Posts: 2084
Threads: 7
Joined: August 14, 2016
Reputation:
10
RE: Breaking down the "God sees argument"
October 23, 2016 at 5:23 pm
(October 23, 2016 at 1:24 pm)chimp3 Wrote: What is the difference between we "objectively exist" vs. "we exist" ? Why the embellishment? Because we have both objective and subjective existence? We are also interpreted subjectively as a different person by different people.
"Leave it to me to find a way to be,
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting,
I knew the rules but the rules did not know me, guaranteed." - Eddie Vedder
Posts: 5664
Threads: 219
Joined: June 20, 2016
Reputation:
61
RE: Breaking down the "God sees argument"
October 23, 2016 at 5:36 pm
(October 23, 2016 at 5:23 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: (October 23, 2016 at 1:24 pm)chimp3 Wrote: What is the difference between we "objectively exist" vs. "we exist" ? Why the embellishment? Because we have both objective and subjective existence? We are also interpreted subjectively as a different person by different people.
We exist and experience existence. So what?
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Breaking down the "God sees argument"
October 23, 2016 at 5:42 pm
(This post was last modified: October 23, 2016 at 5:42 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 23, 2016 at 4:55 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Experience is generally termed "subjective," while those things the experiencer experiences are at least sometimes called objective.
The experiencer is not separate from the experience though [emoji6] Let us not duplicate our phenomenology: I myself as an experiencer from that position as myself as an experiencer am not and cannot be separate from my experiences... from the position of my own simple experience there is no "out there" because out there is in here... the only thing that an experiencer can experience is experiences... and that includes experiencing him or herself as an experiencer... he or she is not separate from their experiences--again, from the position of themselves as an experiencer [emoji41]
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Breaking down the "God sees argument"
October 23, 2016 at 5:45 pm
(October 23, 2016 at 5:23 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: (October 23, 2016 at 1:24 pm)chimp3 Wrote: What is the difference between we "objectively exist" vs. "we exist" ? Why the embellishment? Because we have both objective and subjective existence? We are also interpreted subjectively as a different person by different people.
Subjective experience is epistemologically subjective but all forms of existence exists objectively ontologically because all ontology is objective and all existence is ontological.
In short: Subjective existence is objective & that's not a contradiction because different senses are being used.
Posts: 2084
Threads: 7
Joined: August 14, 2016
Reputation:
10
RE: Breaking down the "God sees argument"
October 23, 2016 at 6:03 pm
(October 23, 2016 at 5:36 pm)chimp3 Wrote: (October 23, 2016 at 5:23 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Because we have both objective and subjective existence? We are also interpreted subjectively as a different person by different people.
We exist and experience existence. So what?
So we are perceiving data from 2 opposite directions: from the outside (objective) and from the inside (subjective). It would seem we exist as a semi-permeable membrane between two regions of information in motion. I would predict that most people identify most strongly with their surface body image, their "skin sack".
"Leave it to me to find a way to be,
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting,
I knew the rules but the rules did not know me, guaranteed." - Eddie Vedder
Posts: 5664
Threads: 219
Joined: June 20, 2016
Reputation:
61
RE: Breaking down the "God sees argument"
October 23, 2016 at 6:08 pm
(October 23, 2016 at 6:03 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: (October 23, 2016 at 5:36 pm)chimp3 Wrote: We exist and experience existence. So what?
So we are perceiving data from 2 opposite directions: from the outside (objective) and from the inside (subjective). It would seem we exist as a semi-permeable membrane between two regions of information in motion. I would predict that most people identify most strongly with their surface body image, their "skin sack".
I understand the difference between objective and subjective. I asked what the difference between objective existence and existence is.
God thinks it's fun to confuse primates. Larsen's God!
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Breaking down the "God sees argument"
October 23, 2016 at 6:08 pm
Our perception is irrelevant to the existence of those directions though.
Posts: 2084
Threads: 7
Joined: August 14, 2016
Reputation:
10
RE: Breaking down the "God sees argument"
October 23, 2016 at 6:09 pm
(October 23, 2016 at 5:42 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: (October 23, 2016 at 4:55 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Experience is generally termed "subjective," while those things the experiencer experiences are at least sometimes called objective.
The experiencer is not separate from the experience though [emoji6] Let us not duplicate our phenomenology: I myself as an experiencer from that position as myself as an experiencer am not and cannot be separate from my experiences... from the position of my own simple experience there is no "out there" because out there is in here... the only thing that an experiencer can experience is experiences... and that includes experiencing him or herself as an experiencer... he or she is not separate from their experiences--again, from the position of themselves as an experiencer [emoji41] Well to be fair, the only place we can experience anything is inside ourself whether it comes from the inside our the outside. I cannot subjectively experience what is happening in New York because I am not objectively there....but I'm sure it's going on quite objectively finely without me and there are as many subjective experiences of New York as there are people in it.
"Leave it to me to find a way to be,
Consider me a satellite forever orbiting,
I knew the rules but the rules did not know me, guaranteed." - Eddie Vedder
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Breaking down the "God sees argument"
October 23, 2016 at 6:09 pm
(October 23, 2016 at 6:08 pm)chimp3 Wrote: (October 23, 2016 at 6:03 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: So we are perceiving data from 2 opposite directions: from the outside (objective) and from the inside (subjective). It would seem we exist as a semi-permeable membrane between two regions of information in motion. I would predict that most people identify most strongly with their surface body image, their "skin sack".
I understand the difference between objective and subjective. I asked what the difference between objective existence and existence is.
None. It's like the difference between an unmarried person & an unmarried person who is also a bachelor.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Breaking down the "God sees argument"
October 23, 2016 at 6:14 pm
(This post was last modified: October 23, 2016 at 6:15 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 23, 2016 at 6:09 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Well to be fair, the only place we can experience anything is inside ourself whether it comes from the inside our the outside.
Correct. Reality is at least phenomenological. At the very least the phenomenal world exists and the noumenal is rather irrelevant for it is untouchable by definition.
Quote: I cannot subjectively experience what is happening in New York because I am not objectively there...
Correct.
Quote:but I'm sure it's going on quite objectively finely without me and there
At least to those who do experience it if not yourself.
Quote: are as many subjective experiences of New York as there are people in it.
That is true. And it may be the case New York only exists as phenomenological experiences and it has no objective existence independent of its phenomenological reality which is still objectively existent ontologically & the noumenal absolute objective non-subjective reality of New York independent of our phenomenological experientiality of it as persons is nonexistent... however I doubt it. I intuit with great certainty that the noumenal New York exists... however it's rather irrelevant to the practical world we live in. All we need to posit is the phenomenal world and the philosophically phenomenal New York... the noumenal world and New York is unnecessary.
|
