How can the one who is supposedly the source of subjectivity, be percieved as an object?



  • If you are [insert name], and you reside in "your body, or you are "your" body, and you supposedly are the one seeing these words then how is possible that you [insert name] can be seen by "another person" who is apparently located in or as a body? And that "other person" can be seen by you [insert name] ?

    What the fuck is going on here...



  • So an object (the human body) is attributed as being the center of subjective experience, but a human body is perceivable... by who, or what?... the source of the perceiving must not be perceivable.


  • Sarah's Fan Club VOAX

    what.just WHAT



  • 🤔🤔🤔🤔


  • Sarah's Fan Club VOAX

    @Huh this hurts physically


  • Sarah's Fan Club VOAX

    @Huh i- i- i-



  • Have you been reading Descartes recently? Please continue and we can discuss.



  • @Thales Okay, imagine there are two people looking at each other.

    Each person can see the other person with their eyes, they can hear any sound that the other person makes, either person can smell the other (if their scent is noticeable)

    If either of them close their eyes, they can imagine that person, in their mind's eye. They can also experience emotions "about" the other person.

    if they are so inclined, then they may also taste or touch the other person. ( and so on and so forth)

    So if either person can be fully experienced through all of the human sensory capabilities... How can it be that either of them is "the one who is experiencing?



  • Okay so do we agree that one thing/object/person isn't capable of experiencing another thing/object/person?

    If so, then what is the source of this capacity/ability to notice/percieve things/objects/persons?

    It can't be an object can it?



  • Okay, so you can see these words, right?

    This is assuming you believe that you are located in the body through which these words can be seen.

    Now, I am also seeing these words, and I am supposedly located in or "I am" this body through which the typing of these words is occurring.

    Now, you imagine the one typing these words as a body, but you (as what or who you believe you are) can be imagined as a body, by "another person" who is also supposedly located in or as a human body.

    How can something that can be experienced be "the one who is experiencing" ?



  • That isn't a difficult question. Seems you are asking how can one be the contributor, subject, and observer. Philosophically that is easily explained. Am I missing something?



  • What you are describing cannot be done. True objectivity, or the ability to perceive an object/person's essence in the Kantian sense in not obtainable. Objectivity only exists in that an object/person can be observed from multiple perspectives (including the object itself if it's a person). No one or thing can be fully experienced by another or by ones self for that matter.



  • It absolutely can, but it is different to each observer. For example: Any time you read a book you rewrite it. That is to say you bring your unique perspective to it. The book exists, and was written by an individual with a semi-distinct meaning when composed (Though the the meaning will morph even for the author with the passage of time and experience gained). Objects/people exist within our perception, but their meaning to us change as we do.



  • so each observer is an object observing other objects? but who is observing the observer (if it is an object)?

    does the book have an inherent meaning, or is it the percieving of it that gives it meaning?

    so people exist within "our" perception? what are you referring to when you say "our"?



  • Let me approach these one at a time.
    so each observer is an object observing other objects? but who is observing the observer (if it is an object)?
    Does it matter? This leads into a metaphysical rabbit hole. IE: Does God hold existence together? Is existence the product of one or multiple minds. Is existence material, or idea?
    I'm going with common sense philosophy on this one. We are are speaking via the internet. I can feel the keyboard under my figures, and the desk beneath my wrists.

    does the book have an inherent meaning, or is it the perceiving of it that gives it meaning?
    This is a good question and I can only give my opinion. I would say that a "good" book has an overarching theme. It's meaning will be relative to the observer.

    so people exist within "our" perception? what are you referring to when you say "our"?
    This is not just people, it is all things. There is a group understanding and agreement on the definition of objects. This is the bedrock of communal reality. If we discuss a single individual "our" would refer to the individual and anyone within his/her frame of reference.


  • Sarah's Fan Club VOAX

    Everything hurts



  • okay so, "you" feel the keyboard under your fingers, and the desk beneath "your" wrists

    what is being referred to by these words "you" "i" "we" "my" "mine" "your" "our"

    these are assumed to be factual, but what do they refer to really?

    do you believe that there is a physical reality that exists independent of percieving?



  • @mozy but who is it that says that?


  • Sarah's Fan Club VOAX

    @Huh what in lordsfuck



  • So we get to the meat of it! Very good question, and one that has been debated for quite some time. So we can review the the arguments between the idealists and materialist but in the end i don't think it really matters. We all perceive a material world, and have to interact with it. I can shift to existentialism and say the keyboard isn't a keyboard without me or someone else to give it meaning. There is value in that, and it is worth examining. We can say that only the material exists, or that everything is a construct on one or multiple minds. I still have to move through time: paying bills, eating, sleeping, etc. You should check out Wittgenstein. I don't agree with all of it, but he hits on a lot of what we're discussing.








By using TalkWithStranger, you are accepting our privacy and usage terms . You must be 18+ or 13+ with parental permission to use our online chatting site.