The Buddha recommended cultivating the non-perspective of No-Self. Although some are put-off by the paradoxical notion of Nirvana (extinguishment, non-existence), the practical task was to relinquish the Ego (self perspective) --- at least temporarily --- and to identify (become one) with the Cosmos : a universal perspective. I suspect that few humans have actually achieved Nirvana, but some meditators and drug-users have reported an Oceanic Feeling of Oneness with the whole world. Whether that results in practical wisdom is hard to prove. But it's one way to deal with the subjective-objective dilemma you are struggling with. :smile:how to perceive objective information, when subjectivity (its antithesis) lies in perception? — Marax
As perception is the recognition of something already learned, then, how to perceive objective information, when subjectivity (its antithesis) lies in perception? — Marax
↪Pantagruel ...and yet the ball falls down. The funny thing about facts, scientific or otherwise, is that they are true. — Banno
What is it you think this word does, here? — Banno
Only a perspective which was completely free of intention would be truly objective. But then it would not be a perspective. — Pantagruel
Only a perspective which was completely free of intention would be truly objective. But then it would not be a perspective.
— Pantagruel
Sounds like a koan.
What is the view of no view viewed?
How is it that there is no thing in the "thing-in-itself"? — Nils Loc
That is the point of Buddhist meditation. Not necessarily to achieve absolute Objectivity, but to "approximate" (Pantagruel) an Other's perception (judgment) of your own behavior. Unfortunately, as Nils Loc noted, "there is no thing in the ding-an-sich", and no subjective Self in Non-Self. :joke:As perception is the recognition of something already learned, then, how to perceive objective information, when subjectivity (its antithesis) lies in perception? — Marax
↪Pantagruel SO, sometimes the ball falls up?
Sure. — Banno
Indeed, juxtaposing object and subject leads to incoherence.
So don't do it. — Banno
If you are standing at the antipodes of the globe, and the ball is dropped, then what is it's direction, relative to you? — Pantagruel
Except that objectivity and subjectivity are inextricably bound and form the basis of the world as we know it. — Pantagruel
As perception is the recognition of something already learned, then, how to perceive objective information, when subjectivity (its antithesis) lies in perception? — Marax
That's an interesting assumption. Nothing more. — Banno
Perception is as much a business of making an intelligible self, as making an intelligible world, in short. — apokrisis
Mine fits with my understanding, I'm sure yours fits with yours. — Pantagruel
That's an interesting assumption. Nothing more. — Banno
Thanks for posting your question Marax. I think the assumption in your first clause is incorrect. There are innate mechanisms for processing sense data, which are acting even absent learning. While you will not be able to classify or know what you are seeing if you haven't previously learned it, you will see it. And there is a layer of 'objective' data embedded within what is being perceived. Even if it's been modified from top-downAs perception is the recognition of something already learned, then, how to perceive objective information, when subjectivity (its antithesis) lies in perception?
I wonder, at what point does the agreement, "there is a truth," degenerate into the disagreement "this is the truth?" — Pantagruel
The community of inquiry is broadly defined as any group of individuals involved in a process of empirical or conceptual inquiry into problematic situations. This concept was novel in its emphasis on the social quality and contingency of knowledge formation in the sciences, contrary to the Cartesian model of science, which assumes a fixed, unchanging reality that is objectively knowable by rational observers. The community of inquiry emphasizes that knowledge is necessarily embedded within a social context and, thus, requires intersubjective agreement among those involved in the process of inquiry for legitimacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_inquiry
The Peircean answer is when it becomes "my truth" rather than "our truth".
Language binds us as social animals to a collective identity, a communal point of view, a culturally-constructed model of "the self". So "truth" becomes that to which a community of inquirers practising practical reasoning would tend.
The community of inquiry is broadly defined as any group of individuals involved in a process of empirical or conceptual inquiry into problematic situations. This concept was novel in its emphasis on the social quality and contingency of knowledge formation in the sciences, contrary to the Cartesian model of science, which assumes a fixed, unchanging reality that is objectively knowable by rational observers. The community of inquiry emphasizes that knowledge is necessarily embedded within a social context and, thus, requires intersubjective agreement among those involved in the process of inquiry for legitimacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_inquiry
Pragmatism navigates the middle path between the extremes of relativism and positivism, or idealism and realism. — apokrisis
There are innate mechanisms for processing sense data, which are acting even absent learning. — aporiap
Yes, this fits very closely with the social philosophers I have been reading, Mead and Parsons certainly. — Pantagruel
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.