Talk:Subject-object problem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
EntmootsOfTrolls would have liked this article to be part of User:EntmootsOfTrolls/WikiProject Body, Cognition and Senses, which provides guidelines for articles on those topics, and seeks stronger cross-linkage and cross-cultural treatment of all of these topics.
Cognition isn't really reducible to a sequence of bits, and if it could be, we'd have to ask: to whom is it so "reducible"? So this is a pretty major problem we should sort out, and maybe the explanation here should be less about language and more about symbols and the tests by which the symbols are assigned. See gate control theory of pain for an example of assigning symbols to a most unlikely subject - aches and pains. So it can be done and is done, but that collectivization of the pain, sharing it, etc., is a really good example of dealing with experience with minimal symbolic mediation, when we KNOW that's what's going on. It can be just as subjective to share ideas of "red" (see visual perception) especially if you have color blindness. So maybe this should be rewritten as a core article on cognition, or be linked in to one on perspective that can take such a general treatment? Ideas?
I have listed this page on Wikipedia:Cleanup; what I see here strikes me as in major need of NPOVing and the removal of large swatches of patent nonsense. I look at this text trying to find sense there, and what is on the page strikes me as so confusing and confused to the point of irreformability. It wanders from grammar to politics and back again, substituting puns for insights.
One place to begin, I guess, is by observing that the theory of relativity is a mathematically defined concept in physics that has no obvious relationship to either relativism or epistemology. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I am in agreement with others. There is much nonsense here. This page seems to be someone's POV ramblings, and not a real philosophy or political topic at all. It belongs only in someone's personal diary. Unless we can precisely state what the exact topic is, and offer an NPOV disucssion of the issue based on authoritative sources, this entire article should probably be deleted. (The same criticism, of course, is true of all Wikipedia articles; they need to be on specific topics, and must never be rambling stream of thought statements.) RK 23:20, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
- I added the introductory bit about Hegel, Marx, and so forth in an attempt to clarify for whom the alleged subject-object problem is a problem, and why; and try to put the text originally here in some kind of context. Now I'm a follower of Schopenhauer myself, and I tend to agree that Hegel is building castles in the air. I am uncertain whether it represents an improvement, or whether the whole thing is an unworkable mess. At least it will give me a head start when I do the article I have in the works on other. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:44, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Now I'm a follower of Schopenhauer myself, and I tend to agree that Hegel is building castles in the air.
Contents |
[edit] MOQ
(cur) (last) . . 16:31, 29 Mar 2004 . . David Gerard (rv Vogel's advertising for his own site (again!))
Where David, aka, F-head?
Those aren't "my sites", whatsoever!
However, there are links that are relevant to the discussion of the "subject-object questions" that are being raised here.
So much for any Wiki NPOV, considering the POV rants of those above, like David Gerard! LOL! :D
(cur) (last) . . 06:37, 31 Mar 2004 . . Adam Conover (YET AGAIN removed inappropriate first-para reference to MOQ. Added a link at the end of the article to MOQ. Does that satisfy you?)
No, you and David Gerard aka Bcorr, have no business either deleting or reverting any relevant links nor deleting relevant references to any possible resolution to the "subject-object" problem using the MOQ, or any other possible method. It is clear that you are "reverting" only because I am editing here and that you just have a bigoted and personal bias and vendetta against both me and my religon/philosophy of cosmotheism. PV
- This is simply not true. We are reverting your edits because:
- a) The first paragraph of the article is the wrong place to introduce the MOQ's perspective -- all other positions are given mention later in the article, as you can see.
It is quite true, and there is and was nothing wrong with my introducing the MOQ's perspective within the first paragraph, whatsoever.-PV
-
- b) The specific content you wrote is POV, because it supports the MOQ over competing positions, i.e.: "a much expanded mental framework that allows for a greater clarity and depth of understanding of ones own values, morality, and awareness."
Again, not true. It describes only the MOQ's position relative to the SOM position which had created the subject-object "problem" in the first place.-PV
-
- c) The MOQ is now mentioned in the article under an appropriate heading. I would have included more of your original text, but it was too POV to use, unfortunately.
Nonsense. You are harrassing me, and are editing this article only to suit your own POV, regardless of the Wiki NPOV that we ALL are supposed to uphold. -PV
- You cannot claim that we are bigoted or biased against your position, because we are specifically mentioning it in the page as a position on the subject-object problem that is worthy of consideration.
Of course, I can, and I still do, as your bigoted and biased "arguements" still hold no "rational" water. The MOQ is not "my position", it is just a possible solution to the subject-object "problem".-PV
If you want to include more NPOV information about the MOQ on this page, feel free to add it under the appropriate heading. Adam Conover 00:41, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
I already have, Adam, and I have had biased and bigoted POV editors and POV censors like yourself and "David Gerard" that do delete them without having any rational and without having any real justification, whatsoever, other than you and your ilk deliberately censoring, reverting, and "harrassing me".-PV
- Paul, first of all, please don't comment in the middle of other people's comments -- if you want to quote something, repaste it and then comment on it. It makes the page easier to read.
- Apart from that, I simply don't understand why you don't think the revision I made is a valid compromise. The MOQ is still being mentioned, it's just that now it's being mentioned further down in the article, where all the other positions on the SOP are listed. What's the problem here? Why do you think the MOQ needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph? Conover 20:42, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Paul, first of all, please don't comment in the middle of other people's comments -- if you want to quote something, repaste it and then comment on it. It makes the page easier to read.
Ok, since you asked politely. :D
- What's the problem here? Why do you think the MOQ needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph?
The solution to the subject-object problem is the priority. The MOQ needs to be and it should be mentioned in the first paragraph, since it solves it so very elegantly, and without actually throwing the SOM baby out with the bathwater. Like PDF files, it encircles SOM within the MOQ, and thus it includes all of the fonts! It expands our perspective to get a clearer grasp of the WHOLE of REALITY, and not just the part of REALITY that is being "self-limited" by the SOM. That is why. -PV
[edit] No Kant in subject-object problem?
Opening this article with Hegel seems very short-sighted.
Kant's treatment is essential here. It depends heavily on the idea that the subject participates in objects. He summed this up nicely by saying something like "concepts without percepts are empty . . . percepts without concepts are blind".
The subject-object problem is also central to many eastern philosophies (eg. brahman and atman).
Yes, of course calling Hegel the original philosopher of dialectics is ludicrous - for Hegel, and anyone else it goes back to the greeks, Heraclitus,Plato and Aristotle above all, and he called the reintroduction of the concept by Kant, even though K belittled it, one of Kant's greatest contributions. (Also Fichte and Schelling belong, S-O was perhaps even more central to them than to K or H) The dialectical relation of S and O is best illustrated by the amusing factoid that when these words were introduced, in medieval discourse, they meant precisely the opposite of their modern meanings.--John Z 09:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- I have replaced the weird Hegel verbiage with a generic introduction. Please expand, elaborate, etc. — goethean ॐ 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added a bit about Kant and his followers but the posting is one-sided.
[edit] Re: MOQ
- The solution to the subject-object problem is the priority.
- The MOQ needs to be and it should be mentioned in the first paragraph, since it solves it so very elegantly, and without actually throwing the SOM baby out with the bathwater.
This is not the place for philosophical arguments about whether or not you have solved the problem. Whether or not subject-object actually _is_ a problem that _can be_ solved is still a matter of debate. If you assume that your "solution" is correct, that's putting priority on your POV. It doesn't matter if you turn out to be right or not, right now your proposed solution is only a contender and not a victor.
It seems that a lot is missing here: Descartes for example who influenced Kant. To jump right in with Kant's philosophy without the modernist dialog (Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume to name a few) is hasty. From Kant the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy should be described. Husserl, Heidegger, Levinas, Gadamer ought to be included as well as Frege, Wittgenstein, Russell, and Whitehead (especially if such an emphasis is placed on science and math.) Also, the name should probably be changed to Subject-object distinction. Philosute 07:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] whew
is it getting hot in here?
[edit] Sun Myong Moon??
has anyone noticed that Sun Myong Moon is included in this article?! I do not think that this is someone who should be mentioned in the same breath as Anscombe and even Wilber.
Who is down for deleting Sun Myong Moon reference?
