How can humans deal with things "objectively"?

[Alterum]

That we don’t have epistemic autonomy.

I can interpret “that we don’t have epistemic autonomy” in a number of ways. For instance, it could be a pseudo-Kantian claim that we need absolutely free rational spontaneity if we are to be justified in our beliefs. Or it could be a descriptive remark that we rely upon other people for truth. Again, if you could be more precise, I am interested in discussing this.

You are confusing psychological egoism or “high self-esteem” with philosophical certainty.

Presumably you mean to say that I equivocated? At any rate, I did not. What do you mean by “philosophical certainty”? I obviously have some sense of where you’re going, but you need to be clearer. “Philosophical certainty” – for instance, indubitable first principles used to derive an a priori synthetic truth – is just a fiction. It’s a conceptual problem for philosophers; it has very little to do with the real world.

In the extreme case, a person can prance around claiming that they know “how things really are,” but that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with whether they indeed know that or not.

Right, by this I think you mean to advance a skeptical position, namely that, since people are wrong sometimes, they can never be certain. (Or, that since people are not infallible, they can never be certain.) Neither of those conclusions follows logically. More than that, empirically, people are certain – even skeptics. They have to be certain to live.

 

[cho_pilo]

I can interpret “that we don’t have epistemic autonomy” in a number of ways. For instance, it could be a pseudo-Kantian claim that we need absolutely free rational spontaneity if we are to be justified in our beliefs. Or it could be a descriptive remark that we rely upon other people for truth. Again, if you could be more precise, I am interested in discussing this.

We are epistemically dependent: we depend on other people to provide us with words and concepts in which we think; we depend on others for a number of things we consider “true,” things which we do not and cannot test for ourselves, but consider them to be true anyway.

In order for us to have epistemic autonomy (and thus be able to be objective), we would have to be completely independent of other people: we would have to be able to live by ourselves, alone, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from others, we would have to invent our own language (without any reference to any human language), our own methodology for assessing truths etc.

Presumably you mean to say that I equivocated? At any rate, I did not. What do you mean by “philosophical certainty”? I obviously have some sense of where you’re going, but you need to be clearer. “Philosophical certainty” – for instance, indubitable first principles used to derive an a priori synthetic truth – is just a fiction. It’s a conceptual problem for philosophers; it has very little to do with the real world.

IRL, people function on the basis of their ego(tism), not necessarily truth. But they nevertheless use philosophical terms, and expect to be given philosophical credence.

For example:
Person A claims that Jesus is the only path to salvation. Person A claims to be objective and unbiased.
Person B claims that Person A is subjective but is erroneously assigning his claim the status of objectivity.
The two get into a physical fight over this.

Who is right? Who is being objective? Who is merely acting out their egotism?

Right, by this I think you mean to advance a skeptical position, namely that, since people are wrong sometimes, they can never be certain. (Or, that since people are not infallible, they can never be certain.)

No, I mean neither of that.

More than that, empirically, people are certain – even skeptics. They have to be certain to live.

They are certain only in a psychological sense, not necessarily also in a philosophical sense.

If one says “I know that the sun will rise tomorrow” this is merely psychological certainty, not philosophical certainty.
Another example: “I know that you will pass the math test.” This is a good example of psychological certainty.

Take any “motivational speaker” or pop psychologist: these people make a point to sound and appear certain, to appear as if what they say really is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And yet many of the things they say are impossible to substantiate with empirical evidence or via philosophical argument.
These people are psychologically certain.

On a daily basis, people play out this dynamics as well: they project psychological certainty, even when they are flat-out telling lies.

 

[Alterum]

We are epistemically dependent: we depend on other people to provide us with words and concepts in which we think; we depend on others for a number of things we consider “true,” things which we do not and cannot test for ourselves, but consider them to be true anyway.

I concur entirely. We are epistemically dependent in this sense, and in much more profound ways. We are “epistemically dependent” for our being significantly advanced in consciousness from animals, it seems to me. A feral child hasn’t even the ability to communicate.

In order for us to have epistemic autonomy (and thus be able to be objective), we would have to be completely independent of other people: we would have to be able to live by ourselves, alone, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from others, we would have to invent our own language (without any reference to any human language), our own methodology for assessing truths etc.

This is roughly what you mean by “epistemic autonomy”. And I concur with the implication that it’s impossible. It is in fact absurd. For instance, there is no such thing as a private language. Language is inherently social. It’s incoherent to imagine someone developing a “private” language, so the quest for “epistemic autonomy” can’t even get underway.

IRL, people function on the basis of their ego(tism), not necessarily truth. But they nevertheless use philosophical terms, and expect to be given philosophical credence.

I can’t imagine anyone who wants to maintain that he is “philosophically certain” in the sense that you’ve been suggesting. (I am still looking for a definition of philosophical certainty.) Yet many people still maintain that they are certain, that they know the truth, and so on. In rationally weighed and considered matters, the pronouncement of certainty is in fact correct. For instance, the proposition that “we are epistemically dependent” is true. Do you disagree? Few people disagree with mathematical truths and logical truths (non-contradiction, excluded middle, etc.), but there are plenty of other truths behind which there is no strictly demonstrative method of arriving at a conclusion. For instance, most people are certain that they exist, that they have parents, and that they will die. Since all of those claims are true, their certainty (taken as a proposition) is perfectly reasonable.

Who is right? Who is being objective? Who is merely acting out their egotism?

There is no single method for testing who is correct. But what’s the point? (Again, I thought you were implying some kind of skeptical position.)

They are certain only in a psychological sense, not necessarily also in a philosophical sense.

Again, if a necessary condition of “philosophical certainty” is “epistemic autonomy” as you described, then philosophical certainty is impossible. But again, what’s the point? We still know, with certainty, a tremendous number of true propositions. I could go on and define another kind of certainty, say “self-certainty,” which is the certainty of an omniscient and omnipotent being. Then I could contend that people are certain but that they are neither philosophically certain nor self-certain. But again, what’s the point? They are still certain according to the standard meaning and use of the word; they still know true things without fear of doubt.

 

[Gaber]

In principle, it is kind of simple.

Objective statements are statements about objects, while subjective statements are statements about subjects.

‘Lightening flashes are electrical discharges’ is an objective statement. It’s true regardless of what people happen to think about the matter, at least given the meanings of the words.

‘I think that lightening is scary’ is a subjective statement, because it isn’t really about lightening at all. It’s about me.

‘Lightening scares the majority of people’ is more difficult. This one’s an objective statement about subjects. Somebody could test it by going out and sampling the responses of people during lightening storms or something. It has an objective truth-value, and its truth or falsity is independent of whatever the speaker believes about the matter.

Tis is very well stated as far as a dilineation of the ordinary state of human “waking” awareness. But for some people who have had a particular kind of expoerience, it is not sufficient. And that experience is why the ordinary state of human awarenes, including you and me walking around doing our even very precise and demanding work, in some cases, is called “sleep.”

So we could wonder why, when all these people are walking around “awake,” there is a catagory of people who say we are, as a race, generally “asleep.” It donsen’t mean stupid or ignorant, as we might at first glance conclude, though that is a very good guess!

What is more precisely meant is that many foks have an experience that informs them that our ordinary state of subject/object awareness is not all there is to being human, thoug for the vast majority that is their experience and all conclusions about existence are drawn from that limitation. And it is a limitation, because there is an experiential component missing from the analysis. And that expereintial component reveals that the subject/object mode of awarenes is purley subjective and pertinent only to the 3D experience we call “liviing.” It is not necessarly pertinent, though embraced by, what is beyond it. Or as some say, what is “beyond the mind.”

This has some ultimate resolution in that there is not a difference in totality between Creation as such and Being, but in order to arrive at a clear experiential perception of the nature of things, we have to separate them out for educational purposes, we might say. Wn that experiential understanding happens to its conclusion, then there is no difference between subject and object while the mental ability to make such functional distinctions not only remains, but is enhanced.

Kind of deep, perhaps, but very few, as far as I can tell, have through the ages and despite differing backgrounds, all come to pretty much the dsame conclusion.

 

[cho_pilo]

I can’t imagine anyone who wants to maintain that he is “philosophically certain” in the sense that you’ve been suggesting. (I am still looking for a definition of philosophical certainty.)

Philosophical certainty: knowing the absolute truth (- that would require omniscience).
Psychological certainty: believing that one knows the absolute truth.

There is no single method for testing who is correct. But what’s the point? (Again, I thought you were implying some kind of skeptical position.)

Again, if a necessary condition of “philosophical certainty” is “epistemic autonomy” as you described, then philosophical certainty is impossible. But again, what’s the point?

The point is psycho-social wellbeing:
Humans are not at ease when they feel uncertain, and they try to end the uncertainty somehow, by seeking truth, clarity.
As social beings, humans also have a need to think and feel in synchronisation with other humans, and are generally not at ease when there are differences.

Then I could contend that people are certain but that they are neither philosophically certain nor self-certain. But again, what’s the point? They are still certain according to the standard meaning and use of the word; they still know true things without fear of doubt.

That works fine in a relatively homogenous monoculture, but it breaks down in a modern multicultural society.

Things that are completely unproblematic in a monoculture, may become highly contentious when that monoculture morphs into a multiculture (such as by immigration).
Epistemological principles that earlier on everyone took for granted, are now questioned.
This brings up problems in communication, people become more easily confused, unease, distrusting, tired, stressed-out, hopeless.
We can’t just let such things pass.

 

[inocente]

Philosophical certainty: knowing the absolute truth (- that would require omniscience).
Psychological certainty: believing that one knows the absolute truth.

This seems wrong. I asked earlier how anyone could know they are omniscient. How could they possibly know there wasn’t one tiny, itsibitsy little thing they were ignorant of, knowledge of which would turn them inside-out?

In any event, if objective truth is about real facts then the proof of the pudding is whether our body of knowledge is useful, and most definitely it is. Whether or not it is absolute truth, whether we can ultimately know that we know what we know, seems irrelevant in the real world outside philosophers’ ivory towers.

Richard Feynman made a little joke about philosophers who get trapped like bunnies in headlights. youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

 

[Gaber]

This seems wrong. I asked earlier how anyone could know they are omniscient. How could they possibly know there wasn’t one tiny, itsibitsy little thing they were ignorant of, knowledge of which would turn them inside-out?

In any event, if objective truth is about real facts then the proof of the pudding is whether our body of knowledge is useful, and most definitely it is. Whether or not it is absolute truth, whether we can ultimately know that we know what we know, seems irrelevant in the real world outside philosophers’ ivory towers.

Richard Feynman made a little joke about philosophers who get trapped like bunnies in headlights. youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

Wll said, regarding mentality. Gotta love Richard Feynman!

 

[cho_pilo]

In any event, if objective truth is about real facts then the proof of the pudding is whether our body of knowledge is useful, and most definitely it is. Whether or not it is absolute truth, whether we can ultimately know that we know what we know, seems irrelevant in the real world outside philosophers’ ivory towers.

Richard Feynman made a little joke about philosophers who get trapped like bunnies in headlights. youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

I think that philosophy is actually the most practical, the most pragmatic discipline there is.

Granted, it’s easy to lose one’s way if we take the philosophical route, hence all that about ivory towers and not being able to endure a toothache.

But if we posit that a human’s best chances to find meaning and satisfaction in life is via action, then the proper understanding that precedes action is of vital importance, and philosophy is necessary for that understanding.

 

[Gaber]

I think that philosophy is actually the most practical, the most pragmatic discipline there is.

Granted, it’s easy to lose one’s way if we take the philosophical route, hence all that about ivory towers and not being able to endure a toothache.

But if we posit that a human’s best chances to find meaning and satisfaction in life is via action, then the proper understanding that precedes action is of vital importance, and philosophy is necessary for that understanding.

It’s not parts, its a whole. Since mind, the devider, or “the adversary,” separates and distinguishes, we use that facultyu for eductional, navigational, and practical purposes. But things only have the appearance of division due to the projections of the mind. It is all, in fact, seamless.

 

[inocente]

I think that philosophy is actually the most practical, the most pragmatic discipline there is.

Granted, it’s easy to lose one’s way if we take the philosophical route, hence all that about ivory towers and not being able to endure a toothache.

But if we posit that a human’s best chances to find meaning and satisfaction in life is via action, then the proper understanding that precedes action is of vital importance, and philosophy is necessary for that understanding.

Yes and no.

To me the value of philosophy is in the process, not the end result. In other words no philosophical conclusion should ever be taken as more than one tentative theory amongst others. Otherwise philosophy becomes a religion, a belief that the world can be explained purely by theorizing from the comfort of our armchair, a belief in absolutes based on squidgy constructs which might even be incoherent and meaningless outside our species or culture.

I guess I’m a pragmatist, believing that to gain real knowledge means having to get our hands dirty. I mean in terms of the OP, we know how to be objective, it’s called the scientific method. It’s not perfect especially when studying ourselves, but it’s pretty good when it comes to dealing with things objectively.