Thoughts

We have the subject-object-dualism. In order to overcome the subject-object-dualism Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) established his existence-philosophical concept „In-der-Welt-Sein“ (“To-be-in-the-World”) as an existential of human beings’ „Dasein“, as a human existence in the world. **

I think the subject/object dualism is one of the fundamental problems. Heidegger as the last great philosopher tried to overcome the problem with his „Existenz(ial)-Ontologie“ („existenc[e]ial ontology“), also called „Fundamentalontologie“ („fundamental ontology“), especially with his concept „In-der-Welt-Sein“ („To-Be-in-the-World“) as an existential of human beings' „Dasein“, as a human existence in the world. (**). I really don't know whether Heidegger succeeded in that case. Probably it is not possible to resolve that problem.

I think that the subject/object dualism is one of the greatest philosophical problems - perhaps even the greatest.

How can we and especially each of us ever experience whether the subjective or the objective side is the “truth”?

What makes me sure that I and the experiences I make with myself “really”exist, or the world and the experiences I make with it “really”exist? And especially: Which of both sides is true, or are both true? Which? (1.) The subjective one? (2.) The objective one? (3.) Both?

Do I think, or does the world think in me, or are both sides true? Is the world my will and my representation / idea (cp. Arthur Schopenhauer, „Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung“ [„The World as Will and Representation“], 1818), or merely nothing but my thoughts, or both?

Phlilosophemes or theories can be right or true without any solution of the subject/object problem because we human beings merely decide and say this or that is true/right or false/wrong, but we probably do not know what is true/right or false/wrong. That decisions always change, but also repeat or recapitulate somehow, and only sometimes there is a moment of more wisdom. Maybe that this moment of more wisdom (of some philosophers or other thinkers - of course) can resolve the problem of the subject/object dualism, but it is possible too that this moment of more wisdom also indicates that the problem of the subject/object dualism can probably not be resolved.

Please don’t forget: We - the human beings - decide or say that this or that is true/right or false/wrong. And we believe in that - more or less. Ask some members of this forum, whether they really believe in logic or not. Most of them would say: “Yes, but ...”, and with their “but” they actually say “No(, but ...)”, because they would rather believe in religious things, especially the so called “atheists”.

So there ist merely a small group of human beings who search for a solution for the problem of the subject/object dualism. And currently the average IQ of the human beings is declining. What does that mean? In any case: It also indicates that the most human beings do not want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them stupid. Or, in the orther case, they want wisdom, but are not wanted to want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them stupid.

But the greatest barrier is the human Geist itself. How can we really know that a subject “is” and that a object “is” without thinking that they are always different or even not existent?

Many people don't think very much, but if (if!) they really think that something exists, they do it in two different ways: (1) subjectively, so they think existence has merely to do with the thinking subject, and (2) objectively, so they think existence is something which has nothing to do with the thinking subject. If people think they can perceive the object, they actually have to ask themselves, whether that object exists without any subject or because of the existence of the perceiving subject, so that the object does not exist. I am speaking about the subject/object dualism. Is subjectivity or objectivity that what we call „reality“ or is it both, so that there is no solution for the subject/object dualism?

If you think that all around you - everything except you - merely “exists” because of the fact that you are perceiving and thinking, then you can also say that there is nothing that “exists” except you, so you are either merely a subject without any object or both subject and object (or even: there is no subject and no object - because there is no difference between them).

„Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?“
(“Why is there anything [being] at all rather than nothing[ness]?”)

(„Seiendes“ is derived from „sein“ [„to be“] and means an identical mode of „being“.)

Or think about the Indian culture/civilisation - the so called “Hinduism” - and its concept of “nirvana”. Do you exactly know what is meant by that? Non-Indian and Indian people have a different understanding of “nirvana”.. Is it nothingness, nonentity? (That is the way how Western people understand “nirvana”.) What is it?

What do you think when you are anxious and don't know the reason - the cause - for that fact? What or who “affects” you then? Is it the nothingness? And if so, then the nothingness also “affects”, but is it then really nothingness?

We can think the nothingness and the difference between subject and object. Is this difference the nothingness? Or is it even the “affectance”? Or both? Are they the same (see above) or at least similar? If so, then we can't know anything of them because it is the definition - the linguistic convention or the lingusitic laws - of the word “nothing” to be nothing at all, and the noun for that is “nothingness”.

You can't just brush aside our ability for thinking the nothingness and the subject/object dualism (**).

Nothingness has no affect, else it would be no nothingness. And if nothingness were no nothingness, then we would have to find another word for nothingness, and we soon would have find one because we can think nothingness. Nothingness has no affect, but exists, at least in our thoughts, and our thoughts exist as well. That all depends on the definition, so your definition has to be a different one - and is a different one (I know) -, but if your definition is right, then you have to exclude nothingness from your definition of “existence”.

Remember that I am philophising, and the philosophy has not resolved the problem of the subject/object dualism. The science can't resolve it anyway, and I think the philosophy probably neither.

It is possible that the nothingness is God, or the unmoved mover, or the unaffected affect.

The sentence “I am” and the sentence “I am not” can not be proven scientifically. Therefore, but not only therefore, philosophy is necessary. Is philosophy able to answer the questions: “Am I?”, “Am I not?”, “Is anything outside of me?”, “Is nothing outside of me?” ...?

Science is not able to answer that questions (and many other questions). Philosophy has found some answers - the history of philosophy has made that clear. But its answers are not very much convincing.

If one says ”I think”, or “I am aware”, or “I am”, then this one says something about a subject (“I”) and about an object (“think”, “am aware”, “am”) or a predicate. The problem of the “subjet/object-dualism” is that it is not exactly determinable whether the subjct exists or not and whether the object exists or not. The former is primarily a philosophical, the latter mainly a scientific, both together again a philosophical problem. Concerning this matter the doubter Descartes proved nothing. About 1¼ centuries before Descartes another doubter - Martin Luther - founded a Protestant Christian confession: the Evangelical Lutheran. Luther did not try to prove the existence of the subject, but sought the answer in belief / faith..

Maybe you are not alive! Maybe we all are not alive! Maybe only philosophy is alive! Maybe only thinking is alive!

Can this be true? Can it be a fact? Can we know it? Can it be objective? Or is it just subjective?

Okay, physics or metaphysics (reality or ideality), but you can have them merely together. It is not possible for humans to have one of them without the other. And if someone dictates to believe in only one of the two, then all those who do not believe in that one are going to be killed or live in prison or in madhouses - the same procedure as every time.

„Anything and everything that is consistent and coherent within a comprehensive ontology is necessarily true“ (**), yes, but nonetheless the question is: is it true because of your thoughts (subjectively true) or because of reality (objectively true) or because of all (subjectively and objectively true).

„As long as there are conscious beings, there is truth.“ (**). Do you mean that truth is only in the consciousness? If so, then, please, answer the following two questions:
A) Is the consciousness true?
B) If yes: Is consciousness subjectively true (thus according to one's consciousness) or objectively true (thus according to the consciousness[es] of all, for any and every consciousness)?

„There is only »reality« outside.“ (**). This sentence means or should mean that the objective world is true and called „reality“, but it doesn't say anything about the inside, about the (brains of the) subjects, the truth of them.

„Truth is the accurate internal map inside a mind.“ (**). This sentence says something about the inside, about the (brains of the) subjects, but it doesn't say anything about the outside, the so-called „realitiy“ or „world“, the truth of them. The underlined word „accurate“ does not prove that the internal map maps the outside realitiy.

„As long as there are conscious beings, there is truth.“ (**). This sentence underlines what I said, but does also not answer the question where the truth is represented: only in the consciousness of one (the subject), only in the world (the object), or in both. If one says that „there is only truth in the (brains of the) subjects“ , then one does not say whether there is also truth outside of the (brains of the) subjects, whether the brains are true or not, and, if (brains of the) subjects are not true, whether there is truth outside of them, and, if the (brains of the) subjects are true, whether they are only subjectively true, or only obejectively true, or both subjectively and objectively true.

) The objectivity (reality, world) and the subjectivity (self, consciousness) depend on each other.
) „Each conscious entity forms a proposed truth to match that reality“ (**). But who decides whether it matches or not? Okay, you would say: the reality as an affectance ontology. But reality (objectivity, world) and consciousness (subjectivity, self) depend on each other.

A says: „X is true.“
B says: „X is not true because I have experienced that Y is true.“
Y says: „Y is not true because science has proved that Y is not true. So X must be true.“
B says: „That's nonsense, because I have studied logic, and my friends call me »the God of logic«.“

Who or what decides what is true? God? Or space and time, thus development, evolution, history, thus something like a result of a logical and/or imagined process? Or just ontology? But, if so, which one? For example: Heidegger's fundamental ontology? Or „RM:AO“? Or „VO“?

These questions are the point as long as we have no exactly corresponding answers.

„Reality is the only governor.“ (**). Okay, but reality (objectivity, world) and consciousness (subjectivity, self) depend on each other.

The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what in former days was called „psyche“, „soul“; but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system), part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical, mathematical system), but most of all it is independent.

The problem is that the humans know merley a little bit of the consciousness - probably because the consciousness is pretty much independent.

Many philosophical questions are based on the „subject/object“-problem. So also in this case. The question „Is misanthropy unavoidable?“ assumes that misanthropy exists. But does „misanthropy“ obejctively exist? Or is „misanthropy“ merely a subjective interpretation? Or is it both? And if it is both: Do we have to Interpret „misanthropy“ more objectively or more subjectively? Is „misanthropy“ a malicious assumption of those who are really „misanthropes“ or even „misanthropists“, whereby „misanthropy“ would be proven? Or is „misanthropy“ something like „pessimism“? But does „pessimism“ obejctively exist? Or is „pessimism“ merely a subjective interpretation? Or is it both? And if it is both: Do we have to interpret „pessimism" more objectively or more subjectively?

If it is true that „existence is that which has affect“ (**), then we can determine that misanthropy exists, because misanthropy has affect, regardless whether it is more obejectively or more subjectively interpreted. But this does not answer the question whether humans are misanthropes or even misanthropists or not. The Ancient Greek said that their gods are like humans and that some of them are misanthropes. What if merely the gods are misanthropes, so that we - the humans - are merely the victims? What if merely we - the humans - are misanthropes, so that the gods are the victims? If it is true that we can experience misanthropy (because it has affect), then we can say, that we experience it either by our doing (active) or by our suffering (passive). Children are less powerful than adults. What can they do, if they want to become powerful? They can love, believe, and hope that they will be powerful in the future. And what can adults do, if they are not powerful (enough) and what to become (more) powerful? They can love, believe, and hope that they will be (more) powerful in the future; but in addition they can something what children do not can: the adults can try to overthrow the rulers. But therefor they have to be angry, furious, irate, revengeful, eveil (from the viewpoint of the rulers), and misanthropic, often while they project the misanthropy on the rulers, regardless whether it is right (true) or worng (false). They can say that the rulers are misanthropes, because e.g. they let the other humans suffer, and now the rulers have to be those who suffer. But the question is: Is it right to think and do this? And the main question is: Does this lead to more misanthropy or not?

So if one human or even the whole humanity becomes older, this can but does not have to mean more misanthropy. Schopenhauer - as one example amongst many others - was probably a pessimist, a misanthrope, or even a misanthropist, and when he lived the humanity was already very old, and when he was old there was prabbaly more misanthropy in him than ever before. But how should we value it? Is an optimist a better human? I say: No, because it depends on. And please do not forget: Most „optimists“ are no real optimists. So the question of „optimism vs. pessimism“ has mainly become a rhetorical one. And the question of „misanthropy vs. philanthropy“ too!

So my answer to the question whether misanthropy is unavoidable is: Probably yes, but there are many lies involved when it comes to answer the question: Who is misanthropic?

Observation needs senses and the possibility of processing, for example in a brain, in order to process the perceptions of the senses. But consciousness (especially human consciousness) is more than that. There are interpretations and interpretations of the interpretations, there is the possibility of thinking about god and the world, about transcendence, about existence and the own existence, about objectivity and subjectivity, and so on.

If you compare the observation with the whole consciousness (and not just a part of it), then the observation is merely simple.

The problem of subject and object is not really solvable. Obviously it is an everlasting dualism. Many philosophers have tried to solve it and have failed, and many philosophers will try to solve it and will fail.

We do not know whether it would be better for the humans to be capable of solving that problem or not. I rather give the advice to live with dualisms. Many people are not even capable of living with dualisms.

We - the humans - judge about subjectivity and objectivity. If we were not capable of using mathematics much more than (other) animals, then we would use it just subjectively, namely for self-preservation (like all [other] animals), and because we would not know or merely instinctively know that, we were also not capable of knowing what „subjective“ and „objective“ mean.

An observer observes how an observer observes an observer who observes how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes ....

The objectivist says „the consciousness is a product of our brain“, but the subjectivist says „the consciousness is a product of my thoughts“.

A solipsist says that there is no reality outside of the self (the I). So a solipsist does not need any realization.

If someone says that „there is nothing outside of my perception and thinking“, then this someone is called a „solipsist“, regardless whether differences must be made or not. It does not help, if you change the meaning of „nothing“ in order to change the meaning of „solipsist“ and vice versa. If I think that there is nothing outside of myself as the subjective I, then I am a solipsist.

Despite the fact that scientists are believed to be exact and objective or objectivistic, they follow the primacy of the subjectivity, because scientists dominate the objects, their methods and models are part of them and not of the objects. This illustrates the connection of finding the object and disguising the subject. This kind of hubris is the price of the objectivity and is likewise bought by the quiescence and the standardization of what the subject is allowed to realize / recognize .... So in the long run the team of researchers can merely become a homegenous army of subjects who are all shaped by the same methodical disguising. In the long run they have to become uniformed (same interests, same methods, same concepts, same words).

The opposed pole is the primacy of the objectivity, where the researcher comes closer to the object by loving it. (Yes - by loving it!) So the primacy of the objectivity has to do with aesthetics and erotism, whereas the primacy of the subjectivity has to do with agonal competition, with war and death. And, of course, the theories are opposed too: erotic theory versus agonal theory.

All science becomes dependent on the moneygivers, thus on the corruption. Therefore I mentioned both the primacy of the subjectivity with its agonal competition and the primacy of the objectivity with its erotic aesthetics. The former is currently the hegemonial one, and it's up to the latter to „survive“.

According to that one must say that subjects (or a subject or „the“ subject) came before objects (or an object or „the“ object).

Linguistically said a predicate is what the subject does, either without or with a connection to an object. Concerning the interpretation of any object, a subject is relatively free. But this does not prove or disprove that the subject dominates the object or that there is an object at all.

„Observation“ is something that happens and requires a subject and an object. If a subject observes itself, then it is both the subject and the object. „Existence“ refers to something that is, regardless whether it happens or not, and does not require a subject or an object, because it tells us merely about the fact whether something is or not.

Not everything that exists is observable, but everything that is observable exists.

It is more probable that the said liar in your example (**) convinces the objective one easier than the subjective one. An objective one wants to know what the subjective one denies - objectivity -, and the liar has to refer to objectivity in order to be successful and is part of objectivity to the other two, the listeners, thus also to the subjective one who denies objectivity.

It is just true that it is easier for a liar to conivince an objectivist than a subjetivist. You have to be intelligent enough if you want to resist a lie. Children, for example, can be convinced so easily just because they want to become great objectivists - at least normally. They want to know everything about reality. And if they have a teacher who is a liar, then they believe in his lies - at least normally. A dictatorship, regardless whether it is called a „democracy“ or not, works in the same way.

Nobody comes into life as a subjectivist or an objectivist. In order to become one of the both or no one of the both subjectivity and objectivity must be learned. This process begins in the womb.

What do the words „subject“ and „object“ mean originally? From here you have to begin with your research. The next thing is the development of the human object of your research. Then ask yourself: „How does a human being come into life and learn, especially learn the difference between subject and object?“ Look at the test with the mirror. As a very little child one learns to recognize oneself in a mirror.

We have to define the words „subject“ and „object“, because it is possible that our definitions differ from each other.

In order to know what a „subject“ is, one must at least have a self-concept; and in order to know what an „object“ is, one must be capable of istinguishing between the own self and the rest (which is outside of the own self).

Tactility already exists when the human embryo is 2 months old, taste already exists when the human fetus is 3 months old, smell already exists when the human fetus is 5 months old, hearing already exists when the human fetus is 6 months old, seeing already exists when the human fetus is 9 months old.

The sense of balance needs more time and starts when the human embryo is 2 months old.

But do you think that the embryo or the fetus is capable of distinguishing between the own self and the rest (which is outside of the own self)?

Consciousness is the immediately findable total content of the spiritual and emotional (affective) experience.

The teem „immediately findable total content“ means that the total content of the spiritual and emotional experience can be immediately found and, for example, communicated to others. Forgotten content, for example, is not present anymore, and some parts of the forgotten content come back sometimes, ... and so on.

I did not say „is found“ but „can be found“ or „is immediately findable“, namely by the owner of the consciousness, philosophically said: by the subject. This is important, because the owner of the consciousness does not always immediately find the spiritual and emotional content.

Biologically and especially neurologically said, the consciousness is part of the brain.

1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.

The conscious parts of the brain can be found in the reason brain (light blue => 4), in the emotion brain (red => 3), and in the Kleinhirn (cerebellum [pink => 2]).

But because of the fact that we are talking about this more philosophically, we have to talk about the owner of the consciousness: the subject.

One can also say that the consciousness itself is the owner - it depends on the so-called „point of view“.

Who or what is doing the finding? If it is the consciousness itself, then the next question comes immediately: Why is it not the subject in a philosophical sense? The brain of the subject is the hint. If it is this subject, then we can also ask: Why is it not the consciousness itself? We just do not know very much about consciousness, so it can also be possible that the consciousness does its own work in an absolute sense (so that the subject is merely the means of the consciousness). I would not have a big problem with both interpretations.

Why should God or his work be limited? And why should God or his work be limited by the laws of physics?

Theologically said: Such limits would contradict what most human beings think about God, because according to them, thus by definition, God is the creator of everything.

So those who believe in God and his laws do not believe that „everything in the universe is limited by the physical laws.“ (**). One has to consider two aspects here: the philosophical (especially metaphysical) and the scientifical (especially physical) one.

If you consider only physics, then you have to leave out the metaphysical aspect (science dictates this, and the word „physics“ shows it). But you do not have to leave out the physical aspect, if you consider only metaphysics (philosophy does not dictate this, and the compound word „metaphysics“ shows distinctly that physics" is considered in metaphysics). There are many consequences that follow from this, and one of them is that scientists, although they claim to be objective, are subjective because of this dictatorship, the dogma, the determination of the methods. The scientifical methods are determined by subjectivists.

Being objective in a more real sense means that the subject determines nothing at all but lets the objects themselves determine what they are.

Most people are subjectivists, not objectivists. Even most scientists are subjectivists - they subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers.

Most scientists are subjectivists. They subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers. But what about philosophers for example? Are most of them subjectivists too?

A subjectivist is not the one who is not capable of being objective, and an objectivist is not the one who is not capable of being subjective.

Subjectivity is the epitome of what belongs to a subject. More extremely said: Subjectivity means that everything depends on the subject. Subjectivism teaches the universal subjectivity of the intellectual truth as well as the moral and aesthetic values and denies the absolute validity.

Objectivity is just the opposite of subjectivity. More extremely said: Objectivity means the lack of a subject. Objectivism teaches the universal objectivity as well as the neutrality, the practicality, also the capability of observing or/and representing objectively.

So, for example, if someone denies the absolute validity, then it does not mean that this one is not capable of observing or/and representing objectively. But it means that this one does not believe in an objective world in the sense that the objective world determines everything, even all subjects. A subjectivist believes in the theory that the subject determines the objects, even the whole world.

Subjectivity and objectivity are theoretical, spiritual, intellectual attitudes towards the determination of the world and the hotly favored answer to the question of the determination of the world.

The extreme form of subjectivism leads to solipsism in a logical sense, to egoism in an ethical sense.

Would you (**) agree, if someone obejectively said that you were a subjectivist?

Philosophers should not be either subjectivists or objectivists, but should try to overcome the subject/object problem.

1) Perception - based on the sense organs (subjective) and signs (objective). Pre-Knowledge (semiotic language).
2) Knowledge through linguistic skills - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1) and on linguistic language.
3) Knowledge through the pure logic of language - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2) and on pure logical language.
4) Knowledge through mathematical language - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2), on pure logical language (=> 3) and on mathematical language.

If we know how and wherefore mathematicians use certain definitions, then this does not necessarily mean that they use it in order to get the truth. They are just searching for consistent statements (in their mathematical language).

The „higher“ Occidental mathematics has much more to do with functions than with numbers. Its geometry has mainly become a functional theory too. But what does that tell you about the circle when it comes to the first three steps I mentioned above? No mathematician denies the meaning or/and definition of a circle giving in a currently valid dictionary. We already had a similar discussion about „1 = 0.999...~?“ (**). 1 and 0.999...~ are never identical, but according to the Occidental mathematics functions have become more important than numbers, because functions do work (just: function) much better than pure numbers.

And what about the physicists? Do they say that sunrise and sunset do not exist according to your perception? Do they deny that the Sun is going up and down according to an observer? Do they insist that you have to always say that sunrise and sunset are caused by the Earth rotation? No.

In other words: Does the answer to the question whether a circle is just circular (without sides) or has sides just in order to calculate in a better, the Occidental way of mathematics not also depend on perspectives?

I mean: Would you say that sunrise and sunset do not exist, namely in the world of your perception? Certainly not.

So do we at last not have the same discussion here as almost always: subjectivity versus objectivity.

SUBJECTIVE: 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10
OBJECTIVE : 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10

On average, the subjectivist/objectivist distribution is not 50%/50% (as certain people probably expect), but perhaps about 80%/20%. Instead of 80%/20% one could also say 8/2

X says: „I am more subjective than objective“.
By saying this, is X really „more subjective than objective“?

Y says: „I am more objective than subjective“.
By saying this, is Y really „more objective than subjective“?

Also, what if X and Y are liars?
Would that not be similar to the Liar Paradox of the Cretan Epimenides who maintains that all Cretans lie.

You can try to let the other things (objects) „talk“ or „speak“ to you; you can try to let them be phenomenons which have nothing to do with you; you can try to observe them by excluding yourself as a subject. And all this can be learned, trained, exercised - more and more -, so that you can become more and more an objectivist, at least in the sense of an objective listener, an objective phenomenolgist, an objective observer, an objective monk, an objective scientist ... and so on.

A consensus is not really necessary. You can be objective without others, without agreement or consensus. But you have to take in account that others or some of them will indeed disagree. If an Occidental monk, for example, had always considered the consensus, he would have never become the first scientist. And if scientists had always considered the consensus, they would have never had success in the accordingly centuries. They have become less successful because of the fact that they have more and more considered the consensus and become dependend.

What changed was what several people respectively called „truth“, but „truth“ and „objectivity“ do not mean the same. Newton’s physics was true till Clausius’ second law („entropy“) of thermodynamics, in any case till Planck’s constant, Planck’s quantum theory, and Einstein’s (actually Hilbert’s) relativity theory. The „truth“ about dynamics and about time changed. Both „truths“ are very typical for the Occidental culture. One of the both led to the knowledge that the aspect of entropy and irreversibility make probabilities and statistics more relevant, more „true“; the other one of the both led to the knowledge that time is more organic than anorganic, more historical than physical, more chronic than mathematical.

So what changed was a pattern of the Occidental way of life, experience, the kind of epistemology, the interpretation of „truths, also of „subjectivity“ and „objectivity“. The cultural goal, aim, target, object came closer.

But all this does not mean that „truth“ and „objectivity“ were, are and will be the same.

And with Schopenhauer I say that everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject.

But it is also true that each subject can be a such only because of the objectivation.

X says: „The Sun rises in the East“.
Y says: „The Earth rotates around its axis once every 24 hours (mean solar time), causing the change of day and night for an observer on the surface“.

It is easier to be subjective than to be objective. So one may think that objects come out of subjects. But I am saying that the subject-object-relationship is less like the diachronic chicken-and-egg problem but more like the synchronic side-by-side-problem. If there „IS“ something, then always according to a subject that refers to an object. Which of them was first is not decidable. The first one of our world was no subject, since: in order to know what a „subject“ is, a second one is needed; but a second one is not only the beginning of subjectivity, but also the beginning of objectivity. So the subject and the object began at the same time. But the subject can always be one step ahead when it comes to the identification with the said first one before the second one. Descartes’ „cogito ergo sum“ assumes that there is a one who thinks, that there is a conclusion and that there is being. If Descartes had been the said first one, then he would have known (in the way we do) nothing about thinking, conclsuion and being.

Epistemologically said, subjectivity and objectivity are oppositions. For example: the subject is the observing one, the object is the observed one. It is similar to the grammatic active/passive-opposition, thus not only to the grammatic subject/object constellation.

According to my understanding, scientists have to be objectivists; but when they become corrupt and greedy, so that they depend on their money givers, then they are no objectivists, but subjectivists; because they only say what their money givers want them to say. The methods are the other reason why scientists can and mostly do become subjectivists.

The words „subject“ and „object“ are linguistic (grammatic) and philosophic (epistemic) concepts.

The object/subject relationship is different from the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity and different from the relationship between a subjectivist and an objectivist.

The enlightenment was the era with the most real or objective scientists. So, one can say: the farther away the enlightenment, the more subjective the scientists.

When science depends on money and on dictating methods, then science is almost always very much more subjective than objective, because there are almost always subjective interests behind the money and the methods. Only those money givers who have interests in science as an institution of objectivity are friends of science, of objectivity; and only those methods that do not depend on subjective interests are no dictating methods.

Terms like „Ding an sich“, „Wille“, „In-der-Welt-sein“ and many others do not have the function to avoid science, objectivity, knowledge, recognition, insight ... and so on and so forth. The opposite is true. With those terms we are more capable of getting more information about the other things than without those terms. They are and work like scientific and mathematical constants and variables.

Humans (especially the Faustian humans) want to understand and to explain everything. And if they did not use such terms, they would be less able to understand and to explain most things.

These terms do not forbid anything. They are just epistemological constants and variables. As if they were saying: „As long as you are not able to find a solution use us as constants or variables“. And they are not only epistemologically important. The speed of light is a natural constant. Who says that the speed of light explains „most things away“? - In spite of the fact that natural constants are not like social or spiritual constants, I would say that they all work very similarly.

Spirtual, at least mathematic constants are even less random than natural constants. Think of mathematic constants like „pi“ or „root two“. They work! They function!

The translation is not seldom difficult; so the word „spiritual“ may confuse some people here; but what I mean by it is a superordinate of - for example - logic, mathematics, philosophy, law ....

We all are subjective anyway (but that does of course not necessarily mean that we all are subjectivists). So when I say „I am an objectivist“, I just mean that the objective part of my inner subjective/objective dualism is above average (whatever that means

It is quite obvious that the people have different definitions for „subjectivity“ and „objectivity“. The number of subjectivists is very much larger than the number of objectivists. It is impossible to get those required definitions in a discussion (1) between subjectivists and (2) between the many subjectivists and the few objectivists.

The goal of an objectivist is to just not consider his subjective preferences and needs in order to make decisions. Whether this goal is accomplished is a different question. So, an objectivist should not claim that his decisions are universal. If he claimed this, he would be more a subjectivist than an objectivist. An objectivist needs to be calm, serene. So, it is not easy to be an objectivist. Even saying „I am an objectivist“ is not easy, if one is a real objectivist. An objectivist can never besure whether he really is an objectivist or not. So, „being an objectivist“ is more like „becoming an objectivist“. It is easier to be a subjectivist, although a subjectivist has a similar problem with his self-referentiality, because he too has senses and a brain, and it is not easy to deny that there are objects.

Everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject, but in order to know, to decide what this object exactly is, there must be such an object and not only a subject (regardless whether the object is merely in the brain of the subject or really there [in the world]).

The subject/object dichotomy is a relatively old problem of epistemology. I believe that it is unsolvable.

It is likely impossible to be an absolute subjectivist or an absolute objectivist. So, it is likely that there are merely relative subjectivists and merely relative objectivists.

Idealistically said, an objectivist excludes all kinds of subjectivity. That is difficult to do. So: Realistically said, an objectivist tries to exclude all kinds of subjectivity. An objectivist is comparable to a monk. Monks were the first scientists. Excluding all kinds of subjectivity is a huge task.

A judgement can but does not have to be based on subjectivity alone; mostly it is based on both subjectivity and objectivity and sometimes even on objectivity alone. In the vast majority of cases, when it is based on both, the question whether it is more based on subjectivity than on objectivity or vice versa depends on the kind and the form of the respective culture.

Objectivity should never be confused with something like „fairness“ or „truthfulness“. All three are very different from ech other, especially „fairness“ from the other two. But to someone who is decadent, nihilistic, the meanings of objectivity, fairness and truthfulness become very close or even identical. These decadents are, philosophically said, influenced more by ethics (high degree of subjectivity, low degree of objectivity) than by logic (high degree of objectivity, low degree of subjectivity). They are no objectivists. Objectivists are more like monks who live for only one goal: excluding subjectivity by doing exercices.

The more exercises, ecperiences, experiments, observations, objectivity are done, the closer comes the goal (aim).

Experience has both sides: subjectivity and objectivity. Both are aspects of epistemology.

The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.

Not all beings are living beings, not all living beings are human beings; and empiricism is not the only way to prove something; empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses; so empircism alone never proves anything, logic proves or disproves ....

Quantum physics (mechanics) and Relativity physics (theory) are so much different frome each other, that one can say that they refer to two different realities, two different worlds; and since these described realities (worlds) are so much different from each other and we can only have one reality (worlds) by definition, either one or both must be false.

Imagine, you are your brain and the only one, the first one (**). You know nothing about a subject and an object, since no thing (nothing) is there - except you as you brain. It makes no sense (nonsense) then to have senses, since there is nothing to observe. There is no object, thus there is no subject. You do not know that you are your brain (thoughts). You can think but you do not know that you think. You have no evidence, because you have no empirical data, no experience at all. Your thoughts are not your experience, because they are not objects but you yourself as your brain . So it is not possible to think „cogito ergo sum“.

If there is only one (I mean one entity), then there is nothing else. Let this one be a thought or whatever. In order to have this one as a subject (which can know what it is for the first time), an object is needed.

There is no distiction or differentiation without an object. A subject is not possible without an object.

I mean that a „subject“ needs an object (an objectivation, at least a predication [cp. linguistics]) in order to be a subject.

According to the linguistic grammar and its syntax theory, at least both a subject and a predicate are needed for a syntactical sentence, an object may lack, but does not mostly. Thoughts are similar to sentences. So a thought like the sentence „I think“ does not need an object but a predicate. But epistemologically said: How do you know that you think, that it is you that (who?) thinks and what „think“ means? If you are not only referring to a linguistical or a pure locical form but also to an epistemical or an experiential (thus: experience-based) phenomenon, then, you have to admit that you have often been an object to others and learned via objectivation that you are a subject too. According to the diagram (see below), you have just very quickly used at least 16 epistemological realms before reaching the realm where you started, and epistemologically important is that you have used each of them twice:

And according to my example (see above), you would use merely one realm or two realms and never use two directions (see the arrows in the diagram). This means that you have no experience in an epistemological way which requires a circle with two directions.

The problem is that it is very difficult to tell about a non-existent „world“, thus a about a „world“ without any object. If one tells about a subject, then it is already an object. Therefore I said you should imagine to be a brain or a thought as a singularity in which it is impossible to experience anything (see above). If you think about „anything“, then this is already an object. And if I should tell you how you only think (but not about anything), thus without experience, without an object, then it would not be possible to say „what happens“, because there is no object, thus no experience. So, „I think“ („cogito“ in Latin) means already „I can have an object“ (not: „I have already an object“, but: „I can have an object“), so this quickly leads to „thus I am“ („ergo sum“ in Latin). But in my example (see above), this „thus I am“ is not possible, because I had to give you an example without any object. And the problem is that we do not really know such an example. „The only one in the world“? No! Because there is no world in that example. So, actually, I can not even use the word „you“. There is no reality, because there is nothing that „you“ (not existent in an objective way) can experience, thus even you yourself are nothing that can be experienced. This is difficult to imagine. I know. You would have to be capable of being an object, if you wanted to know yourself as a subject. But there is no and can never be an object in that said example. A subject needs an object in order to be a subject.

The question whether an object needs a subject in oder to be an object is not the subject in this example.

Subjectivists are those who insist that their own arguments are necessarily right. The word „own“ already stands for this. Additionaly, subjectivists have more reasons to insist that their own arguments are necessarily right, because they lack objectivity, at least always more than objectivists lack subjectivity. It is not difficult to be a subjectivist, it is more difficult to be an objectivist. Objectivists consider the objects before considering their own emotions and other endogenous affects - that is difficult enough and probably not completely possible. Subjectivists do just the opposite - that is not difficult, although probably not completely possible either.

There are nonetheless many people who state to be, but are not objectivists. So, I am not talking about those alleged objectivists here. Most people are subjectivists, regardless whether they know it or not.

Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.

Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.

The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.

A linguistic example: „John sees Mary“. Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: „Mary sees John“ (S-P-O) or „John is seen by Mary“ (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: „John sees Mary, and Mary sees John“ (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or „John and Mary see each other“ (S-P-O) or „John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John“ (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or „John and Mary are seen by each other“ (O-P-S) ... or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.

John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).

So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.

When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not „in fashion“, then this does not mean that they have vanished.

Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.

And my example „John sees Mary“ includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object.

It is an objective fact that there are subjects. So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a „social“ situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become „designed“ (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, any kind of subjectity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

As concepts of epistemology, „subject“ and „object“ are concepts of epistemology, so they are related to philosophy and science as well - and very much. An object is everything that is not a subject, and a subject is everything that is not an object. It is a dualism and similar to the yin/yang dualism. But this is again something that you do not understand.

A solipsist is someone who says that the subject, thus the subjective I with its consciousness contents, is the only being. But a solipsist is not able to explain what „subject“ and „object“ and their „dualism“ mean. And if you are a subjectivist, then it is difficult but not impossible to do this. But if you are nonetheless not able to change the perspective and become an objectivist for a moment, then you are an extreme subjectivist, thus a solipsist, and a solipsist is not able to explain what „subject“ and „object“ and their „dualism“ mean.

The goal of the extreme subjectivists and thus solipsists is to eleminate the object and thus objectivity too. This means that they try to eliminate the whole epistemology. Subject and object are part of the same phenomenon. If this pheomenon lacks one of the two, then it is kaput. One can try to circumvent the subject/object dualism, for example by concepts like Husserl’s „Intersubjektivität“ or Heidegger’s „In-der-Welt-sein“ or Luhmann’s „Kommunikation“, but „circumventing“ does not mean „replacing“ or „overcoming“ the older concept (subject/object dualism). So if you and the other solipsists were successful, then epistemology would lack an important concept, then philosophy and science would have lost.

Protagoras said that „truth is relative“, because „all interpreters and even each of all interpreters do not remain the same but always changes during the time“. Protagoras was a relativist but not an anti-realist. Additionally, Protagoras was more a subjectivist than an objectivist.

One can also say that „all and each of all interpreters are relative“, because „truth never changes, whereas all interpreters and even each of all interpreters permanently change during the time“. And this one who says this is not an anti-idealist but merely a relativist too. Additionally, this one is more an objectivist than a subjectivist.

Every „anti-reality“ (**) refers to reality. It is also an interpretation of reality. Otherwise a speaker of „anti-reality“ would not know what this speaker is talking about (this reminds me of somebody.)

Plato said that the true reality was an ideality as the reality of the ideas. The ideal realm is different from the real realm. But in order to exist, the ideal realm must be a bit similar to the real realm. Otherwise we could not say anything about it, since we would not know know what it „is“. We have to refer to reality even then if we are talking about ideality.

I believe that solipsists are not able to be humanists for several reasons. The main reason is that most humans want economical wealth based on technological progression; technology and economy are mainly based on rationality; rationality is mainly negated by solipsists. Solipsists are extreme subjectivists, anti-objectivists, anti-realists, anti-rationalists, even anti-logicians, ... nihilists. Merely their own thoughts their own perceptions exist according to them. They are merely believing in their subjective thoughts and their subject perceptions. So they are isolating themselves from all other humans, and this means when it comes to humanism: solipsists are anti-humanists.

George Berkeley was a solipsist and most certainly no humanist. There are more examples.

- Register -