Comments on: The Loss of Objectivity http://mindsmeaningmorals.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/the-loss-of-objectivity/ An attempt to ground and understand minds, meaning and morals within the context of a naturalistic metaphysics. Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:39:03 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: 1Z http://mindsmeaningmorals.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/the-loss-of-objectivity/#comment-9339 1Z Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:22:56 +0000 http://mindsmeaningmorals.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/the-loss-of-objectivity/#comment-9339 "The post-modernist cannot simply be refuted by showing some sort of inconsistency within his reasoning. Indeed, many post-modern thinkers have held that some degree of inconsistency is inherent in every conceptual scheme". But that can be reduted by displaying n consistent scheme, whereupon the way is clear to reject postmodernism for its inconsistencies. “The post-modernist cannot simply be refuted by showing some sort of inconsistency within his reasoning. Indeed, many post-modern thinkers have held that some degree of inconsistency is inherent in every conceptual scheme”.

But that can be reduted by displaying n consistent scheme, whereupon the way is clear to reject postmodernism for its inconsistencies.

]]> By: rachana sharma http://mindsmeaningmorals.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/the-loss-of-objectivity/#comment-3156 rachana sharma Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:38:43 +0000 http://mindsmeaningmorals.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/the-loss-of-objectivity/#comment-3156 Good concise note. Certainaly thinkers busy in finding some moderate ways to save whole human endeavour of past.The loss of objectivity/rationality comes with the loss of all human efforts so far in direction of 'Knowledge'.Future may turn in two direction only;leave the present goal and find some other or find some way to restore. Since subjective knowledge is no 'knowledge' we need some other way with same goal or will be left with no goal and end up with same anarchic intellectual world as sophists' in Greek thought or charvak in Indian. 'Author is dead' leaving space for everybody to interpret differently but text was written by author with one interpretation only in mind. The world also have one standard interpretation, finding 'how' in another question. Possibility of 'Giving' many interpretations does not mean 'having' many interpretations. Subjectivity can not be left since 'subject' is there. Either we have to change the definition of objective knowledge or learn the way to 'know' without subject. Some hints in the direction can be traced out in ancient Indian thoughts (as much I know) but needed to be developed in contemporary context otherwise it will be accused as mysticism only. Good concise note.

Certainaly thinkers busy in finding some moderate ways to save whole human endeavour of past.The loss of objectivity/rationality comes with the loss of all human efforts so far in direction of ‘Knowledge’.Future may turn in two direction only;leave the present goal and find some other or find some way to restore. Since subjective knowledge is no ‘knowledge’ we need some other way with same goal or will be left with no goal and end up with same anarchic intellectual world as sophists’ in Greek thought or charvak in Indian.

‘Author is dead’ leaving space for everybody to interpret differently but text was written by author with one interpretation only in mind. The world also have one standard interpretation, finding ‘how’ in another question. Possibility of ‘Giving’ many interpretations does not mean ‘having’ many interpretations.

Subjectivity can not be left since ’subject’ is there. Either we have to change the definition of objective knowledge or learn the way to ‘know’ without subject. Some hints in the direction can be traced out in ancient Indian thoughts (as much I know) but needed to be developed in contemporary context otherwise it will be accused as mysticism only.

]]> By: Facts, Values and Post-Modernism « Minds, Meaning and Morals http://mindsmeaningmorals.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/the-loss-of-objectivity/#comment-295 Facts, Values and Post-Modernism « Minds, Meaning and Morals Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:49:11 +0000 http://mindsmeaningmorals.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/the-loss-of-objectivity/#comment-295 [...] This position is far more difficult, if not impossible to refute.  The post-modernist cannot simply be refuted by showing some sort of inconsistency within his reasoning.  Indeed, many post-modern thinkers have held that some degree of inconsistency is inherent in every conceptual scheme.  Rather than relying upon the existence of possible or actual inconsistencies in the post-modern position, that modernist is obligated to provide an account of how it is possible to justify judgments regarding facts and/or values from all perspectives.  This, however, is no easy task. [...] [...] This position is far more difficult, if not impossible to refute.  The post-modernist cannot simply be refuted by showing some sort of inconsistency within his reasoning.  Indeed, many post-modern thinkers have held that some degree of inconsistency is inherent in every conceptual scheme.  Rather than relying upon the existence of possible or actual inconsistencies in the post-modern position, that modernist is obligated to provide an account of how it is possible to justify judgments regarding facts and/or values from all perspectives.  This, however, is no easy task. [...]

]]> By: Clark Goble http://mindsmeaningmorals.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/the-loss-of-objectivity/#comment-235 Clark Goble Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:39:00 +0000 http://mindsmeaningmorals.wordpress.com/2006/11/04/the-loss-of-objectivity/#comment-235 Great post. One should also note, to be fair, that the movement against objectivity in the classic philosophical sense was going on before this. Certainly Quine brought up a lot of problems in his particular "critique" or reformulation of positivism. Heidegger's notion of being-in-the-world as primary pretty well knocks it out as well and Heidegger's critique of Husserl was pretty influential. Well before Derrida comes on the scene. It's interesting how pragmatic Quine, Popper and others really are - albeit often in more radical ways than say Peirce. (Say Popper's complete rejection of induction which is why, despite his public popularity he isn't that popular among modern philosophy of science) Yet they all were moving in different ways away from traditional objectivity. While Popper, Heidegger and Kuhn are, in a technical sense, not that influential in science, I think they revolutionized things enough in a popular way to really let others continue rethinking things.  <A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><a HREF="http://www.libertypages.com/clark/" TITLE="clark at lextek dot com" rel="nofollow">Clark</A> Great post.

One should also note, to be fair, that the movement against objectivity in the classic philosophical sense was going on before this. Certainly Quine brought up a lot of problems in his particular “critique” or reformulation of positivism. Heidegger’s notion of being-in-the-world as primary pretty well knocks it out as well and Heidegger’s critique of Husserl was pretty influential. Well before Derrida comes on the scene.

It’s interesting how pragmatic Quine, Popper and others really are – albeit often in more radical ways than say Peirce. (Say Popper’s complete rejection of induction which is why, despite his public popularity he isn’t that popular among modern philosophy of science) Yet they all were moving in different ways away from traditional objectivity. While Popper, Heidegger and Kuhn are, in a technical sense, not that influential in science, I think they revolutionized things enough in a popular way to really let others continue rethinking things. 

Posted by Clark

]]>