on objective rationalism

[Vitamin 420]

I was smoking and philosophizing the other day, and I ended up writing down some thoughts I had about objective rationalism in particular. Here's what I got:

why universal objective rationalism fails:

universal objective rationalism is synonymous to "collective subjective perception" - take, for example, "science". science can be loosely defined as systemized knowledge - truths that are generalized. the objective viewpoint is what fuels science, and it works in some cases (mathematics) and in other cases the rules don't quite apply (quantum physics), yet somehow we feel the need to objectify something in order for it to have any relevance to this systematic "knowledge" - and so the impression is formed that the subjective experience hardly plays a role in the cumulative perspective... but this is paradoxical: if the "universally objective" position is nothing more than a sum of like-minded individuals' perceptions, why are some subjective experiences considered and others not?

and of course, there is the problem of an objective reality that fails to apply to every individual the same way. language is a perfect example: our brains identify a sequence of pixels to shape out a certain letter; which, arranged correctly with other letters, will form a sentence. but the sentence is empty; it is the meaning we give the emptiness that molds our perception of things like "opinions" and "facts". nothing is safe from interpretation, but when we objectify something we inherently set criteria for the things we classify as "fact" need to meet. take this statement for example:

smoking marijuana has a negative impact on one's overall health.

the reason this statement can never be true is because, in order for something to be detrimental to someone's health there are certain criteria that need to be met. there are certain people who will meet this criteria - someone who sits on the couch all day long eating junk food and watching tv would fit the bill perfectly. these criteria are met, and so the assumption is that "smoking marijuana has a negative impact on one's overall health", but this cannot be considered as anything more than an objective rationale of ONE subjective experience. i doubt the same objectivity applies to michael phelps; in many ways, marijuana could have a positive impact on his health due to its many medical properties.... an example would be inflammation and muscle soreness issues with him exercising so much, and also the appetite gain could make it possible for his body to absorb higher levels of healthy proteins and essential amino acids.

it's the fact that objective rationalism is portrayed as something larger than subjective experience, that makes it seem like the little differences between all of our experiences are exceptions to the standard of the objectivist. we are starting to see that things are not so black and white in our world... shamanism is gaining reputation among microbiologists due to strikingly similar concepts that are not reinforced by this objective view. for thousands of years, shamans in the amazonian have believed Ayahuasca to be a drink that allows them to communicate to spirits that are present on this earth with us, and the similarities between some of their metaphors with the discoveries of western science (which believes itself to be superior - after all, why is the valuable input of the psychedelic perspective not included in the fundamental assumption of scientific fact?). there is so much wrong with the objective viewpoint when it comes to molecular biology and the interaction of certain exogenous substances in our brains, that we really do fail to see the big picture. consider, for example, that we still think that 95+% of our DNA is "junk DNA", simply because we cannot scientifically objectify its "function" in any way. how is it then, in turn, that we deny the psychedelic experience the privilege of having valuable input in our objective equation? are we looking for the naked truth, or are we looking for the bits and pieces that fit into whatever wardrobe we want it in? don't let science fool you - it is a collection of exclusive perspectives.

[H2O420]

The unholy trinity: Religion, Science, and Politics.

Controlling the world for over 2,000 years.

[YEM]

I love you guys!!

I'd be nothing without you.

[Vitamin 420]

Originally Posted by YEM

I love you guys!!

I'd be nothing without you.

Someone much wiser than I once said:

"you can be me too "

[thrice54]

Originally Posted by Vitamin 420

why universal objective rationalism fails:

universal objective rationalism is synonymous to "collective subjective perception" - take, for example, "science". science can be loosely defined as systemized knowledge - truths (are not generalized but universalized through the scientific method) that are generalized. the objective viewpoint (more accurately empiricism) is what fuels science, and it works in some cases (mathematics) and in other cases the rules don't quite apply (quantum physics), yet somehow we feel the need to objectify something in order for it to have any relevance to this systematic "knowledge" - and so the impression is formed that the subjective experience hardly plays a role in the cumulative perspective... but this is paradoxical: if the "universally objective" position is nothing more than a sum of like-minded individuals' perceptions, why are some subjective experiences considered and others not?

and of course, there is the problem of an objective reality that fails to apply to every individual the same way. language is a perfect example: our brains identify a sequence of pixels to shape out a certain letter; which, arranged correctly with other letters, will form a sentence. but the sentence is empty; it is the meaning we give the emptiness that molds our perception of things like "opinions" and "facts". nothing is safe from interpretation, but when we objectify something we inherently set criteria for the things we classify as "fact" need to meet.

I'll begin in saying that I both like and agree with final conclusion concerning western sciences general opinion that it is superior to other avenues of thought. There are quite a few things we should probably pay more attention to then we do. Although, I'm sure most serious scientist don't consider that 95% of DNA we can't yet classify to be junk. It clearly has a purpose it’s just one were not sure of yet.

In terms of "universal objective rationalism" failing. I'm not convinced. I also think you should clarify what exactly you believe has failed. I do think you make some good points in regards to the problem of not regarding other subjective experience, but when that happens it is up to that subject to clarify and argue for how their experience in relation to another is perhaps more accurate or useful for creating, understanding and developing meaning. The objective fact that western science generally ignores some aspects of interest doesn't prove the failure of objective reason. By universal objective rationalism it seems to me that you are referring to a kind of objectivism. (View that there are objective truths and facts in the world that exist externally of the human subject) Also, the way in which language functions, is a clear indicator that all human beings accept universal objects. Words are signifiers of objects in the world they require that everyone, regardless of their individual opinions, universally agree upon there meaning for them to work.

Philosophy itself is a abstract discussion of the application of these signifiers and how they relate to the subject, the object, and everything in between. It also examines how they can derive meaning from the world and life in general.

I also think this could become an interesting conversation and that we should devote an entire thread to the discussion of the subject.

(I know this is kind of disjointed, but thats how it is for now.)

[hendrix]

Originally Posted by Vitamin 420

Someone much wiser than I once said:

"you can be me too "

pink floyd, echoes:

Strangers passing in the street
By chance two separate glances meet
And I am you and what I see is me
And do I take you by the hand
And lead you through the land
And help me understand the best I can

And science is bs, they change their "doctrine" like every other day...

[Flo]

define rationalsim in your example. I don't think I quite understand.... "empiricism" is the school of thought I think you were originally referring to ("why universal rationalism fails" vs. "why universal empiricism fails"). I do believe, if I'm interpreting your argument correctly, that you are arguing for the subjective experience more than objective, therefore, you'd be arguing more for "rationalism" (things that can be explained without directly experiencing them) and "empiricism" (proven data is the "only" base of knowledge). Anyway, I might be wrong, I'm kinda high and it's getting late. Enjoy your mind!

[Vitamin 420]

Originally Posted by thrice54

I'll begin in saying that I both like and agree with final conclusion concerning western sciences general opinion that it is superior to other avenues of thought. There are quite a few things we should probably pay more attention to then we do. Although, I'm sure most serious scientist don't consider that 95% of DNA we can't yet classify to be junk. It clearly has a purpose it’s just one were not sure of yet.

The scientific community regards the large portion of DNA, which we do not understand, as "junk DNA" and therefore of very little interest. The primary area of interest was in the "coding DNA" which we gave so much empty meaning to, that we failed to see the interaction of the unit as a whole. We are barely scratching the surface of what sort of cosmic information is contained within our genetic scripture, yet the majority - "non-coding DNA" - is ignored because a certain criteria is not met,

Originally Posted by thrice54

when that happens it is up to that subject to clarify and argue for how their experience in relation to another is perhaps more accurate or useful for creating, understanding and developing meaning. The objective fact that western science generally ignores some aspects of interest doesn't prove the failure of objective reason.

The problem is that objectivity is discriminatory to the possibilities of the subjective experience. They are polar in nature; everything that empiricism can rationalize can only be rationalized with certain prerequisites.

Originally Posted by thrice54

Also, the way in which language functions, is a clear indicator that all human beings accept universal objects. Words are signifiers of objects in the world they require that everyone, regardless of their individual opinions, universally agree upon there meaning for them to work.

Yes but keep in mind the objects you are talking about exist in the external world. What of the internal world; how do we communicate things that language cannot perceive due to its blind spots?

Originally Posted by thrice54

Philosophy itself is a abstract discussion of the application of these signifiers and how they relate to the subject, the object, and everything in between. It also examines how they can derive meaning from the world and life in general.

Ahh, but in order to understand the relation between subjects, objects, and everything-in-between-ects (?? ) we must first come to understand how the subject is the object, the objective is the subjective, and how the objective subject is the subjective object.

Originally Posted by thrice54

I also think this could become an interesting conversation and that we should devote an entire thread to the discussion of the subject.

I agree

[magicalbrownies]

There is no such thing as an objective universe. There is only subjective experiences, and many many many subjective perspectives all being shared by other people to provide more subjectiveness and ultimately come up with "facts". We examine a spider has 8 legs. We as human beings can see that a spider has 8 legs. We have classified this creature and we can describe it with words we have created. Science just examines our world it doesn't give it meaning.

We can rationalize to death but we will never get to the end of that tunnel, where everything is understood. Somethings in life cannot be explained in any external way. You must experience it and form the answers from within.

[PDZ]

great post

but careful...

Originally Posted by Vitamin 420

it's the fact that objective rationalism is portrayed as something larger than subjective experience, that makes it seem like the little differences between all of our experiences are exceptions to the standard of the objectivist.

...maybe youre one of them!!!

[Vitamin 420]

Originally Posted by PDZ

great post

but careful...



...maybe youre one of them!!!

Yes, the twist in it all is that my subjective perception of objectivity is objectifying the objectivity of subjectivism. But does objectivism fail to objectify its objectifying relationship?

[thrice54]

Originally Posted by Vitamin 420

The problem is that objectivity is discriminatory to the possibilities of the subjective experience. They are polar in nature; everything that empiricism can rationalize can only be rationalized with certain prerequisites.

I'm somewhat suspicious of the polar nature of these points of perspective. One does not exist without the other. (Regardless of any argument for the universe without humanity) We cannot know anything beyond the human perspective. Also, objectivity cannot be discriminatory towards subjective experience, you say it later on in that objectivity is derived from subjective experience. I'll claim through shared approximations of this experience. Particular subjects are actually discriminating against the value of other experiences and rightly so to an extent. Everything that can be rationalized can only be rationalized by subjecting it to the rational realm.

Yes but keep in mind the objects you are talking about exist in the external world. What of the internal world; how do we communicate things that language cannot perceive due to its blind spots?

Figuring out how to communicate the blind spots is something metaphysics has been trying to deal with start-present. Language is inherently limited I'm willing to admit this we do out best to come to an understanding, but we accept this fact. This is exactly what makes philosophy so complicated and why so many sciences and every sphere or aspect of society has language specific to its own. As different subjects come to terms with the world from different perspectives. Language is a symbolic agreement of shared perspective.

One of the things that fascinates me most about languages is that fact that words that mean essentially the same thing in two different languages express them entirely different and often allude to ideas and concepts that cannot even be expressed in other languages. Language is limited, but still a very capable tool. Many renowned philosophers will argue for the best philosophical language, but all seem to be able to express ideas that can't be expressed by others.

Ahh, but in order to understand the relation between subjects, objects, and everything-in-between-ects (?? ) we must first come to understand how the subject is the object, the objective is the subjective, and how the objective subject is the subjective object.

Everything from the subject of course. I'm going to work on creating a full presentation of possible approaches to the subject. I'll be doing it later as its kind of late now.

[PDZ]

Originally Posted by Vitamin 420

Yes, the twist in it all is that my subjective perception of objectivity is objectifying the objectivity of subjectivism. But does objectivism fail to objectify its objectifying relationship?

if i was sure id probably be wrong