+[1]KENNETH UDUT: Intersubjectivity is a word I don't see nearly
enough and you're right; in the actual practice of science, the
lines that seem so nice and clear to students are, as always and
thankfully so, blurred by good ol' reality, at least from what I
can see. And I feel this makes trying to talk to people who are
embedded and invested in a "scientific" outlook particularly
frustrating at times because they tend to take for granted their
philosophical position about what it is they are actually doing.
I've had several debates with a few people that were essentially
futile simply because they were so entrenched in the idea that
they are establishing "truth" about an "objective" reality that
they can not even begin to see the error they are making; that
is, the idea of a shared intersubjectivity is like Kryptonite to
their Superman science: it weakens them to the point of becoming
entirely irrational and unreasonable. And so it goes. I have,
alas, been hanging around several Philosophy forums over the
past six months, conquering once and for all, a lifetime
distaste for that method of discourse... at least.. as it
manifests itself on the Internet. Well, there's this joke about
Wittgenstein, see. It goes like this: Wittgenstein was on his
way to give a talk at a "professional philosophy conference." He
comes to the place where the conference is being held and walks
up to the registration desk to claim his spot and register his
attendance. Now, Wittgenstein, of course, is looking his regular
self, which is to say shabby, disheveled, bag bulging with
books, and the concierge--not familiar with any of the attending
philosophers--looks Wittgenstein up and down and says, "I think
you've made a mistake: I am afraid you've stumbled on a
conference of philosophers." And Wittgenstein says, "So am I, so
am I." Philosophy on the internet is frequently like many things
on the internet: a sort of pale specter of the real thing.
Further, everyone can think they are a "philosopher" simply
because they can also opine on some such matter or another, and
the internet seem rife with people more than willing to not only
offer their opinions on such and such, but to also resolutely
hold to that opinion to the point of becoming entirely
irrational and unreasonable. And so it goes. And
sometimes--perhaps even often--philosophy as done in real life,
as done "professionally," isn't much different, heh. Ayn Rand
anyone? Lol, it is so funny you should insert this into your
response. I've had a conversation or two with some
("scientifically" minded) people who, if not Rand followers,
will at least assume the metaphysical tenets of "Objectivism"
and act as if these somehow justify every single dogmatic thing
they say about an "objective reality." What's worse is they
often fail to see how "Objectivism" is self-defeating. I mean,
sure, we can assume there is some "external" reality which we
interact with via our sensory perceptions, but the very fact
that we must necessarily interpret those sensory perceptions as
a human being implies at best an intersubjective network of
reporting on those experiences and perceptions: what is a
"reality" separate from our human based processing of our
sensory perceptions? Like there is a coherent answer to this
question! Fallacy? Oh if I hear that word one more time... Lol
again! If we explore the list of "fallacies"--both formal and
informal--we end up, I feel, at the end of Wittgenstein's (not
to overly favour his work or him in particular, mind) Tractatus:
What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. And
yet, we'll talk and talk and talk all the same, heh. We're all
just people doing the best we can with whatever knowledge we
have at hand at the time in whatever roles we may be playing at
the time. Yes. There is a practical sort of pragmatism to our
knowledge, but this does not mean such knowledge is "truth": our
knowledge is at best "functional," which is also to say the
models we frame our knowledge in have some degree of workability
(as I like to call it), yet this does not necessarily require
that they are accurate, complete, or even "true." It simply
means that they work to some degree, and to what "degree" we
simply can not know as that would imply that we have a complete
and accurate account of reality to compare them to! I was
excessively harsh regarding perceptions of the Subject because I
find myself defending its ... well.. ultimate truthfulness:* not
as "absolute " or "ideal form"* - but as a series of on-going
negotiations in shared human attempts towards... Ah yes, I see
where you are coming from. I tend to feel that people can simply
be too frightened or too lazy--or whatever else--to accept the
responsibility that is entailed by existing as a First Person
Experiencing Being In The World. We want assurances, we want
stories, we want ways to lull our sense of "existential dread"
qua our utter singularity of being to sleep. We do not want to
feel alone in the world and we often seem to do whatever we can
to avoid being alone with ourselves. I don't know what it is we
are "working towards," if anything. I tend towards rejecting the
idea that there is any sort of "absolute" teleology to being;
rather, we go back to what is pragmatic: what makes our life
worth living, or, what is our answer to Camus' "only one really
serious philosophical problem"?
References
Visible links
1.
https://plus.google.com/116220525110856958463
