eliyah23rd t1_ivakfnr wrote
The concept of two worlds is certainly a plausible way to look at things, however I would take issue with some of the distinctions that the article makes.
What is the epistemic basis for the "objective world"? Is it not the subjective world? In that case the subjective is also very concerned with the "is".
Perhaps it would be better to view the objective world as a model that explains (some of) the constraints of the subjective world.
Divide the subjective phenomena into two classes. Those that (what are perceived as) other people speak of as similarly constrained to the way the subject experiences them to be constrained. Call these the evidential basis for the objective world. The remaining subjective phenomena including, but not limited to, value statements, correlate only sometimes and perhaps never to the reports of other people. So leave those all in the subjective realm.
contractualist OP t1_ivalqut wrote
In a way, you can describe all reality to be in the subjective world. It may be accurate to describe objectivity as "shared subjectivity." And the objective world certainly shapes our subjective perception of the world. They interact, but are still separate.
And I would agree, that public verifiable evidence belongs is the objective whereas value judgments are strictly within the subjective.
eliyah23rd t1_ivete2s wrote
We are now in better agreement.
If I go further, I would say that the objective world is just a model living in the subjective world. It is that part that other agents report to be in agreement.
That the objective is part of the subjective does not imply that it is optional. Much of the subjective seems non optional.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments