Don't know. But I do know that memories are not recordings of experiences and seem to be reconstructed each time. I sometimes remember things which in actuality happened at a different time, happened to different people, happened elsewhere, happened in a different way, or never happened at all. I would never assume to know anything absolutely, only to a level of reasonable confidence and for many subjects not even that. I'm not looking for certainty nor absolute truth so the matter doesn't rate as a high concern.

(Subject)ivity vs. (Object)ivity. The meanings of these two concepts are evident when you study their etymology, oui mon ami? The former is of the subject viz. you, me, us and the latter is of the object viz. the thing that's under examination.

I sometimes remember things which in actuality happened at a different time, happened to different people, happened elsewhere, happened in a different way, or never happened at all. — Tom Storm

I experience the same sometimes. It is weird because I even have memories of people I don’t even met in my life but somehow they are allocated in my awareness. It is a strange feeling. Whenever I have nightmares, I experience the same… it appears places and people that I am not really sure if I ever been with them.

Between the subjective and the objective, there is the sphere of the social or intersubjective reality. Entities which belong to this domain are mind-dependent (they can only exist in a world of minds: if all humans disappeared they would cease to exist immediately), but their existence does not depend on the opinion of individual minds. Examples are institutions, money, laws...
Paris will still be the capital of France, even if I stop believing it. The Euro is the official currency in Italy, no matter what you think about it

I dunno. Objectively speaking, we have no clue how subjective our knowledge is to the objective reality, in terms of approaching the real world. Atoms have a number of types of component particles, which all have other component particles. Are the particles divided into infinity? If yes, any FINITE knowledge of reality, as objectively true as they may be, are comparatively no knowledge.

However, if the knowable facts of the world are finite in number, then yes, we can talk about spectrum of knowledge of reality in terms of...

Except objective/subjective are not good terms here. All your knowledge, all of every individual's knowledge is subjective. The knower knows the facts; objective is not a measure of congruence to reality, objective is a way of knowing reality, which no human possesses.

The former is of the subject viz. you, me, us and the latter is of the object viz. the thing that's under examination. — Agent Smith

And what happens when the subject makes itself the thing that's under examination?

And what happens when the subject makes itself the thing that's under examination? — Yohan

A good question. Wayfarer would've answered that question best. Sadly, he left (voluntarily) the forum.

The unexamined life is not worth living. — Socrates

?

unfortunate

The unexamined self is not worth being?

He is missed. — Yohan

He graduated summa cum laude from this forum as per his own words. I'm happy for him.

And what happens when the subject makes itself the thing that's under examination? — Yohan

An extremely complex question. It is right at the heart of Fichte's philosophy of critical idealism (the subject-object) and can't be summed up in a few paragraphs. So far, it has involved a lot of descriptions relating the intuiting faculty to concepts and concepts to objects, the relationship between the act of self-positing, pure and practical action, consciousness qua intellect. If you really want to explore that, the book I'm currently reading is all about it.

To me, it smacks of Popper's three worlds, which likewise bridges the poles of the subject-object spectrum.

Objective and subjective on a spectrum is maybe not so bad a way of looking at it.

Maybe better still is to forget about the distinction altogether, they are just words.

We view things from a perspective, and those are at best partial views of "reality"... some are a bit wider and a little less partial than others.

Anything objective has to recorded or analyzed by something subjective, otherwise it remains in the dark, even if it is a "brute fact": the start of the universe, atoms, whatever. These would exist, as they have, but if we didn't know about them, we could say nothing of them, nor know anything about them.

It is a very complex issue, but it seems to me that objectivity is more problematic than subjectivity. We are constantly interpreting stuff (subjectively), but whether what we interpret really exists and so on, objectively, is rather difficult to spell out, it seems to me.

If you really want to explore that, the book I'm currently reading is all about it. — Pantagruel

What are you reading?

Objective and subjective on a spectrum is maybe not so bad a way of looking at it.

Maybe better still is to forget about the distinction altogether, they are just words.

We view things from a perspective, and those are at best partial views of "reality"... some are a bit wider and a little less partial than others. — ChatteringMonkey

I think there is something to what you say here.
I think objectivity is actually when the subjective is included in statements.
For example: "I like apples" (if its true) is more objectively true than "Apple's are tasty". The latter, I would call pseudo-objective. The first can be self evidently true, depending on the person. But to try and prove the second is true is absurd.
Likewise, "Apples appear to me read" is a more objectively sound claim than "Apples are red". The first can be self evidently true. The latter is impossible to prove. As are all "objective" statements. (Statements that don't include the subject's experience)

it seems to me that objectivity is more problematic than subjectivity — Manuel

It seems so to me too. The hard problem is objectivity or matter, not consciousness. Consciousness is only a problem if one assumes consciousness has to have an external cause, especially a material cause.

The search for objectively is hard because it seems to lead to an infinite regress of justifications for concluding that something is in fact objective...which means what? Independent of a subject? But what does independent of a subject mean? In language its easy to throw away a subject. In experience, impossible.

Subjectivity on the other had is readily apparent.
In my opinion, objective matter is an invention by subjects requiring the use of double think. It is when on imagines or experiences something existing while at the same time imagining that one is not imagining or experiencing it subjectively. Or it is, at best, a shared inter-subjective reality, like people agreeing to the rules of a card game or the meaning of words. Or the rules of the world or nature are, at their root, rules of mind.

I don't think its necessarily so complex as it is hard to go against the tendency to believe in the objective world which is hard wired into most of us from living in a highly materialistic, or thing-focused society.

PS. I'm pretty optimistic about using E-prime, though I have yet to make it a habit.

What are you reading? — Yohan

Foundations of Transcendental Philosophy by J.G. Fichte. It basically picks up where Kant left off.

What are you reading? — Yohan
Foundations of Transcendental Philosophy by J.G. Fichte. It basically picks up where Kant left off. — Pantagruel

Thanks sir. Does it make good sense?

Thanks. Are you able to make any sense of it? — Yohan

Some sections flow really well, others are really, really dense. You pretty much have to just read through and wait for cumulative clarity there. I'm try to push through it fairly steadily for that reason.

Isn't the difference between objective and subjective just how well we can know anything absolutely? — TiredThinker

No, because we cannot "know anything absolutely". What does "know ... absolutely" even mean? We're not absolute beings with the absolute perspective so it makes no sense to say "how well we can know anything absolutely". Unless, I suppose, by "know" you mean something other than cognition. :chin:

Anyway, my rule of thumb as I discern things, "the difference" is this: dispositions are subjective and propositions are objective; evidence-free, emotion-dependent beliefs are subjective and knowledge (i.e. beliefs corroborated by public evidence) is objective; subject-variable interpretations are subjective and subject-invariant facts are objective ... and so on. The latter, no doubt, is always 'value-laden' (i.e. contextualized) by the former.

The brain isn't perfect. Although there are people who can photographically remember any day when you give them the date.

Perhaps I mean objective and an altered memory of objective containing emotions for easier storage. So two types of the same thing of varied quality.

I guess we will have to assume nothing is truly infinite.

Knowledge is relative. Surely we can get closer or farther from absolute knowledge of a topic, object, concept? The number "3" is well understood? 1 above 2 and 1 below 4. We probably don't apply emotional content when thinking about the number 3 unless we specifically consider what there is 3 of?

absolute knowledge — TiredThinker

Define, please.

Perhaps I mean objective and an altered memory of objective containing emotions for easier storage. So two types of the same thing of varied quality. — TiredThinker

I don't follow.

A thousand apologies. — Ranjeet

I guess we will have to assume nothing is truly infinite. — TiredThinker

I don't want to assume that. There is no reason why we need to assume that (Other than for maintaining a mental well-being, for some.)

"Finiteness is for people who can't handle infinity."

S = subjectivity
O = Objectivity

Subjectivity-Objectivity Spectrum
S-----------------O

The mission goal is to tend towards O via dialectical MAD (mutually assured destruction) as subjectivity's trademark is dissent (This town ain't big enough for the both of us); when it comes to objectivity, reject/deny at your own risk.

O seems unattainble, we must perforce retreat towards S.

O seems unattainble, we must perforce retreat towards S. — Agent Smith

All horizons are "unattainable", and yet –

You must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on. — The Unnamable

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. — Worstword Ho

The obstacle, Smith, is the way forward. Amor fati – imagine Sisyphus happy! :death: :flower:

To strive to attain the unttainable is folly, oui mon ami?

Some folly, however, is significant folly. Remember, padawan: the path is often the goal, the journey is the destination. :fire:

Some folly, however, is significant folly. Remember, padawan: the path is often the goal, the journey is the destination. — 180 Proof

Mashallah! :clap:

I mean absolute knowledge of. Something we can entirely hold in our thoughts at a single time.