I believe that philosophy takes a stand against common sense. Philosophy must question our most deeply rooted certainties. In that sense, philosophy is there to sadden us, as Deleuze would say, and make us realise our stupidity. Philosophy today has the task of teaching us counter-intuitive things.

I believe that philosophy takes a stand against common sense. Philosophy must question our most deeply rooted certainties. In that sense, philosophy is there to sadden us, as Deleuze would say, and make us realise our stupidity. Philosophy today has the task of teaching us counter-intuitive things. — JuanZu

:up: :up:

I believe that philosophy takes a stand against common sense. Philosophy must question our most deeply rooted certainties. In that sense, philosophy is there to sadden us, as Deleuze would say, and make us realise our stupidity. Philosophy today has the task of teaching us counter-intuitive things. — JuanZu

Perhaps this point that you have expressed is not so neutral, so innocent, so positive. I have perceived several times, in philosophical discussions here and in other forums, that a topic that initially was interesting, becomes quickly lost in the myriad of objections, different perspectives, questioning, raising issues, scattering, dispersing. As a starting principle, I consider myself a supporter of criticism, comparison of different perspectives and widening of horizons. But more recently I am considering that this kind of work can be done easily, mechanically, it can be even done by a machine, systematically. The final result of this methodology of reasoning and discussing is an emptying out of any content, a fragmentation and pulverization of any content and topic. I don’t think that philosophy can be proud of such results. This way philosophy becomes a destroying machine, permanently ready to demolish, pulverize and make devoid of content and interest any discussion, any topic, any thought.

I think that, starting from this point, we can better understand the deep point of the initial post of this thread: it contains a need to connect philosophy to life, to humanity, to us.

Perhaps a precise reason can be found behind this pulverizing job continuously done by philosophy. We can notice that criticism, questioning, “teaching us counter-intuitive things”, are activities based on understanding and knowing. In opposition to an initial situation of philosophy practiced as an experience, a spiritual experience, as Hadot has shown us, there has been a quick shift towards philosophy perceived as knowledge, awareness, understanding. It is from this conception that philosophy has turned into being criticism. As I said, I favour criticism, because it protects and vaccinates us from deception, contradictions, it reveals a lot of hidden bad mechanisms. But what shall we do once all mechanisms, bad and good ones, have been deconstructed, revealed and pulverized? This is a final effect of analytical philosophy, of enquiring about the smallest units of our reasoning, which is language, in a sense.

As I said, I liked a lot Ciceronianus’ joke

So much for consistency and clarity. What a relief it is to dispense with them! — Ciceronianus

but it seems that, after all, there is something more serious at stake in appreciating too much consistency and clarity: consistency and clarity are obviously necessary and good, but they are also a symptom of philosophy fundamentally conceived as understanding rather than experiencing.

So, if it is true that “philosophy must question our most deeply rooted certainties”, what about the courage of challenging this deification, this sacredness of understanding, fanatically pursuing clarity and consistency as if they were our new secret Gods?

I think that this challenge is what is exactly hiddenly raised by the initial post: what about trying to reconnect philosophy to our so fragile, so vulnerable, so exposed to criticism humanity?

Now we understand that we should shun the road of asking what humanity is, what humanity means, otherwise we fall again into the mentality of worshipping our God named “understanding”. Understanding and criticism are necessary, but not as the primary ground and purpose of philosophy, but rather as medicines. Medicines are necessary, but you can’t have breakfast or lunch by eating just medicines, just pills and capsules. We are humans and, as such, we live, or should live, primarily on food, not on medicines, otherwise medicines become the sickness to be healed from, rather than a healing tool.

In other words, I think that philosophy should face the challenge of appreciating subjectivity as something much more important than we usually think. Normally we think that subjectivity means limits, narrow horizons, being conditioned, being relative. This is true, this is what makes subjectivity fragile and vulnerable, but it seems to me that vulnerability and fragility can be rediscovered now as extremely positive and valuable elements, elements that probably we can learn a lot from women, this way understanding that all I have said has strong connections with philosophy as an activity that so far, symptomatically, has been practiced mainly by men.

I think that philosophy should face the challenge of appreciating subjectivity as something much more important than we usually think. — Angelo Cannata

It seems to me that varieties of (non-solipsistic) idealism speculate on the significance of "subjectivity".

Of course they do, but isn’t this concern already just another way of deflecting towards this so strongly need of understanding and building strong and clear concepts? I think that a perspective that looks for objective concepts is the worst way of dealing with subjectivity. From an objective perspective, I am sure that the very existence of subjectivity can be radically questioned and I am happy with this. I am not even interested in finding any strong evidence of the existence of subjectivity. I think that now a correct way to talk about subjectivity is doing it from inside our subjectivity, our feeling of who and what we are. Obviously this opens a lot of difficulty in communication, because our traditional philosophical mind quickly feels again and again the need for some clarity, otherwise we can ask and ask again at any moment: what are we talking about? Well, I think we need some courage of diving into this different language, that is the language of art, of subjectivity, of poetry, a language that wants to escape from too much control, but is, instead, made of fragility and vulnerability. I think that, if we as philosophers are perpetually scared of diving into this, it works like a psychological wall that we keep to protect our refusal of acknowledging our vulnerability.

I think philosophers should have the courage to admit that they aren't poets or artists, and the wisdom to acknowledge that what poetry and art do is much better done by poets and artists than by philosophers.

:up:

In other words, I think that philosophy should face the challenge of appreciating subjectivity as something much more important than we usually think. Normally we think that subjectivity means limits, narrow horizons, being conditioned, being relative. — Angelo Cannata

As I said, I favour criticism, because it protects and vaccinates us from deception, contradictions, it reveals a lot of hidden bad mechanisms. But what shall we do once all mechanisms, bad and good ones, have been deconstructed, revealed and pulverized? — Angelo Cannata

Angelo, I like your posts. You should have started a new thread with that kind of thinking. They are well written.

My criticism to what you said about "Normally we think that subjectivity means limits, narrow horizons, being conditioned, being relative" is that, what philosophy tries to expose about subjectivity, which we all start with during the naive period, is the error in thinking when we mistake opinions as arguments. Subjectivity has a way of drawing an invalid conclusion from the available anecdotal accounts.
What philosophers, and the excellent posters in this forum, are trying to build is a solid foundation for the things that we claim to be true.

In other words, I think that philosophy should face the challenge of appreciating subjectivity as something much more important than we usually think. Normally we think that subjectivity means limits, narrow horizons, being conditioned, being relative. This is true, this is what makes subjectivity fragile and vulnerable, but it seems to me that vulnerability and fragility can be rediscovered now as extremely positive and valuable elements, elements that probably we can learn a lot from women, this way understanding that all I have said has strong connections with philosophy as an activity that so far, symptomatically, has been practiced mainly by men. — Angelo Cannata

For me, the key task of philosophy today is to protect the subject, its fragility and vulnerability in a world where objectivity reigns supreme. Let me explain why I think so. At the junction of premodernity and modernity, as Nietzsche noted, "God died," and in his place came objectivity — the ideal of the knowable, decomposable world. Science, born in the Enlightenment, gave us incredible tools for analysis, but philosophy, unlike other disciplines, did not become a "science" in the strict sense. It remained a space of questions, not final answers. And this is precisely its strength. However, today, when objectivity has reached its apogee — from scientific discoveries to AI, which, although for now, as one of the participants rightly noted, "cleverly puts words together" and threatens to make many professions unnecessary — the subject has found itself under attack. AI, being the pinnacle of the analytical approach, is capable of purifying judgments from subjectivity, but at the same time risks depriving us of our humanity. Isn't this a challenge for philosophy?
How can philosophy become a practice that protects this fragility?


you emphasize the importance of a solid foundation. Is it possible to build a foundation that includes subjectivity as an integral part of truth?


Finally, I want to ask you all a question that has become central to me: does philosophy make you happier? What role does it play in your daily life - does it criticize your beliefs, or does it inspire you by connecting you to your humanity. What kind of people does philosophy make us in a world where objectivity is increasingly dominant?

... risks depriving us of our humanity. — Astorre

E.g. chattal slavery, the industrial revolution, mechanized "total" war, the administrative state, mass media, bourgeois nihilism, etc have, I think, alienated / atomized / reified / de-humanized most of the "developed world" even before the advent of "AI". This is an autopsy, not a diagnosis – read Marx and Nietzsche, Bergson and Heidegger, Marcel and Adorno, et al.

Isn't this a challenge for philosophy?

Thinking clearly about what comes next – what can emerge from 'the loss of subjectivity', or dis-enchanted world aka "desert of the real" – the problematics of 'the posthuman condition' (i.e. post-subjectivity) seems to me philosophy's principle "challenge".

How can philosophy become a practice that protects this fragility?

From practice to theory: read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Antifragile, David Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity and Ray Brassier's Nihil Unbound.

If only objectivity (the state of being objective) was dominant! Then there would be less bias, prejudice, favoritism, etc. in the world. That would make ME happy. Would it make you sad?

One of the things I like about analytic philosophy and OLP, by the way, is their emphasis on care in defining terms and using language.

As you know from reading Pierre Hadot, there were ancient schools of philosophy that taught ways of living that promoted what they considered happiness. They were founded on reason, though, following from in the case of the Stoics compliance with the Universal Reason they thought was the generative force of the Universe.

Perhaps it’s good to consider that, for example, what I am writing now, while writing this post, is just the “outcome”, “what comes out”, “the external result” of something that has been inside me. In this situation, this forum, exactly because it is a forum, made of written words, has a huge issue: we discuss about the words that we read and write, with a strong tendency to forget that what is most important is the persons and the experiences that are behind these words. It is true that words and the activity of writing can reveal things of us that we didn’t see before writing, but, still, what they reveal is something behind, what is important is the revealed thing, not the revealing word, that is just an instrument.
In this context, we are strongly tempted to discuss about the mechanisms triggered by the words we read, by the logic instantly triggered by the rules of language and of thinking. Somebody writes a post, like throwing a stone, which triggers a lot of mechanisms intrinsic to those stones, and we debate about these stones, thinking that we are debating about objectivity, reality, while actually we are completely loosing sight of the incommunicable, of which our words are just a translation, which as such will never be faithful to what it translates.
In this context, the problem is not the forum, but the phenomenon of communication itself, even when I try to communicate with myself.
If language is not the author, but is always an instrument for authors, why does philosophy, especially analytical philosophy, concentrate so much on language, this way loosing sight of authors?
We can object that language is what we have, what we can work on. This is true, but it becomes an excuse to completely forget that there are always authors, so that we concentrate just in the mechanisms triggered by language. Shouldn’t philosophy face this challenge of taking into consideration the inexpressible author, without whom no language would exist in this world? I think that this is the problem, the trick, the illusion: we think that what we have and what we can work on is just the product, the outcome, that is language, so we think that the most effective way to reach the author is by working on language, but I think that it is quite evident that language contains in itself a strong tendency to attract our entire attention towards itself, making us forget too much the importance of the inexpressible author.

I think that, at this point, an essential tool to reach the author, is our subjectivity: I must try to reach the author of a message by using my subjectivity, my humanity, my being another author, like the author of the message I am reading and interpreting. I can understand a lot about the other author because I can find in myself, as an another author, a lot of similarities. If I ignore myself as an author and the other author as well, and I reflect just on the mechanisms and logics contained in the produced object, that is the message, the language, how can I expect any good understanding between me and the other author?
I agree that this ideal of a direct contact author-to author, peer-to-peer, is exposed to a lot of misunderstanding, criticism, lack of reliability, but isn’t the activity of enclosing, encapsulating our analysis just around language and logic, even worse, even less faithful to what we should try to understand?

This means that the relationship author-to-author should be studied as a fundamental positive methodology of understanding things, instead of being just considered a limit of subjectivity, so that it gets completely ignored, with the result that philosophy and other disciplines have concentrated their studies on objective languages, logics, structures and mechanisms. I think that my subjectivity, my being an author, should be used as a fundamental dictionary to interpret and translate the messages I receive, while currently, in philosophy, we use just objective dictionaries that make us forget the presence, the existence, of both authors, which is me and the other person.

Well, feel free to send me messages without using words, then, or incoherently and without explanation, so I'll understand. I'm waiting. I'll let you know when I receive them.

you emphasize the importance of a solid foundation. Is it possible to build a foundation that includes subjectivity as an integral part of truth? — Astorre

Subjectivity will always occupy an important place in philosophy. Note that I emphasized errors in thinking, not the depravity of subjectivity. In fact, intersubjectivity, which is the idea that when we all share a common perspective, then it becomes a valid principle in philosophical arguments.

For example, colors are, in fact, intersubjectivity reports of what humans see when they look at objects in the presence of lighting. While in physics, colors are wavelengths with different lengths, in the macro world, we see colors or red, yellow, orange, white, pink, etc. So, depending on what you're arguing for, philosophically, the admission of colors is valid one.

does philosophy make you happier? What role does it play in your daily life - does it criticize your beliefs, or does it inspire you by connecting you to your humanity. What kind of people does philosophy make us in a world where objectivity is increasingly dominant? — Astorre

I didn't come to participate in philosophical discussions to be 'happier', rather to be more at peace in what the world is, what was it in the past, what was it now, and what it will be in the future.
Yes, in fact, I learned to be self-critical in my beliefs in the practical sense and to connect more with my humanity.
I would say that it is important for objectivity to occupy an dominant place when it comes to science and technology. Imagine medicine -- we have had major improvements in saving the patients' lives in chronic and acute diseases in just a matter of less than a decade. But we haven't really lost major subjectivity when it comes to politics, historical accounts, interpersonal relations, family relations, and preferences in tastes. We are very much influenced by heavy marketing, by heavy social media, and internal impulses beyond our control.

If only objectivity (the state of being objective) was dominant! Then there would be less bias, prejudice, favoritism, etc. in the world. That would make ME happy. Would it make you sad? — Ciceronianus

I think that 5-10 years ago I would have definitely and unequivocally answered this question - "Yes, I would be happy with objectivity!" Objectivity is consistent, precise, unbiased, does not depend on mood, health, origin or phase of the moon. I would say that objectivity is my guide, like a flashlight that helps not to get lost. It would be so great if many of my loved ones more often gave an objective assessment of what is happening. We would simply have no ground for conflict! Isn't that right? Pure, like a child's tear, objective aspiration for truth, logic, not clouded by anything. However, today, my answer to this question sounds completely different. Objectivity is a very good tool for some phenomena or things. It is good for cognition and accurate in forecasts. It clearly makes our lives easier and has allowed us to achieve the fact that we just sit at our computer screens and communicate in the same language at distances of several tens of thousands of kilometers. At the same time, an objective answer to the question, for example: "Why do you live?" Does not exist. Or rather, answering this question objectively, it turns out that there is no objective basis for believing that our life or life in general is necessary (if you have an objective answer to this question, please share). Objectivity is consistent, but empty, emasculated, not directed toward anything or into anything. Today I am convinced that if mistakes did not exist, then we would probably never have happened in this world.

Another example that I always give as an example is sports. The very possibility of competition in the greatest number of disciplines lies in the possibility of error. Subjectivity - that is, our bias and fallibility, but at the same time managing to survive - is it not delightful? Isn't a painting beautiful with its curvature of brushstrokes, a song with technical errors of the performer, and a philosophical text with a bunch of biases of the author?

Perhaps we are talking about two different but equally important roles. The objectivity you write about is an indispensable foundation for building a fair and just society, for science and for understanding the world. It is the 'skeleton' of civilization. But what fills this skeleton with life, meaning, art and love - that is, everything that is worth living for - is by its nature subjective.

Is it not the case that the ideal is not the dominance of one over the other, but a harmonious balance? We strive for objectivity in our judgments of facts so as not to be biased, but at the same time we value and cherish subjectivity in our experience, because it is what makes us human

I think that 5-10 years ago I would have definitely and unequivocally answered this question - "Yes, I would be happy with objectivity!" Objectivity is consistent, precise, unbiased, does not depend on mood, health, origin or phase of the moon. I would say that objectivity is my guide, like a flashlight that helps not to get lost. It would be so great if many of my loved ones more often gave an objective assessment of what is happening. We would simply have no ground for conflict! Isn't that right? Pure, like a child's tear, objective aspiration for truth, logic, not clouded by anything. However, today, my answer to this question sounds completely different. Objectivity is a very good tool for some phenomena or things. It is good for cognition and accurate in forecasts. It clearly makes our lives easier and has allowed us to achieve the fact that we just sit at our computer screens and communicate in the same language at distances of several tens of thousands of kilometers. At the same time, an objective answer to the question, for example: "Why do you live?" Does not exist. Or rather, answering this question objectively, it turns out that there is no objective basis for believing that our life or life in general is necessary (if you have an objective answer to this question, please share). Objectivity is consistent, but empty, emasculated, not directed toward anything or into anything. Today I am convinced that if mistakes did not exist, then we would probably never have happened in this world. — Astorre

You raise soem important quesions. I have never understood what the idea of objectivity means. Surely an odd term that simply means that anything which agrees with your biases are true and things which don't are false?

Perhaps for starters, we could take the matter of abortion. What objectively do we make of this matter? Show me how it might work.

You raise soem important quesions. I have never understood what the idea of objectivity means. Surely an odd term that simply means that anything which agrees with your biases are true and things which don't are false? — Tom Storm

A very interesting question, despite its simplicity. Here is what Wikipedia says:

"The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics. Various understandings of this distinction have evolved through the work of philosophers over centuries. One basic distinction is:

Something is subjective if it is dependent on minds (such as biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imaginary objects, or conscious experiences).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.
Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it may be labelled objectively true. For example, many people would regard "2 + 2 = 4" as an objective statement of mathematics.
Both ideas have been given various and ambiguous definitions by differing sources as the distinction is often a given but not the specific focal point of philosophical discourse.[2] The two words are usually regarded as opposites, though complications regarding the two have been explored in philosophy: for example, the view of particular thinkers that objectivity is an illusion and does not exist at all, or that a spectrum joins subjectivity and objectivity with a gray area in-between, or that the problem of other minds is best viewed through the concept of intersubjectivity, developing since the 20th century.

Intersubjectivity is a term coined by social scientists beginning around 1970[citation needed] to refer to a variety of types of human interaction. The term was introduced to psychoanalysis by George E. Atwood and Robert Stolorow, who consider it a "meta-theory" of psychoanalysis.[1] For example, social psychologists Alex Gillespie and Flora Cornish listed at least seven definitions of intersubjectivity (and other disciplines have additional definitions):

people's agreement on the shared definition of a concept;
people's mutual awareness of agreement or disagreement, or of understanding or misunderstanding each other;
people's attribution of intentionality, feelings, and beliefs to each other;
people's implicit or automatic behavioral orientations towards other people;
people's interactive performance within a situation;
people's shared and taken-for-granted background assumptions, whether consensual or contested; and
"the variety of possible relations between people's perspectives".[2]
Intersubjectivity has been used in social science to refer to agreement. There is intersubjectivity between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or share the same perception of a situation. Similarly, Thomas Scheff defines intersubjectivity as "the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals".[3]

Intersubjectivity also has been used to refer to the common-sense, shared meanings constructed by people in their interactions with each other and used as an everyday resource to interpret the meaning of elements of social and cultural life. If people share common sense, then they share a definition of the situation.[4]

If we proceed from these premises, we can assume that abortion:
1. Objectively - does not matter (what difference does it make what rational beings do there)
2. Subjectively - depends on the point of view
3. Intersubjectively - bad (since it is the deprivation of a person's life) or from the position of other groups good if the woman herself decided so.

The question arises - what is so good about subjectivity if everything depends on the point of view? In my opinion, subjectivity is good because it wants something (to allow/prohibit abortions, to find the "truth", to act), while objectivity is simply empty and indifferent

I'm not very reassured by this answer. But I do accept the notion of intersubjectivity.

If we proceed from these premises, we can assume that abortion:
1. Objectively - does not matter (what difference does it make what rational beings do there)
2. Subjectively - depends on the point of view
3. Intersubjectively - bad (since it is the deprivation of a person's life) or from the position of other groups good if the woman herself decided so. — Astorre

I think point 1 is, at best, contestable. Whether abortion is objectively murder depends on how one describes the process and what one counts as a life. Isn’t this ultimately a values question? It’s surely a contentious and open issue.

We also need a more developed notion of what it means for something to be “objective.” Objectivity seems to be the product of contingent factors. For example, if someone supports abortion, it is objectively the case that they support abortion, but that is different from saying abortion itself is objectively right or wrong. Which I guess might lead us to notions of objective morality or moral realism.

Your questions are good and involuntarily lead to the idea that "Objectivity" as such is essentially a subjective idea from the point of view of epistemology (I will not touch on ontology now). It is not found in the world as a ready-made fact, it does not "lie" somewhere in nature. It was invented by people. Moreover, the idea of ​​objectivity was formed within subjective experience: in response to the need to separate personal desires from knowledge, to distinguish truth from illusion, to agree on something outside of individual whim.

In essence, Objectivism is a subjective belief in the possibility of going beyond subjectivity.

It turned out funny.

Now if we rethink my message about the critique of objectivity, it turns out like this: "Have we not become too carried away by the idea of ​​objective truth, having forgotten about the subject and the subjective?"

As for the objectivity of abortion, I think it looks consistent. Outside of a person, it is objectively indifferent whether an abortion is murder or not, since objectivity is indifferent to life or death. Can ethics be objective? I have serious doubts about that.

nicely worded response and very interesting. Lots to think about.

Just thought I'd note that the definitions you're referring to are those used in epistemology and metaphysics. You might find those applied to ethics are a trifle different.

Subjectivity in ethics, as I understand it, treats moral assertions as expressions of opinion; nothing more.

Okay. Let's assume that this is true. Then what is objectivity in ethics? Does objective ethics exist?

Isn't it moral realism?

Does objective ethics exist? — Astorre

Yes, I think so.

[W]hat is objectivity in ethics?

My take, in sum:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773

objectivity is simply empty and indifferent — Astorre

This only a subjective statement ...

"Objectivity" as such is essentially a subjective idea ... it does not "lie" somewhere in nature. — Astorre

Genetic fallacy.

It was invented by people.

... just like all logico-mathematical and empirical knowledge.

Re: morality/legality "abortion"

(2022)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/694450

@Tom Storm

My understanding is, very simply put, objectivity in ethics is the view that moral claims aren't merely personal beliefs and opinions, but their value and validity may be determined regardless of personal preferences. For a more sophisticated and complete discussion see 180 Proof's post or do some research.

At the same time, an objective answer to the question, for example: "Why do you live?" Does not exist. — Astorre

Why not? If you do have a reason to live, then surely having that reason is a fact about you? Your reason may of course also be said to be subjective, in that it will not necessarily apply to everyone.

There are logical facts, and facts determined by observation, and even facts which may not be determinable by us at all, such as whether a god or gods exist, or the facts about the actual genesis of the Universe (about which we can only theorize). There are also, presumably, countless facts of history which can never be determined, even in principle.

Of course indeterminable facts as such cannot be of much use to us, but noting that there are such facts may be useful in establishing plausible worldviews.

objectivity is simply empty and indifferent
— Astorre
This only a subjective statement ...

"Objectivity" as such is essentially a subjective idea ... it does not "lie" somewhere in nature.
— Astorre
Genetic fallacy.

It was invented by people.
... just like all logico-mathematical and empirical knowledge. — 180 Proof

:up: :up: :up: