fair enough … it might be worth looking at the phenomenological approach maybe? Especially when talking about our experience, knowledge and perceptions of the world in context of individual perspectives.

In terms of phenomenology they are NOT the same thing at all because phenomenology has no concern for what is real/existent in any material/physical sense.

People are strange.

Yes, but they are not the same.

I was responding to someone else.

I can say you are wrong and provide reasons if I wish to. We can then go back and forth for a while … eventually we can agree upon definitions and how they are used in certain contexts. If we cannot agree on terms then we will miss the spot.

In general our terms are universal enough to allow for meaningful conversations. Sometimes misuse, or alternative uses, will slip by unnoticed.

When it comes to terms like ‘objective’ used in a colloquial sense we have little trouble understanding what is meant. In fields such as epistemology, sciences or fictional stories the term shifts to suit the medium.

Paradigm shifts will disrupt communication as we have to foster new ways to explicate new ideas/experiences.

I will also mention that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are prime examples of terms that have universality in one context but not in another. 1+1=4 is wrong, yet when it comes to ethics what is or is not ‘wrong’ can yo-yo back and forth within an individual perspective when new items come to our attention.

If we both see a dog in the street and one of us says ‘look at that dog’ we know what is meant. Objectivity in this sense in an object of understanding.

If you ask ‘what are you doing tomorrow?’ No one will fail to understand. What they can fail to understand are subtle inferences and reasons for asking/stating certain things.

It is bootstrapping if this kind of lingo is used completely out of context.

Intentionality (phenomenological) is not concerned with objectivity in any measured sense.

There seems to be a common theme hitting the threads recently around the idea of ‘knowns’ and ‘unknowns’. I find it hard to stomach reading someone talk of ‘objective’ and ‘intersubjective’ as if they are synonymous … if they are why use both?

Arguing with ‘bracketing out’ in the first place is probably where the bootstrapping would make sense. Seems to be a lot of crossovers here in terminology that are clouding my understanding of what is being said.

This is kind if a misuse of the original intention of this kind of terminology.

To talk of ‘intersubjectivity’ in relation to ‘reality’ is kind of a contradiction if one understands the intent of phenomenology.

I am saying quite the opposite: there is an ontology that stands behind, with, and in, all knowledge claims, rendering them epistemically non arbitrary. This is the point. — Astrophel

If you can elaborate this a little more I would like to hear it. Note: plain language would help if possible.

I like the pragmatism about this. But does it follow that when distinctions encourage or even enable exploration, you are in favour? For example, I can distinguish between questions that I know the answer to and those that I don't know the answer to. Arguable, that distinction enables me to explore. Really, quite useful. — Ludwig V

Context matters. The further we abstract ideas and thoughts from experience the less tangible they become. Specialisation is useless if such ‘specialisation’ lives in its own terminological frame wholly separate - or rather seemingly so - from more mundane matters.

Categorisation is a symptom of a particular pedagogy that, given the practical evidence, seems less than optimal and more or less a mere force of habit. Finland is a prime example of how general problems are more fully understood and tackled by students in multiple ways effectively rather than simply looking through one myopic lens.

The only things we know with ‘absolute certainty’ are items contained in abstract realms (ie. 1+1=2). Outside of abstractions there is no ‘absolute certainty’.

I came to the conclusion that what is observed is necessarily apparent because it can be brought into question NOT because we know it with ‘absolute certainty’.

In a more general sense the primary question of philosophy (posed millenia ago) is ‘How should I live my life?’

Such a question is BS to some because they just ‘live’ whereas for others it is intrinsic to their being. Some people question things and others do not.

So to call ‘meaning’ a bunch of BS is kinda silly. There are large swathes within the philosophical field that good numbers of people would not bother with where others choose to loiter. In some sense it is a bit like saying ALL science is BS … in truth there are areas within scientific interest that are more readily useful than others seem to be.

You may notice that to a chemist ‘chemistry is everything’ yet to a biologist ‘biology is everything’. Biased of preferences is a human condition. I am more or less for doing away with distinctions when they inhibit exploration.

What do you mean by ‘truly know’ as opposed to ‘know’?

You are correct. The epistemic and ontological distinctions are of convenience.

Sadly people like Heidegger used this problem to talk meaningless twaddle :D

Yes. That is like saying phenomenal phenomenon. In terms of Kantian lingo anyway.

In science phenomenon is just something we experience and then try and understand.

Language is also a nuanced term. If we are talking about how language is learned it is fair to say spacial and temporal position matters just as much as, if not more so, than categorising similar elements/ideas/experiences.Furthermore what we experience has emotional context always - be this through needs, wants or questions.

The World is essentially our language NOT some ‘experience of’ The World. Consciousness is ‘experience of’, as in experience of some ‘thing’. Verbalising/labelling the ‘thing’ (phenomenon) is another step. A table is a table because you understand it as such not because it is a table. A table to an ant is not … maybe some creatures other tha humans grasp the purpose of a table BUT that said it is likely only a human item not a universal item as it serves a human function not a universal one.

Other items, such as trees, will likely be ‘understood’ by other animals in roughly the same manner, but by something like an ant … no way.

The world of phenomena and human experience? — Tom Storm

They are the same thing.

Some people probably never think about some ‘real world’ they just live life.

Fair enough. It is solely an abstract inquiry then I am not that bothered by abstract justification. I would also say that belief is not at all relevant for such argumentation either as what is true is true and demonstrable by abstract means.

A purely rational argument (viewed as wholly abstract) against naturalism/materialism/physicalism is waste of everyone’s time due to the obvious cross contamination.

I would still be interested to hear what ‘true belief;’ is in the context of your views here?

Someone brave and willing to carry the burdens of others. As in ‘be a man’.

I have never heard the term ‘scare quotes’. You used ‘exist’ so think of it in those terms. I was being cautious with your possible interpretation of what ‘exist’ means.

I would like you to explain what you mean by ‘true belief’ if you have the time. I have a feeling you do not wish to dive into any epistemic issues here but given that what I said makes no sense to you there must be something I failed to take into account?

My general point is that rationality is applied to experience. I felt like there was an error with mixing abstract and real.

A lot of what people call philosophy is undoubtedly useless. On this forum it is mainly a practice in rhetoric.

Arguing semantics can devolve a discussion. I generally view philosophy as a means to explore and understand language rather than as something to elicit ‘truth’. This is not exactly useless to be fair but I think the use falls far shorter than what many have in mind.

Validation is kind of important. If it was not validated then what. If something happens it happens and if it does not it does not. The logic and rationality behind it are determiners but they are useful guides.

If your position that Rationality exists in some supernatural realm that is fine. Logic is flawless in an abstract realm becuase it is discrete. Reality may or may not map 1 to 1 onto some logical principles or it may not.

Any such arguments always fall sort as we are limited. I will state though that we know things due to experience (including rationalism).

This really makes no sense. Again the argument is about the means by which reasoned inference may result in true beliefs. And any argument which has to place reality in scare quotes ought to be looked at askance. — Wayfarer

Logic is abstract. Reality is not. Any abstract argument should be applied to reality with care. Non-natural and non-material are nothing/other. If there is some other means we have yet to bring it into the light.

What are your thoughts on replacing "true" and "false" with "more accurate" and "less accurate"? — wonderer1

No problem whatsoever. You would then need evidence though and come to the conclusion that the claim is nonsense because there is no possible non-physical or non-material evidence.

You paint morality like shackles, holding back the dark and violent nature of man, but I disagree with that. — Judaka

‘Shackles’ maybe but certainly not as necessarily holding back any darkness.

@Judaka I am curious what you would make of an old thread I started titles The Use of Hypotheticals if you have time.

The general problem in the argument is framing things as True or Not True in relation to phenomenon instead of understanding it as an abstract game that helps guide us through ‘reality’ rather than something that is directly applicable to ‘reality’.

Because a theory only has meaning if it can be tested. It is not a theory that god exists it is a belief. They are quite different. If proof of gods existence was provided it would necessarily constitute something that refers to a ‘physical’/‘materialist’ framework rather than based on some pure logic.

Miasma theory did not hold up when explaining malaria BUT there was a material/physical connection. If we are searching for a COMPLETE understanding I think that is a faulty approach to begin with.

I think it is just a matter of not knowing. Any ‘theory’ that is given will necessarily be one that is ‘physical’/‘material’.

‘Love’ can be said to have ‘physical’ markers yet in and of itself there is more to experience than mere physical reduction. I am most convinced by Hussel’s approach when it comes to consciousness. There need be no answer just because we can ask a question. The problem is likely not understanding that some so-called ‘questions’ posed are not really questions at all.

Crisis was an attempt to highlight the problem of reducing psychology to materialism/physicalism.

Mine too … but she is more blunt than that! :D

I am assuming English is not your first language? That or you are new to philosophical discussions in this area?

Maybe try to write shorter sentences and get your thoughts across more clearly?

You clearly didn't read the OP. — Philosophim

Read it twice. I told you that. Why would I lie? Never mind … not interested anymore. Enjoy.

I have used this system of knowledge to solve all of the problems and paradoxes that I know of in current day epistemology. — Philosophim

If you are going to make bold claims like above and then snap at people you are on your own.

What you have done looks pointless. I was trying to direct you to compare and contrast what you say with Husserl because there are obvious parallels.

I’ll leave you to it. Enjoy.

I did not say that. I asked a question and you went ultra defensive. I read the OP a second time to see if I missed anything - after you accused me of not reading it - so ball is in your court. Either respond to my question or do not.

How is it different?

Any such assertive claim that the creature is definitively one or the other, would be contradicted indirectly by my inability to observe the face of the entity. Such a belief would be inductive. — Philosophim

https://www.britannica.com/topic/eidetic-reduction

US civilisation is not the same the world over.

‘Civilisation’ has a specific definition historically. It involves divided labour and writing. That is why we know civilisation began in the middle-east.

So I just wasted my time reading your post? Thanks. Bye.

Me too. Sadly you are still here :D

How anything you are saying is different from what he was outlining with phenomenology.