think that objectivity and subjectivity are modes of appearances. All the talk we make every day regarding how we feel, and how subjective a response might be to some issue, and how one must be objective and rational when thinking through solutions to problems and so on--all of this is still in place. The language we use doesn't change a bit. The difference occurs when the matter is taken up as a theme, as a meta conversation, a conversation "about" something that attempts to get at its underpinnings and more basic meaning. Here, it all changes: It's not that there is an out there of space and time, but that space and time are "in here".

I like what Rorty said: knowing something in the world, that a tree was planted yesterday, or the sun is out, is not epistemically distinct from what a car's fender "knows" about the offending guardrail. This is a rather extreme second order idealism, but you get the idea. (Rorty just wants our terms to make sense, and when talk about philosophical objectivism, it all breaks down; but then, so does subjectivism. He just drops the second order vocabulary altogether.)

[Hereandnow]

hmmmmm. Rather, (see above) not "....but time and space are in here"; but, time and space are just time and space on our and socety's working vocabulary. The "in here" of it is a misleading locution in this discussion.