Example? And please don't cite Homer. We are talking philosophy. — Jackson

We're talking about their worldview. That's Homer, not Aristotle.

We're talking about their worldview. That's Homer, not Aristotle. — Tate

Of course it is Aristotle.

Of course it is Aristotle. — Jackson

You're ignorant of the facts.

You're ignorant of the facts. — Tate

You have stated none.

I think they did. They had doctors.

"Psychological and mental illnesses were viewed as the effect of nature on man and were treated like other diseases.Hippocrates argued that the brain is the organ responsible for mental illnesses and that intelligence and sensitivity reach the brain through the mouth by breathing. Hippocrates believed that mental illnesses can be treated more effectively if they are handled in a similar manner to physical medical conditions"

I don't think this really contended with anything I wrote. The main point was that the reason "self-consciousness" didn't exist back then for the greeks is simply because contextually they didn't view it that way. Another example is still mental illness: I was speaking predominantly not in terms of one particular. The greek mythology clearly indicates a lack of "mental illness" in greek culture. That's why plato isn't writing in those terms (nor in terms of self-consciousness in that sense). One person paving the way towards acknowledging mental illness does not negate what I was trying to convey.

Science claims only physical particles are real.

Not at all. That is ontological naturalism and, by extension, materialism, which is not synonymous with "science". The only requirement to partake in science is methodological naturalism.

Christianity claims the spirit is real.

"spirit" is not necessarily equivocal to "subject". Moreover, there's a multitude of religions which claim there's a spirit. Hindus claim it is all one spirit, is that also something science is dependent on?

Thus science is the outer and Christianity is the inner. A dialectical relation.

Not at all. One can claim there is a "subject" or "subjects" without ever subscribing to Christianity. One can even scientifically posit a "subject" without invoking any religion. There's no dialectical relation here between Christianity and science: at best, there is a relationship between positing 3rd person knowledge and 1st person knowledge, that's it.

Isn't subjectivity and objectivity this - The last James Bond movie stared Daniel Craig. (objective) I think James Bond films are shit. (subjective).

Science claims only physical particles are real. — Jackson

You're confusing methodology with ontology.

So, you never took a philosophy class. It shows. — Jackson

Your arrogance inhibits your capacity to learn. You're not a tenth the philosopher 180 Proof has proved himself to be.

Why did Aristotle and the ancient Greeks never talk about self-consciousness? Was there some huge leap in evolution where the brain developed self-consciousness? I think not.
— Jackson

The stuff we call "inner" they called divine. They thought the universe was alive with lust and arrogance.

We say those things only reside between our ears.

Who knows how our descendants will describe it. — Tate

Example? And please don't cite Homer. We are talking philosophy. — Jackson

For what it's worth, in the 1970s, Julien Jaynes wrote "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" in which he claimed that people were not self-conscious in the same manner that modern people are until about 3,000 years ago in Greece and later in other parts of the world. Before that, voices in the head we attribute to consciousness were attributed to gods. I have oversimplified his thesis. It's not one I buy, but it wasn't laughed out of the house either. The evidence he uses includes passages from Homer.

Some philosophers question the very concept of subjectivity as deeply flawed. — Jackson

Subjectivity is that which, generally speaking, pertains to the 1st person experience of an individual. — Bob Ross

I am confused by the terminology that is used when discussing the human experience of reality. When I talk about it, I usually call it "introspection." A lot of what I understand about reality, reason, perception, emotion, and other mental processes comes from observing and trying to understand my own experience of my own mental processes. That can be reinforced by other peoples reporting of the results of their own introspection and also the results of more objective scientific observations.

How does that differ from "subjectivity" which is the subject of this thread? According to Wikipedia:

[Subjectivity] is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, and personal or cultural understanding of, and beliefs about, an external phenomenon, that are specific to a subject.

And that brings us to "phenomenology." From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions.

The language used in discussions of phenomenology; e.g. intentionality, aboutness, embodiment, what-is-it-like, qualia; is completely different than the language I use when I talk about my own or other people's experience gained through introspection or empathy. I can't see how the ideas included in the study of phenomenology help me understand my personal experience or other's.

The greek mythology clearly indicates a lack of "mental illness" in greek culture. — Bob Ross

What is this?

You're confusing methodology with ontology. — ZzzoneiroCosm

You are confused about everything.

Your arrogance inhibits your capacity to learn. You're not a tenth the philosopher 180 Proof has proved himself to be. — ZzzoneiroCosm

get lost. sick of you.

It's not one I buy, but it wasn't laughed out of the house either. The evidence he uses includes passages from Homer. — Clarky

I have studied a lot of Greek thought and I find Jaynes' theory to be wrong.

The only requirement to partake in science is methodological naturalism. — Bob Ross

And what is naturalism?

What to make of the 'know thyself' impetus in Plato? Our existence as evidence of some kind.

What to make of the 'know thyself' impetus in Plato? — Paine

What do you make of it?

The first thing it suggests to me is that the investigation of what consciousness is did not start with a 'Christian' idea of the subject. Plato talks a lot about what we cannot verify for sure. His confidence that he can rely upon himself to decide is an affirmation of sorts. He may not know much but he affirms that he is someone who could know.

You don't mention Descartes, but it seems like he would be the exemplar of what you object to. He put the personal experience of the 'real' directly against what can be verified. Is that a Christian thing in your understanding?

You don't mention Descartes, but it seems like he would be the exemplar of what you object to. He put the personal experience of the 'real' directly against what can be verified. Is that a Christian thing in your understanding? — Paine

Descartes exemplifies the Christian metaphysics. To be clear, I am talking metaphysics and not theology.

Descartes exemplifies the Christian metaphysics — Jackson

Nah. Medieval Christians thought hell was underground because of volcanos and they thought heaven was a rigid dome up above us: the firmament.

What about my suggestion that thinkers have been struggling with 'consciousness' well before the Middle Ages?

What about my suggestion that thinkers have been struggling with 'consciousness' well before the Middle Ages? — Paine

I think that was my point.

Nah. Medieval Christians thought hell was underground because of volcanos and they thought heaven was a rigid dome up above us: the firmament. — Tate

Again, I am not talking about theology.

Again, I am not talking about theology. — Jackson

That was their metaphysics.

That was their metaphysics. — Tate

No...but this is a dead end.

Perhaps you could expand upon that since you put so much emphasis on subjectivity being a 'Christian' thing.

I got the idea from Hegel. He distinguished two periods, the ancient Greek and Modern. By modern he meant Jesus and the Christian metaphysic.
The ancient he called natural consciousness. The modern he called self-consciousness. Natural consciousness does not mean 'naturalism' but treating everything as an object. Christianity invented the idea of subjectivity, that reality is a function of self-consciousness.

Doctors invented subjectivity when they adopted the idea of mental illness vs physical illness. "Physical" was originally a reference to the human body.

This great idea of mental illness came from letting go of the idea that crazy people are possessed by demons. Again: the mental was original thought of as divine and as concrete as fire, water, air, and earth.

This great idea of mental illness came from letting go of the idea that crazy people are possessed by demons. Again: the mental was original thought of as divine and as concrete as fire, water, air, and earth. — Tate

Ancient Greeks had doctors and were not mystics.

Ancient Greeks had doctors and were not mystics. — Jackson

How is that related to what I said?