S U B J E C T
V E R S U S O B J E C T
We have the subject-object-dualism. In order to overcome the subject-object-dualism
Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) established his existence-philosophical
(To-be-in-the-World) as an existential of human beings
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
(To-Be-in-the-World) as an existential of human beings'
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
reallyexist, or the world and the experiences I make
with it reallyexist? 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 dont 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).
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz once asked:
Do you know the answer?
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
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?
Maybe we can never overcome the subject/object dualism.
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
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
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?
These questions are the point as long as we have no exactly corresponding
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
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
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
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
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
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 ....
Concerning consciousness and the subject/object-dichotomy:
The objectivist says the consciousness is a product of our
brain, but the subjectivist says the consciousness is
a product of my thoughts.
That are two very much different statements.
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.
I think we have to consider both.
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.
Objects must be objectified, and that can only be done by a subject.
According to that one must say that subjects (or a subject or the
subject) came before objects (or an object or the object).
I think the problem of the subject/object-dualism is - at last
- not solvable.
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.
The problem of the subject/object dualism is not solvable.
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.
I am not a subjectivist. I can guarantee you.
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.
Both subjectivity and objectivity have to be learned.
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
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.
Now an example: We want to know what a circle philosophically means.
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
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.
What is your self-evaluation?
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.
And does really here really mean objectively?
By saying this, is Y really more objective than subjective?
Isn't objectivity most similar to reality?
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. Newtons physics was true till Clausius second
law (entropy) of thermodynamics, in any case till Plancks
constant, Plancks quantum theory, and Einsteins (actually
Hilberts) 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
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.
Look at the syntax. A sentence requires a subject, not necessarily
And with Schopenhauer I say that everything that is an object can
be this only with reference to a subject.
Subjects have an advantage.
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
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
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.
Many scientists got fired because they had been objective.
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
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 can and should relate to likelihood and to average values anyway.
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
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
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
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
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
Philosophy without language is not possible.
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.
There is only one reality.
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 Husserls Intersubjektivität
or Heideggers In-der-Welt-sein or Luhmanns
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.
So we are again at the point of the subject/object duality.
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.
The proposition is that solipsism and humanism are incompatible.
George Berkeley was a solipsist and most certainly no humanist.
There are more examples.