I'm just trying to delineate. I'm not feeling objectionable at the moment. — creativesoul
Well, in the context of subjective experience, humans, since we know that for ourselves. Most likely other animals, given similar enough biology and behavior. But we don't have a means of being sure. Thus "what it's like" to be a bat.
But we can stick with humans as perceivers — Marchesk
What are logical forms taking account of? — creativesoul
Would you agree that "that which exists in it's entirety prior to common language" is a category? — creativesoul
(...) grounded in pure reason.
— Mww
Pure reason? As in reasoning from an armchair? — creativesoul
The objective/subjective distinction is rendered inherently inadequate in that it's use cannot take proper account of what all experience consists of.
Discard it. — creativesoul
From this can we rightly assume that the natural human instinct is to view our ‘seeing this tree or that table’ as projected outward rather than as given by external illumination? — I like sushi
Along these lines if we talk about ‘what it is like’ what does that sentence mean? The ‘like’ is a redundant word because we’re not really asking about ‘likeness’ at all. To be a bat is to be a bat, and to be human is to be a human. — I like sushi
From this can we rightly assume that the natural human instinct is to view our ‘seeing this tree or that table’ as projected outward rather than as given by external illumination? — I like sushi
If we deny non-empirical knowledge, the science of mathematics would be impossible. — Mww
we use our experiences to draw the inferences that make most sense of all the empirical data, — Marchesk
isn’t our natural/instinctual appreciation of ‘the world’ thus more telling of our subjective faculties prior to scientific knowledge being laid on top of them. — I like sushi
So a bat wouldn't know what it is like to be a bat except in terms of what it is like to experience each new moment, and it only know what each moment is like by moving from that moment to the next. — Joshs
how can we possible start talking about how light comes into the eye when we don’t actually experience sight as ‘light coming into my eye and sending signals to my occipital lobe’. — I like sushi
Also, in terms of language, if I talk about the sunrise do you experience the sunrise. Of course you don’t, yet language almost convinces you that you’ve just experienced this said ‘sunrise’. Talking about something is the experience of talking about something not the experience of said ‘thing’. — I like sushi
you’ll find yourself equally as stumped when it comes to articulating what it is to be a human assuming the question is redundant because you are one. — I like sushi
Its idealist in a particlar way, but not anthropomorphic if we have reduced the anthropos to a process of temporalization in which the human disappears along with animals and 'natural' constituted world as a whole. — Joshs
Husserl made this move with what he called epoche, abstracting away all empirically relative facts to arrive at minimal conditions for any experiencing whatsoever. — Joshs
recognizing a prmordial gestalt temporal relationalty as fundamental in talk about any experieincing of a world, prior to constitutied empirical beings. — Joshs
Kant's subjectivization of the empirical world didn't go far enough. — Joshs
What are logical forms taking account of?
— creativesoul
Illogical thought; irrational reasoning. — Mww
Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger and Derrida followed him in this direction to various extents, recognizing a prmordial gestalt temporal relationalty as fundamental in talk about any experieincing of a world, prior to constitutied empirical beings. — Joshs
Pure reason? As in reasoning from an armchair?
— creativesoul
No, that’s just plain ol’ run-of-the-mill thinking, or, practical reason. No one consciously thinks in terms of merely theoretical pure reason, armchair-bound or otherwise.... — Mww
The objective/subjective distinction is rendered inherently inadequate in that it's use cannot take proper account of what all experience consists of.
Discard it.
— creativesoul
Fine. Go ahead. Try discarding it. — Mww
You're going to have to replace it with something... — Mww
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.