VivaHedone

Two questions that I have never been able to answer: what is and why is subjectivity?

I don't think the 'what is' question will ever be answered. You will never be able to define or describe a sensation or emotion. They are inexplicable - you can only know what they are by experience. If you think I am wrong, then imagine trying to describe sight to a man who has been blind since birth.

If we don't know what subjectivity is, then can we explain its purpose? I don't think that an explanation can be found in evolutionary terms for sensations and the subjective experience of thoughts.

The usual answer would be that we have to see and hear predators and think to avoid danger etc, but this explains nothing. There is no need in any of this for subjectivity. All that is required is an ability to respond to stimuli and act accordingly - and this could be more easily achieved without any subjectivity. Computers respond to stimuli wothout any subjective experience of them. All that is required is the correct flow of electrons. Our brains could work just as well without subjectivity - sensations are unnecessary. So why the subjective dimension?

I believe that this is where the purely mechanistic (there's a better term but I've forgotten it) explanation for our world comes undone. It cannot explain subjectivity. Now I'm not converting to theism or anything - that doesn't solve the problem, it merely shifts it to a higher level. But I do think that we should better appreciate life as the wondrous (dare I say miraculous?) thing that it is.

kenaz

Oooh..subjectivity- word fraught with surplus meanings. Where does one start? Here’s my thoughts- culled from various readings of Foucault and Deleuze. I must qualify first that I’m not saying this is THE definition for the word. By saying that would be assuming a one-for-one relation between a signifier and signified- reducive and debilitating. And my answer is probably not what you are looking for, as it does not delve into the scientific phenomena of physicality. But since this is the philosophy forum, here goes

When one talks about subjectivity, notions of subject, subjection, object, objectification has to be taken into consideration, because they operate within the same field of power relations.

There exists praxis of struggles for multiplicities within every discursive discipline, every discourse. Within such fields, the prevailing line of force (State, Church etc.) sought singular, mythologized interpretations of knowledge through strategies of objectification and subjection. The stratification of knowledge acts on the daily life and interiority of those the State/Church calls its subjects, making the subject tied to her/his own identity through all the techniques of moral human sciences that go to make up a knowledge for the subject and of the subject. An objectified subject subjected to the dominant metanarrative an ideal xian/citizen makes- disciplined and docile.

Within such context, the struggle for subjectification/subjectivity presents itself as the right to difference, variation and metamorphosis through multiplicities of utterances. Utterances are localized enunciations operating in the field of power relations. They are neither uniformed, nor stable or continuous lines of forces that act at points of resistance within and between power relations. At these points of resistance wherein exist the potentiality of an inversion of power relations, utterances produce ruptures in the univocality of hegemonic discourses.

Now if you imagine some funky zen-like kungfu move, assertion of subjectivity is the process whereby one brings a curve into the line, make it curve back on itself, and make force impinge on itself. Now go practice

cheers,
lynn

VivaHedone

Mmmm.... Despite having repeatedly watched The Matrix, I'm not sure I understood a terrible lot of that. I think subjectvity can be more easily defined as simply 'experience'.

So what is it and where (why?) has it come from?

kenaz

In a journalistic nutshell, the 5 Ws and 1 H of subjectivity:

Who: You, yourself and your shadow.
What: Assertion of self in struggle against be[com]ing made an object, a docile subject.
When: Hopefully 24-7. Or when you are fed-up of being treated like a lab rat.
Where: Everywhere. Think of the social terrain as criss-crossing lines of power relations, like a map. Now pick one road and call it My Way.
Why: Because you are not just a bunch of evolved sensory glands. Because you are not, and hopefully don't want to be a computer that reacts in predetermined stimuli thru a correct flow of electrons.
How: See Where. But really it's a question for the individual. You are right that "we" don't know what subjectivity is, because it's about "I's", not "We's". So "We" can't explain it's purpose, but you can.

contracycle

The fact that we are all a metaphorical brain in a jar looking through a pinhole camera at the world. Our information is inherently limited.

ComestibleVenom

Natural language would obviously be the wrong mode of discourse. You'd have to train the man in neurophysiology to communicate the truth most effectively.

Now if experience is really beyond description, tell me how I can describe it and scientifically study it? Well that's a contradiction. But I do study it, therefore it is not ineffable and beyond description.

VivaHedone

That is exactly what we are when seen objectively. But somehow from this has come a subjective identity with sensations and thoughts, and it is this that is the great mystery in life. Our brains could work just as well, for the purposes of survival, without the subjective dimension. I see no evolutionary reason for subjectivity. So why do 'we' exist?

Just because you can study it doesn't mean you can describe it. No amount of training or descrption could ever lead one who has never seen to know what sight is. (I mean the sensation of seeing, not 'sight is a response to light' etc.) I don't believe it is theoretically possible to do so. Try it yourself: describe sight to me.

kenaz

What is this objectivity that you are talking about? Scientific verifiability? Just because you see no evolutionary reason for subjectivity doesn’t mean it is for naught. The premise here seems to be that science is the omnipotent discourse from which the existence of all things- from physicality to conceptuality are judged. The knowledge-claims of science are not objective. The subjugation of phenomena that does not seem functionally coherent or resist formal systemization should be and is problematised.
If you see no reason for subjectivity why did you share your subjective opinion by starting this thread? Your existence may be indistinguishable from a computerised reaction to predetermined stimuli, but I exist because I choose to. To each his/her own

VivaHedone

Perhaps ‘objectively’ was the wrong word to use, as nothing can be seen objectively. Substitute ‘external’ or ‘physical’ viewpoint. Whether you like it or not, seen from an external viewpoint our brains are just super-computers. It’s not a matter of choice.

This shows your utter misunderstanding of my point. I have never said that my existence is indistinguishable from a computer, and that is a quite ridiculous suggestion. Because somewhere, somehow, from that ‘computer’ has sprung ‘me’ – some indefinable non-physical entity with sensations and emotions and thoughts and personality, in other words ‘subjectivity’ – and that is the wonder of it all.

Did I ever say or indicate as much? I used the lack of apparent evolutionary reason for subjectivity to argue that science and a mechanistic world-view cannot explain life satisfactorily.

Just because I see no reason for subjectivity does not mean that I do not think that it is a wonderful thing. By confusing ‘lack of reason’ with ‘lack of value’ you seem to be taking the quasi-religious view that life needs some higher ‘purpose’ in order to have worth. I am mystified as to how subjectivity came into being, yes, but this does not in my mind devalue it one slightest bit. In fact, the wondrousness of my subjective existence makes me all the more appreciative of life.

Leviathan

"Shuzan held out a staff, and said, 'If you call this staff a short staff, you negate reality, but if you choose to not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact.' "

Now which do you call it fellas?

Subjectivity is innately part of being human. Our senses, perceptions, and essentially our view of reality are limited, finite, and skewed. Reality is not what you see, smell, taste, hear, or touch, reality is what is in your language.