I'm going to use a slightly different approach to answer a few misconceptions that have arisen in the dialogues between various members and me. Instead of going through each post line by line answering them as if we were in a conversation I am going to just lay out what I think the various problems are and then give answers by explaining what I think the common misconceptions that exist in terms of philosophical thinking.
It is exceedingly important that we try to use language that is precise as possible in order to accurately convey exactly what we mean when we are discussing the finer aspects of philosophical thinking. If we are imprecise in the definitions or meanings of the terms we use our thinking will reflect that. I do not think anyone here wants to be imprecise. We also need to agree on the definitions and/or meanings if wish to discuss something. All of us are aware, or should be aware, of the danger of using different meanings or definitions for the same words in a conversation.
If I say, "Artichoke running diapers flying moonbeams to shine can zipper my cabbage," very few of you, I would venture to say none, would have the slightest idea of what I am talking about. I could then explain what each of the terms means to me but where would that get us? All that would result would be semantic quibbling over the meanings of the words and little or nothing would be accomplished.
In order to prepare myself for this little explanation I decided at the behest of vaporbrains to watch The Matrix again and see if it would jog something loose in my head in order that I might remember it better or at the very least eat some popcorn and a few candy bars.
With all that said, let us begin. The root of the problem; whether sensory perception can lead us to acknowledge existence, began many years ago with the writings of John Locke in a book he wrote entitled, Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In it he explains that ideas are that which we apprehend and not that by which we apprehend. I know that seems a little abstruse so let me explain it in detail taking us through the various steps so that it might become clear.
The ideas in my mind are my ideas and the ideas in your mind are your ideas. That is to say, that each of us has ideas that are not directly experienced by the other person. Even if a person could read your mind, they would be listening to your thoughts but not having them. The various states of telepathy do not negate this. Now the words yours and mine indicate possessiveness, or ownership. That is why they are possessive pronouns. They indicate that those ideas arise within a consciousness and so are what we call subjective. Locke thought that one's own ideas were what each of us are aware of and that no one else can be directly aware of them as each person is of their own ideas. In other words, those ideas are never an object of someone else's consciousness but they are an object of our own.
When we apply the word "object" to an idea that exists in our own mind an apparent contradiction confronts us. We seem to be saying that my ideas while subjective in the sense that they occur in my mind and not yours yet they also retain the attribute of objectivity because they are truly are objects. Let us consider more closely the terms subjective and objective so that we can better understand them. We say that something is objective if it is the same for you, for me, and for anyone else. We say that something is subjective if it differs from one person to another and when it is the possession of one person. Feelings are entirely subjective because we alone own them. I may have feelings like yours but I do not directly have your feelings.
To clear up this confusion I think it is better to use the words public and private in the place of objective and subjective. Any experience is public if two or more people can share it. It may not be common to all people but it must at least be potentially common to all people. An experience is private if it can be had by only one person and cannot possibly be shared directly by anyone else.
Let me provide us with some examples that I think are indisputable and hopefully you will agree with me.
Our bodily feelings which include tactile sensations and the emotions or passions each of us feel are entirely our own. Others may feel the same way but they do not share the feelings directly. I can tell you about how I feel and you may have feelings like mine but each of us is directly experiencing the same type or kind of feeling and not each other's. It is the same way with a toothache. If my wisdom tooth is impacted with a raw nerve exposed and it is giving me such pain that I would sell my mother to the Nazi's for relief, you may have had a similar experience but you are not directly experiencing my pain. You may even empathize to the point where your own tooth aches and yet the pain you feel is your own as mine is my own. There is a type of individual psychology that denies this sort of thing with immeshment dysfunction but we need not go into that here.
In sharp contrast to our bodily feelings, our perceptual experiences are public, not private. If you and I are seated at a table with a candle, two glasses and a bottle of wine we are perceptually apprehending the same objects-not our own ideas. If I pour some wine in your glass and toast you we are sharing the same experience. That is a public experience but the taste of the wine on each of our tongues is not, just like the heartburn the Mad Dog gives me and does not give you. My perceptions, or percepts, are not identical with yours. Each of us has his own, as each of us has our own bodily feelings. Even though my perceptions and yours in this instance are in this sense subjective (belonging exclusively to each of us alone), our having them results in our having a common or public experience.
To go back to Locke, both perceptions and bodily feelings are ideas and each of us has his own. But certain subjective ideas, such as bodily feelings, are exclusively subjective. They are objects of consciousness only for the one person that experiences them. They can be called objects for that reason, but they do not have any objectivity. On the other hand, other subjective ideas, like percepts or perceptions, result in public, not private, experience, for their objects can be directly and simultaneously experienced by two or more people.
I know this is overly long. I hate long posts but I know of no other way to convey this. I'll end this section here. I am composing this in word and then copying and pasting it into the thread. There is more to come but I don't want to burden the readers more than I have already. I know if I were reading this I probably would have given up by now. The ones that have the necessary patience and persistence will come away with ideas they have never encountered before and will have a new explanation for the world and this reality which we all experience.
For those who wish to interject something at the point, feel free to do so. However bear in mind that whatever objection you might raise will be covered in short order as I finish this. I will also, at the end of this explanation talk about the Matrix and why I think, in some limited sense, it might be true. I watched the movie at least 4 times and caught a fatal flaw in it which has great bearing on our discussion.
Cheers,
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom
WhiskeyClone 
vaporbrains 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
-OoD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
World Spirit
Phluck
buttonion
cybrbeast
Ravus
Source
Shroomalicious
Zahid