Just like if you look at a photograph of the statue of liberty, you have not actually experienced the statue of liberty in its essence. You have only seen an image of the light reflected from it. — Yohan
you say you saw a brown dog at such time and such place, and I say I saw also saw a brown dog at the same time and place, then we conclude that your dog and my dog are identical, that is, we speak of the same dog. — Samuel Lacrampe
It sound to me you equate the identity of a thing with its name. — Samuel Lacrampe
The answer, as per Aristotle, lies in the distinction between essential properties and non-essential (or accidental) properties; where if you change non-essential properties, like weight, you retain your identity, but if you change essential properties, like dying, then you lose your identity. — Samuel Lacrampe
"Object" is the thing observed, thought about. "Subject" is the observer or thinker. — Samuel Lacrampe
So subjectivity means abstract, rational, non-empirical ideas, and objectivity means empirical things, is that more or less correct? — Samuel Lacrampe
Objective claims are about reality, and can be true or false, right or wrong. Subjective claims a mere matters of opinions, and cannot be true or false, nor right or wrong. — Samuel Lacrampe
That's right. This would be naming a particular, for which the main cause of its individuality is the particular matter that dog is made of. That's all that is needed for an object, such as a particular soccer ball. I think in the case of a dog, we could also add its particular set of memories and habits.If you call out, “here Sparky!!” and I call out “here, Fido!!”, the dog comes to you but ignores me, we have gone further than the establishment of identifying a general conception, that is, we have given an identity to a particular instance of a general conception. — Mww
I think we're safe, because I hold that as long as we are made of particular sets of matter, then we are particulars. But things get ... fun, when that matter gets substituted. E.g. I heard that all the atoms in our bodies get replaced every 7 years. This recalls the puzzle of the Ship of Theseus.At the end of the day, when it’s all said and done, we cannot abide being confused with something that is otherwise identical to us. — Mww
I think that is correct. In addition, we name general concepts with common nouns, (e.g. a dog) and particulars with proper nouns (e.g. Fido). The identity of general concepts is their essential properties, and the identity of particulars is their essential properties plus their particular matter. E.g. Pointing to a particular set of matter when saying "Fido is that dog".Close, but a little further down the line. I agree to identifying a thing by its name, which is the same as my conception of it. Or, I identify a thing by means of its concept. [...] — Mww
I think you are asking how to determine if a property is essential or not? In general, a property is essential if, should that property be lost, then the thing would lose its general identity (called "species" as per Aristotle). This can be tested in a thought experiment. Say a particular triangle is made of the following set of properties: "surface with 3 straight sides" + "yellow". If the triangle loses the first property, it is no longer a triangle, where as if it loses the second property, it remains a triangle. Therefore the first property is essential, and the second one is not.Agreed. But what is it that is lost? That is, of what is identity comprised? What is an essential property? — Mww
Interesting. While I think your definition of "objectivity" matches with mine, it doesn't quite match for "subjectivity"; because the activity of a thinker is not necessarily a mere matter of opinion; neither in act (it is either true or false that I am thinking), nor in content (my thinking process could be right or wrong). I'll think about it some more and see if the definitions can be reconciled somehow.For the objectively valid, the conscious activity of a thinker, the internal domain, is responsible for those objects of reason, which is subjectivity. For the objectively real, the world, the external domain, is responsible, for all that which occurs without any thinker. — Mww
Yeah this is could be a whole discussion in itself.Which is why metaphysical investigations are so much fun. How to tell the difference, and what to do about it when the difference is told. — Mww
At most we could say that our experiences correspond with a world. But no amount of correspondance makes the experience of the real world itself. — Yohan
This would be naming a particular, for which the main cause of its individuality is the particular matter — Samuel Lacrampe
the activity of a thinker is not necessarily a mere matter of opinion; neither in act (it is either true or false that I am thinking), nor in content (my thinking process could be right or wrong). — Samuel Lacrampe
Yeah this is could be a whole discussion in itself. — Samuel Lacrampe
Well, physicalists claim ...correct me if I'm wrong...atoms of light reflect off of atoms in a "world" and those atoms hit our eyes. And the atoms of our eyes trigger atoms that make up "our" brain...and then what? many triggered atoms collectively have a particular atomic activity that corresponds to an "experience of an external physical world"
Did the atoms that make up "your" brain have a direct experience of a physical world? — Yohan
I think this reductionist idea seems correct. If the cause of individuality is the particular matter, and no two physical things (which matter belongs to) can occupy the same space at the same time, then it follows that no two particulars can occupy the same space at the same time. As such, finding the space property of things at a given time is a good way to determine if things are identical or distinct.reductionism mandates that for the simplest objects, or complex objects perfectly congruent, the particularity of identity reduces to the space and time of it. — Mww
Understood. So one definition of subjectivity can be something like "an act that is internal to the thinker (the subject), and is not reducible to a physical act"; and a second definition can be "a property assigned to an object, that is merely a matter of opinion from the subject".The subjective conscious activity is reason in general, and opinions, beliefs and knowledge are mere matters of degree reason judges of truth. — Mww
Here's a candidate.Wonder what the opening salvo would be. — Mww
one definition....... — Samuel Lacrampe
second definition....... — Samuel Lacrampe
Have you noticed that the propositions “This apple tastes good" and "Samuel thinks this apple tastes good" have the same message, and yet the first one is subjective and the second one is objective? — Samuel Lacrampe
I must admit I've read some plato, including the Republic - Thanks though (I could perhaps read more.)I suggest you get the essence of the Republic by Plato. You don't have to read the entire danged book itself, just Google it. — god must be atheist
thanks. Doing philosophy is quite hard. Especially being unbiased and questioning what seems obvious. The more obvious something seems, the more I try to question it. I still feel hopelessly inadequate to understand reality, a lot or most of the time, but I try to keep going down the rabbit hole regardless. Death will come some day, and I figure if death is the end, then it wont have mattered if I wasted my life philosophizing. If there is even an miniscule possibility of immortality, I figure its worth seeking since the prize of immortality is of infinite worth. Whereas a life, no matter how great or horrible, if it leads to permanent exinction, such a life will equate to absolute meaningless in the end.You are a brilliant mind: you reinvented the wheel that was first described 2500 years ago, and constantly remindered. This is actually brilliance, to come to the same conclusion as Socrates, without prior knowledge of his teachings. Well done. (I am NOT being facetious.) — god must be atheist
That depends on the properties; but maybe the term "property" is confusing. It could be replaced with the term "predicate". Here are examples of subjective properties/predicates:Assignment of a property to an object is indeed the activity of a subject, but I don’t think it is merely a matter of opinion. — Mww
To clarify, I am using my definitions of objective/subjective here. So the first proposition is subjective because it is a mere matter of opinion - some people could claim that this apple does not taste good; and the second proposition is objective because it is a matter of facts - it is either true or false that I think this apple tastes good.Have you noticed that the propositions “This apple tastes good" and "Samuel thinks this apple tastes good" have the same message, and yet the first one is subjective and the second one is objective?
— Samuel Lacrampe
I’ve noticed it now, insofar as the message is the telling of something about the taste of apples. I’ve also noticed that seemingly the first is objective and the second is subjective. — Mww
Assignment of a property to an object is indeed the activity of a subject, but I don’t think it is merely a matter of opinion.
— Mww
That depends on the properties — Samuel Lacrampe
Nevertheless, I mostly agree with these above statements on the degrees of knowledge. I would call the top one "certainty", the middle one "probability or reasonableness or methodical faith", and the last one "blind faith".Greatest degree: I know falling out of a tree certainly can hurt because I fell out of a tree once and it hurt like hell.
Lesser degree: I believe falling out of a tree hurts, but never having fallen out of a tree....I might get lucky, fall on a pile of leaves, and suffer no hurt.
No degree at all: experience and possible experience having been accounted for, there is no other degree of truth available, so there is no opinion on falling out of trees. Nevertheless, it is my opinion these statements are true. — Mww
This is not in the OP, but here is my answer. It does not claim that the mind is eternal (for I believe it begins to exist), but that it survives the event of death.So how does the fact my mind does not appear to be my body provide evidence that my mind is eternal? — Bartricks
I think what youre referring to is a type of proprietary dualistic phenomenon.The human body can be defined as "all the physical parts of a person".
- Thus if the mind is not the body, then it it follows that it is non-physical.
- Since death is, as far as we know, only a physical event, then it does not affect non-physical things, and thus the mind must survive death. — Samuel Lacrampe
the original question was can I be eternal, im making note of the difference in how youre describing the mind, you state that the mind is non physical due to its intrinsic properties being that of abstract spatio temporal plane, where it could exist outside of the physical one. Im taking a different direction and stating that I is a perception of different cognitive events.BrandonMcDade Hey there.
I am not sure if your post is intended to address my quote, but if it is, I must admit I don't understand anything you are saying. Sorry bro. Perhaps it could be a bit more concise? — Samuel Lacrampe
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.