Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SlateGreySky · 06-17-2003, 10:56 PM

Frequently, language is discussed as an outworking of the subject/object dialectic: the "inner" is the subject; the "outer" is the object. "I" denotes the subject, "it" denotes the object.

Is this view correct? Is it even coherent? Define "I". It seems that any ostensive definition immediately objectifies "I" as that upon which a variety of details is predicated. Is there a way of talking about "I" without immediately doing violence to its supposed role as a subject indicator in language (I mean subject as opposed to object, not grammatical subject as opposed to predicate)? If so, how is this accomplished?

Can one coherently discuss the "subject" in opposition to the "object," or pure subjectivity (in itself) not a domain over which language ranges?

Thoughts?

SlateGreySky · 06-17-2003, 10:58 PM

Sorry - the last full sentence should read, "Can one coherently discuss the "subject" in opposition to the "object," or is pure subjectivity (in itself) not a domain over which language ranges?"

Tyler Durden · 06-18-2003, 01:39 AM

I am currently struggling within the hypnotic vortex of Thomas Nagel's book, The View From Nowhere, which might be of interest to you and relevant to the topic at hand. As far as i understand the book is an attempt to justify a negotiation between subjectivity and objectivity wrt to the traditional problems of philosophy by locating a legitimate perspective that both retains and includes an objective view of the world of the perspective's owner.

However, it remains to be seen whether his critique and defense of objectivity is at all warranted, given that i have done a little exploring with Herr Heidegger.

phaedrus · 06-18-2003, 01:52 AM

One needs to first analyze whether the cartesian divide of this world is the correct way of looking at things or just look at the world with an integrated approach, where things are intertwined.

From an old thread, some ol comments of mine.....

Quote:

Saussure's notion of syntagma can offer one some help here in understanding how words mean or the whole communication process. Its communication not public relations and that communication can be explained through gadamer�s �fusion of horizons� or lets say it�s a dynamic process (a hermeneutic circle?) where there are no points of origin, it�s a continuous process where there is not just a linear �encoding and decoding�, but a two-way flow and interplay between thought, expression and meaning. Let me see�.think of it as a continuous and dissoluble unity of forms, there is no cause and effect, everything is integral.

What do you guys think of the following?

Merleau-Ponty's first point is that words, even when they finally achieve the ability to carry referential and, eventually, conceptual levels of meaning, never completely lose that primitive, strictly phonemic, level of "affective" meaning which is not translatable into their conceptual definitions. There is, he argues, an affective tonality, a mode of conveying meaning beneath the level of thought, beneath the level of the words themselves, which is contained in the words just insofar as they are patterned sounds, as just the sounds which this particular aistorical language uniquely uses, and which are much more like a melody--a "singing of the world"--than fully translatable, conceptual thought.

and this ��

The integration: of perception, action and language, resulting in the underlying isomorphism of all languages, combined with the true knowledge of the external world which the evolution of the cognitive and visual apparatus has made possible, opens the way to a new pursuit of philosophical truth through language. We need no longer distrust our own reasoning or our belief in the reality of causation in the external world. The intellectual development of mankind can proceed, as it is doing, but on a philosophically more secure basis and in the knowledge that language, as a flexible instrument designed to match the open-endedness of human experience (perception and action), can be a reliable medium for exploring, recording and developing man's knowledge of the external world and of his own nature

SlateGreySky · 06-18-2003, 02:18 AM

Those points from Merleau-Ponty and Saussure are interesting ones to ponder, but my question is not so much about a definition of language as a whole (I don't think) as it is a question of the parameters of language. Whether one subscribes to a truth-conditional semantics, a meaning-as-use doctrine, some variant on Wittgenstein, or one of the theories described (very adeptly) by phaedrus, does language range over the domain of the metaphysical subject?

A further point to consider (with reference to phaedrus's points) might be whether the answer to my original question is dependant on one's theory of meaning/use. That, I think, would make for an equally interesting discussion.

Tyler - I haven't read Nagel's book, but it certainly seems to have polarized a number of individuals! People seem either to love it or to hate it.

Tyler Durden · 06-18-2003, 02:36 AM

I also read the reviews on Amazon and to be frank, they're completely unreliable. You should stick to professional reviews, at least, when assessing the value of a specialized book by checking credible second hand opinion.

SlateGreySky · 06-18-2003, 01:15 PM

Excellent deduction, Tyler . . . I did indeed check Amazon. That may be best for me; I might not be intelligent enough to accept the criticism of "higher" authorities . . .

Now how about an answer to my original post? Anybody?

Hugo Holbling · 06-18-2003, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlateGreySky
Now how about an answer to my original post? Anybody?

phaedrus already answered you. For another perspective, look here.

SlateGreySky · 06-18-2003, 09:37 PM

I am willing to accept the idea that the traditional subject/object dichotomy is one of which philosophy must ultimately dispose (I love Hegel on this point). Having said that, I am also willing to oblige the (varied) perspectives of contemporary "continental" philosophy on the question of subject/object.

Maybe what I should be asking is, given some theory of meaning (specify), what is the meaning/function/role of "I"? Does that meaning/function/role have anything to do with any conception (traditional or otherwise) of subject versus object?

Hopefully those questions more clearly approximate the issues I wish to have addressed.

Hugo Holbling · 06-18-2003, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlateGreySky
Maybe what I should be asking is, given some theory of meaning (specify), what is the meaning/function/role of "I"? [...] Hopefully those questions more clearly approximate the issues I wish to have addressed.

A necessary fiction? I think you need to be clearer still as to what you're asking.

06-17-2003, 10:56 PM	#1
SlateGreySky Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 77	"i" Frequently, language is discussed as an outworking of the subject/object dialectic: the "inner" is the subject; the "outer" is the object. "I" denotes the subject, "it" denotes the object. Is this view correct? Is it even coherent? Define "I". It seems that any ostensive definition immediately objectifies "I" as that upon which a variety of details is predicated. Is there a way of talking about "I" without immediately doing violence to its supposed role as a subject indicator in language (I mean subject as opposed to object, not grammatical subject as opposed to predicate)? If so, how is this accomplished? Can one coherently discuss the "subject" in opposition to the "object," or pure subjectivity (in itself) not a domain over which language ranges? Thoughts?

06-17-2003, 10:58 PM	#2
SlateGreySky Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 77	erratum Sorry - the last full sentence should read, "Can one coherently discuss the "subject" in opposition to the "object," or is pure subjectivity (in itself) not a domain over which language ranges?"

06-18-2003, 01:39 AM	#3
Tyler Durden Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: I am Jack's ID Posts: 592	Speaking of... I am currently struggling within the hypnotic vortex of Thomas Nagel's book, The View From Nowhere, which might be of interest to you and relevant to the topic at hand. As far as i understand the book is an attempt to justify a negotiation between subjectivity and objectivity wrt to the traditional problems of philosophy by locating a legitimate perspective that both retains and includes an objective view of the world of the perspective's owner. However, it remains to be seen whether his critique and defense of objectivity is at all warranted, given that i have done a little exploring with Herr Heidegger.

06-18-2003, 02:36 AM	#6
Tyler Durden Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: I am Jack's ID Posts: 592	By the way I also read the reviews on Amazon and to be frank, they're completely unreliable. You should stick to professional reviews, at least, when assessing the value of a specialized book by checking credible second hand opinion.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-18-2003, 02:18 AM	#5
SlateGreySky Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 77	Those points from Merleau-Ponty and Saussure are interesting ones to ponder, but my question is not so much about a definition of language as a whole (I don't think) as it is a question of the parameters of language. Whether one subscribes to a truth-conditional semantics, a meaning-as-use doctrine, some variant on Wittgenstein, or one of the theories described (very adeptly) by phaedrus, does language range over the domain of the metaphysical subject? A further point to consider (with reference to phaedrus's points) might be whether the answer to my original question is dependant on one's theory of meaning/use. That, I think, would make for an equally interesting discussion. Tyler - I haven't read Nagel's book, but it certainly seems to have polarized a number of individuals! People seem either to love it or to hate it.

06-18-2003, 01:15 PM	#7
SlateGreySky Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 77	Excellent deduction, Tyler . . . I did indeed check Amazon. That may be best for me; I might not be intelligent enough to accept the criticism of "higher" authorities . . . Now how about an answer to my original post? Anybody?

06-18-2003, 09:37 PM	#9
SlateGreySky Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 77	I am willing to accept the idea that the traditional subject/object dichotomy is one of which philosophy must ultimately dispose (I love Hegel on this point). Having said that, I am also willing to oblige the (varied) perspectives of contemporary "continental" philosophy on the question of subject/object. Maybe what I should be asking is, given some theory of meaning (specify), what is the meaning/function/role of "I"? Does that meaning/function/role have anything to do with any conception (traditional or otherwise) of subject versus object? Hopefully those questions more clearly approximate the issues I wish to have addressed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.