M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Yes it would if you’d just stop being an evil atheist for 2 seconds!!!
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
I shall leave it up to you wasmit to determine if the following makes sense. There are times when we are normally bound by our choice. For example. We choose to get on an airplane and stay on it until it lands. No hopping off over the ocean.
Normally, in threads I don’t consider subjective feelings because that is too much like relativism. However, personally, I accept objective, subjective, and experiential thinking. So in this case of “feeling” knowledge like the movement of the sun, I choose to abandon my normal way of approaching philosophy and propose a hypothetical. What would happen wasmit if you abandoned the logical approach in your OP? And shifted to the subjective or experiential? What would be gained? What would be lost? Where would your feelings lead to?
Blessings,
granny
All human life is meant for eternal life.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Hello grannymh, i wish to challenge you to an intellectual-dual. Your mind is far too important to me to be wasted on idle chit chat, and so i have decided wind-you-up.
Here are my questions.
Would you agree that that which exists is objective?
If this is the case, then isn’t mind thoughts and feelings all “objective” entities, even though they are not in the physically objective realm?
Can we not call them both existentially real?
The thing is, when we speak of thoughts feelings and concepts as “subjective”, there is a strong implication, unintentional or not, that such things are not real. Once more; it would also seem to suggest that the subjective isn’t as important as that which we term objective. I’m not claiming that this is your position. I just want to know what you think about this.
Ps. Apoligies for not getting back to you about the theistic-evolution hypothesis discussion we were going to have a little while back.
S
Spirithound
Guest
May I butt in? Thank you
Subjective = subject - ive. Of or relating to the subject (not a dictionary definition)
Objective = object - ive. Of or relating to the object (also not a dictionary definition)
When a person speaks about themselves, they are the subject of the sentence. They speak of their feelings and experiences, but these are unaccessible to the outer world.
Conversely, when I speak of something I did with someone else, they are the object of the sentence. These actions like eating, watching a movie, or singing are objective, accessible to others.
I think this is a better definition of subjective and objective.
G
grannymh
Guest
Challenge accepted with a granny-type smile. In fact, I already see something in your questions which needs some tweaking to be accurate.Hello grannymh, i wish to challenge you to an intellectual-dual. Your mind is far too important to me to be wasted on idle chit chat, and so i have decided wind-you-up.
Here are my questions.
Would you agree that that which exists is objective?
If this is the case, then isn’t mind thoughts and feelings all “objective” entities, even though they are not in the physically objective realm?
Can we not call them both existentially real?
The thing is, when we speak of thoughts feelings and concepts as “subjective”, there is a strong implication, unintentional or not, that such things are not real. Once more; it would also seem to suggest that the subjective isn’t as important as that which we term objective. I’m not claiming that this is your position. I just want to know what you think about this.
Ps. Apoligies for not getting back to you about the theistic-evolution hypothesis discussion we were going to have a little while back.
Besides, I am beginning to think that there are other ways, besides logical, to find the existence of free will. I am confident that you will inform me…One other thing, you need to update me on current existentialism. The students I hung out with were more interested in the literature – like seeing an unauthorized production of “Waiting for Godot” in a hole-in-the-wall bar.
Wind-up ? This AM I am already wound-up as I’m off to speak to a deanery meeting of 15 priests about the importance of preaching Transubstantiation. It may take me a while to shift focus.
Blessings,
granny
Humans received the gift of freedom from their Creator.
G
glowingembers
Guest
Logical inference starts from axioms and axioms cannot be logically derived from anything. Therefore axioms come from nothing and are random (they just should not contradict each other).
J
JDaniel
Guest
I guess we’d better wake up Issac Newton, whose systematic description of inertia, or, uniform motion, he called an Axiom. In fact, this Axiom remains dependent upon a set of dialectical propositions. Remember, he said, “Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right [straight] line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.”
In his next paragraph he states, “Projectiles continue in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A top, whose parts by their cohesion are continually drawn aside from rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is retarded by the air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in freer space, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time.” - The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, transl. A. Motte, rev. F. Cajori (Berkeley, 1947) p. 13.
This axiom came from deductions from the results of earlier propositions, then, as we are talking about a physical system, such results were compared, by means of induction, with experience. Can you imagine if this axiom came about from nothing, or, from something random?
jd
G
glowingembers
Guest
I meant an axiom as something that is not derived from anything, just arbitrarily chosen. You can create a logical system from arbitrarily chosen axioms, the only condition is that they should be consistent.
G
grannymh
Guest
Hello grannymh, i wish to challenge you to an intellectual-dual. Your mind is far too important to me to be wasted on idle chit chat, and so i have decided wind-you-up.
Here are my questions.
Would you agree that that which exists is objective?
If this is the case, then isn’t mind thoughts and feelings all “objective” entities, even though they are not in the physically objective realm?
Spirithound brought up some good points-- see post 104 – which reminded me that it is important to understand both definitions and usage especially with the word object.
As far as objective, the definition I like to use is that it refers to something existing outside of myself. An objective reality can exist before I was born and after I die. It does not depend on me for existence. Objective refers to the external world.
On the other hand, subjective, by definition, proceeds from or takes place in a person’s mind rather than the external world. It is particular to a given person.
Would that mean my thoughts and feelings are not real? Of course not. Thoughts and feelings are very real. They exist internally and not externally.
Would thoughts and feelings be considered entities? Something that exists as a discrete unit? I’m open to suggestions…are they? Personally, I like to use the word intangible to describe thoughts and feelings. They exist but I can’t carry them around in a little tin pail.
Here’s what I have done with your first question. I am not at all comfortable with thoughts and feelings being objective entities, but I know that they exist. Thus, I would have to answer that I agree that that which exists can be objective, subjective, and intangible.
Wasmit, you have talked about feeling free will. What are your thoughts about this?
What this comes down to is that I am very happy with both physical and non-physical realms. In other words, I am happy with my human nature. Maybe I better qualify that. I am not always happy with the choices I freely make.
T
tonyrey
Guest
If we are not responsible for our activity we are not responsible for our thoughts.
If we are not responsible for our thoughts it is likely that our thoughts never correspond to reality - in which case our thoughts are not worth considering.
G
glowingembers
Guest
Don’t worry, dysfunctional thoughts will be eliminated by natural selection.If we are not responsible for our activity we are not responsible for our thoughts.
If we are not responsible for our thoughts it is likely that our thoughts never correspond to reality - in which case our thoughts are not worth considering.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Then why hasn’t it happened yet?
G
glowingembers
Guest
It takes time. Evolution is a gradual process.
Except for evolutionary leaps, like second coming of Jesus
T
tonyrey
Guest
That sounds like a pious hope that all will be well in the end, that the truth will prevail even though we have no choice in the matter, that reality is fundamentally good!
G
glowingembers
Guest
Well, if you think so…That sounds like a pious hope that all will be well in the end, that the truth will prevail even though we have no choice in the matter, that reality is fundamentally good!
T
tonyrey
Guest
Don’t you? If not why not?Well, if you think so…
G
glowingembers
Guest
It has often been a nasty game, which makes me feel sad. But I hope that our negative experiences will help us understand how to live a better life. In this sense, we may be in a better situation than Adam was in the Garden of Eden before the Fall.
G
grannymh
Guest
What helps us to live a better life is God’s truth.
- Status