Objectiphilia, Quasi-Religion

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Objectiphilia, Quasi-Religion

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 05:47 pm
While I don't deny that a reality exists outside my perception, I question whether a ferocious attachment to the correspondence theory of truth is quasi-religious, motivated by "irrational" factors.

Beyond the practical advantages of the correspondence theory, which I would never deny, why such fervor?

Does this non-human reality function as a replacement for God? Can science serve not only as a practical method but also as a hero-myth?

I use the word objectiphile for those who seem almost allergic to the subjective element in human experience. They tend to dodge the problem of being, which is apparently founded first of all in consciousness, and then divided into subject and object, emotion and thought.

They also tend to forget that we experience reality thru the filter of concept, which is born as metaphor.

I question whether humans ever lack some heroic ideal to incarnate. A few key-words to identify with is all we need. For some these words are "truth" and "objectivity" for whom they have a value beyond the practical.

This is not aimed at anyone in particular.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 06:26 pm
@Reconstructo,
I think for the most part objectiphilia has been a reaction against subjectiphilia but, as often happens this reaction goes further than it needs to.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 12 Dec, 2009 09:03 pm
@Reconstructo,
Ah, and is this not the dialectical dance? Like I always say, I want to have my cake and eat it too. As soon as one becomes conscious of a limit/error, is this not the beginning of progress? Is this not the foundation of a new project?

The correspondence theory of truth is ossified. Most people don't realize they are trapped in it. Technology has given the scientific model of perception so much prestige that is has created almost a superstition of the object. Folks forget that human exist as finite individuals. They walk down the street and see parallel lines converge. It's like Blake's critique of the Enlightenment. In this age the inlets of the soul are the five sense. The imagination is too often forgotten, and yet the imagination is the source of both science and religion. And I mean the imagination of singular human beings. This is why the Christ myth is accurate. "God" lives in us all, as singular historical mortal beings. We can call it the Poetic Genius or Imagination or the Holy Ghost or Reason or Understanding. Etc.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 08:27 am
@Reconstructo,
Science, or rather the scientific horizon (landscape), has become powerful through its admitted successes of explaining and manipulating through technology much of the world. Its method tends to overcome opinion and bigotry, and is thus embraced by many who would advocate its extension to more and more areas of life. (The advent of computerisation and the apparatus of the internet and their ever-increasing colonization of the world is archetypical, and also instructive).
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 08:40 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;110696 wrote:
While I don't deny that a reality exists outside my perception, I question whether a ferocious attachment to the correspondence theory of truth is quasi-religious, motivated by "irrational" factors.

Beyond the practical advantages of the correspondence theory, which I would never deny, why such fervor?

.


Of course, there is no evidence of "objectphilia" to begin with. But, even if "objectphilia" were an established psychological truth (and, thus, corresponded to a fact) why would it matter? Whether a theory (belief) is true or not is independent of any motives (conscious or unconscious). To think otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 13 Dec, 2009 03:05 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;110912 wrote:
Of course, there is no evidence of "objectphilia" to begin with. But, even if "objectphilia" were an established psychological truth (and, thus, corresponded to a fact) why would it matter? Whether a theory (belief) is true or not is independent of any motives (conscious or unconscious). To think otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy.


But this presupposes the correspondence theory of truth. My concept of objectiphilia is teasing name for it, a rhetorical advice to motivate the reconsideration of what many take for granted. Also, psychological "truths" are often "soft " truths. Where in objective reality is the "ego"? Where are "instincts"? And yet these concepts are found useful by many.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 08:35 pm
@Reconstructo,
Is a perfect symbolization of external reality even conceivable? We can pile up equations and no doubt make technological use of these. It sounds exciting. But is it not a charming form of hubris to think that we can map this universe of ours with our ape-descended front-lobe? And if we cannot, can we (should we?) continue to make some subsititute theology out of this symbolization of the external world?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 08:53 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111653 wrote:
Is a perfect symbolization of external reality even conceivable??


What is a symbolization of external reality supposed to be? There is no point in making up phrases, and then asking me questions about them unless I know what they mean.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:20 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;111656 wrote:
What is a symbolization of external reality supposed to be? There is no point in making up phrases, and then asking me questions about them unless I know what they mean.


Read some continental philosophers. Cross the aisle now and then. What do you think it means? Use the dictionary.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:26 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111661 wrote:
Read some continental philosophers. Cross the aisle now and then. What do you think it means? Use the dictionary.


No idea. The only thing I can possibly come up with it speaking. But you could not mean that, otherwise you would simply say, "speaking".

Why should I have to do research to discover what you are talking about in an exchange on a forum? We should be able to do this in plain English, shouldn't we? Or, at least, if I don't understand what you are talking about, you should be able to drop the jargon, and say it in plain English. I try not to use jargon. Can't you?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:32 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;111664 wrote:
Or, at least, if I don't understand what you are talking about, you should be able to drop the jargon, and say it in plain English. I try not to use jargon. Can't you?


One man's jargon is another man's plain English.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:36 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111667 wrote:
One man's jargon is another man's plain English.


Nonsense. "Symbolization of external reality" is English (sort of), but not plain. That is as silly as saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Well, almost as silly.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 09:43 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111667 wrote:
One man's jargon is another man's plain English.


My man, not everything is subjective! Why oh why do you believe this? Is it some sort of rebellion?

Maybe you mean that some people deviate from plain English more than others. And this would be true. But this does not mean plain English isn't plain English and jargon isn't jargon. If someone spoke exclusively in slang, it wouldn't mean that they were speaking in proper English because slang is all they knew! They would still be speaking in slang!

But I think you mean something else by this. I think we shouldn't take your post at face value. I think you mean to say, "Some people use made up words or phrases so frequently that the words consequently become part of their everyday language." This does not mean however that they are speaking in plain English - they are not!
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:06 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;111673 wrote:
My man, not everything is subjective! Why oh why do you believe this? Is it some sort of rebellion?


You misrepresent me. Surely you are aware that reading ability varies? What is this abstraction "plain English"? And look at what was called jargon in the first place. This is the internet age, and we are on a philosophy forum. Anyone on the inside of a jargon is plainly going to understand this "jargon". Those who are not educated at all (and this is directed at either of you) are going to experience otherwise ordinary English as jargon. Jargon is relative.

Also this is a derailment of the thread.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2009 10:22 pm
@Reconstructo,
Quote:
Surely you are aware that reading ability varies?


What does reading ability have to do with what is plain English and what is jargon (technical terms within a given field)? I don't care if you're illiterate or a praised linguist, plain English is not jargon.

Quote:
And look at what was called jargon in the first place.


Which place is that?

Quote:
This is the internet age, and we are on a philosophy forum. Anyone on the inside of a jargon is plainly going to understand this "jargon". Those who are not educated at all (and this is directed at either of you) are going to experience otherwise ordinary English as jargon.


What? Those who are not educated are not going to experience plain English as jargon. Ordinary and understandable English doesn't magically turn into technical speak just because someone isn't educated! This is not a matter of perspective. Speaking in plain English means to speak in an easily understandable manner, without complications or jargon. There's a difference, and someone's education has nothing to do with this.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 02:23 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;111692 wrote:
What does reading ability have to do with what is plain English and what is jargon (technical terms within a given field)? I don't care if you're illiterate or a praised linguist, plain English is not jargon.

Which place is that?

What? Those who are not educated are not going to experience plain English as jargon. Ordinary and understandable English doesn't magically turn into technical speak just because someone isn't educated! This is not a matter of perspective. Speaking in plain English means to speak in an easily understandable manner, without complications or jargon. There's a difference, and someone's education has nothing to do with this.

Well, your manners are good so I'll answer you sincerely.
1. I don't think a word like "symbolization" is jargon. Kennethamy wasn't sincerely asking in the first place. If you had asked, I would have elaborated. But why go out of one's way for facetious questioners? If I were using medical or legal speak, you would be right on this. Instead, it's more complicated than that.
2. There's a difference between elaboration and using plain English. "Symbolization of external reality" is just not the sort of phrase I would let intimidate me. I'm not saying it intimidates you, either. Some here don't want to know anymore than they already do. (You can accuse me of that, but I've already learned from this forum..) Such is life.
4. I think you misunderstood that last quoted point. I was saying that humans experience anything as jargon if it's out of their habitual use of language. I was saying that jargon is relative.
:detective:
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:00 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo wrote:
1. I don't think a word like "symbolization" is jargon. Kennethamy wasn't sincerely asking in the first place. If you had asked, I would have elaborated. But why go out of one's way for facetious questioners? If I were using medical or legal speak, you would be right on this. Instead, it's more complicated than that.


Well, medical and legal speak are two different types of jargon. And I think most would agree that medical and legal jargon is not plain English even to medical practitioners or lawyers.

Also, I think you should give people the benefit of the doubt. Try this: Don't look at the poster's name before you respond - just focus on the content, and then evaluate if it's worth your time to respond.

Quote:

2. There's a difference between elaboration and using plain English. "Symbolization of external reality" is just not the sort of phrase I would let intimidate me. I'm not saying it intimidates you, either. Some here don't want to know anymore than they already do. (You can accuse me of that, but I've already learned from this forum..) Such is life.


Oh, it's not about intimidation. I know some jargon (specifically the jargon we use at my work dealing with project life cycles), but that jargon isn't my plain English. It is jargon.

Quote:

4. I think you misunderstood that last quoted point. I was saying that humans experience anything as jargon if it's out of their habitual use of language. I was saying that jargon is relative.


No, I understood you, I just find this to be incorrect. Jargon isn't relative. A medical practitioner that uses jargon is still using jargon even though they are versed in that jargon. Their jargon doesn't become plain English simply because they are versed in it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:20 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;111730 wrote:
Well, your manners are good so I'll answer you sincerely.
1. I don't think a word like "symbolization" is jargon. Kennethamy wasn't sincerely asking in the first place. If you had asked, I would have elaborated. But why go out of one's way for facetious questioners? If I were using medical or legal speak, you would be right on this. Instead, it's more complicated than that.
2. There's a difference between elaboration and using plain English. "Symbolization of external reality" is just not the sort of phrase I would let intimidate me. I'm not saying it intimidates you, either. Some here don't want to know anymore than they already do. (You can accuse me of that, but I've already learned from this forum..) Such is life.
4. I think you misunderstood that last quoted point. I was saying that humans experience anything as jargon if it's out of their habitual use of language. I was saying that jargon is relative.
:detective:


So, finally, what does "symbolization of reality" mean? Saying or writing what you think is true? Inquiring minds want to know.

---------- Post added 12-16-2009 at 09:28 AM ----------

Zetherin;111764 wrote:
Well, medical and legal speak are two different types of jargon. And I think most would agree that medical and legal jargon is not plain English even to medical practitioners or lawyers.

Also, I think you should give people the benefit of the doubt. Try this: Don't look at the poster's name before you respond - just focus on the content, and then evaluate if it's worth your time to respond.



Oh, it's not about intimidation. I know some jargon (specifically the jargon we use at my work dealing with project life cycles), but that jargon isn't my plain English. It is jargon.


No, I understood you, I just find this to be incorrect. Jargon isn't relative. A medical practitioner that uses jargon is still using jargon even though they are versed in that jargon. Their jargon doesn't become plain English simply because they are versed in it.


If the physician tell you that you had a "cardial infarction" that's jargon. If he tells you that you had a heart attack, that is not jargon. What could be more obvious? If physician calls it a "hemotoma" that's jargon. If a physician calls it "blood clot in the head" that's plain English. How could it be simpler. If someone calls it, "speaking or writing about what you think is true" that is plain English. If someone calls it "symbolization of reality" that is jargon (I think). I say, "I think" because I don't know whether R. made it up on the spot, or whether other philosophers regularly use it with other philosophers to communicate.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 10:03 am
@Reconstructo,
It is, to return to the original subject, quite possible to have a philosophical perspective that maintains that the world of appearances [or better, of phenomena, since appearances are always appearances (of) some-thing] is reality, and need not correspond to any-thing but what they are discovered to be through human action and social meaning. Embracing a certain ambiguity in the world that is far from neat and tidy, it recognises that the subject and its object are mutually interdependent for each's existence and are part of an encompassing process.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 06:08 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;111764 wrote:

No, I understood you, I just find this to be incorrect. Jargon isn't relative. A medical practitioner that uses jargon is still using jargon even though they are versed in that jargon. Their jargon doesn't become plain English simply because they are versed in it.


But is the word "symbolization" jargon?

Main Entry:
Pronunciation: \ˌsim-bə-lə-ˈzā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1603
1 : an act or instance of symbolizing
2 : the human capacity to develop a system of meaningful symbols


Main Entry:
Pronunciation: \rē-ˈa-lə-tē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural
Date: 1550
1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily


---------- Post added 12-16-2009 at 07:11 PM ----------

jgweed;111787 wrote:
Embracing a certain ambiguity in the world that is far from neat and tidy, it recognises that the subject and its object are mutually interdependent for each's existence and are part of an encompassing process.

This is my view. I don't want to overcorrect to subjectiphila, but to balance the scales a little. I've always loved objective science. It was my favorite subject as a schoolboy. I just don't like to see philosophy reduced to its flatterer. Well written post, by the way.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Objectiphilia, Quasi-Religion
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/20/2019 at 11:23:08