Quote:
Originally Posted by bianca  I am sorry for being so inquisitive. I learn so very much from you, even if it is not directly about language. But language is philosophy, isn't it? |
I find the questions interesting. It's good to have to structure your thoughts. I'm learning things, too. :D
Quote:
|
"Objects aren't objects, if no subject perceives them. In so far "objects" are composed of ideas. But that's on the subject level." - this means that objects or truths cannot exist beyond meaning (intention). Are truths subjective? Are they mental representations, or metaphors? |
1. I wouldn't use the word "truth" in this context at all. "Truth" is a property of statements. Objects aren't statements.
2. The word I'd use instead is "reality", or "real".
3. "Dragons breath fire." The statement is true, but dragons are not real. Dragons are objects, though, with the property "unreal". The "concept of dragons" exists, but thinking about the "concept of dragons" is not the same object as thinking about "dragons". "Thinking about the concept of dragons" is turning the subject level of the object dragons into an object of its own. This process can go on indefinitely, but brains don't have unlimited capacity.
4. The subject/object distinction points towards a point of view, with subjects and objects being two aspects of the same point of view. A subject views an object from a point of view. The object has no point of view. (Although, from a different point of view, the object may well be a subject.)
5. This is akin to the grammatical notion of transitivity: [Subject] -verb-> [object].
6. "Real" is a relationship between "object" and "set1 which contains or doesn't contain object"; or, in short, between the "object" and the "world". "Truth" is a relationship between a "statement" and "conditions within a system" (say logic, maths, common sense).
7. Both "real" and "true" can be objects of their own right, but this is far from easy, and many different takes on that exist.
Quote:
|
"No subject has direct access to the object." - this means that the existence of objects or of truths requires that we go beyond mere intention (meaning). Can an object exist outside of the mind? Phenomenologists mean that the existence of objects requires that we have evidence and evidence is provided by intuition. Objective truths, then, are provided by intuition. Is that what you mean? |
Pretty much. I'm making the assumption that there are things behind objects, even if they're just the physical representation of "memory" in the brain. (It's quite possible that memories are themselves relations between things; I don't know enough about the brain, to judge.)
It's a methodological assumption, though. I don't think much beyond the subject/object distinction; I don't care much about "reality" or "truth" beyond specific contexts.