some of your very own philosophical definitions, please

Bodhi Dharma Zen

Advaitin
Bodhi Dharma Zen
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
3,926
From this thread: "The relationship between science and materialism", originally Posted by JustGeoff. He said:

"The challenge is as follows. Please attempt to define the following:

Subjective
Objective
Mental
Physical
1st-person
3rd-person"


Here are my definitions. I added "Noumena".

1) Subjective = Things as appear to cognition (cognition = brain processes)

2) Objective = Things as appear to "second cognition" (thinking)

3) Mental = All that exists, the world we live in.

4) Physical = An abstraction (the same as "objective") contructed integrating cognitions and second cognitions.

5) 1st person = me

6) 3rd person = invention of an hypotetic point of view

7) Noumena = The "world" as it "is", truly "objective", "real". In the end the words and concepts (second cognition) cant grasp it.
 
I have no idea where this set of definitions would lead to but they seem handy workable definitions to me (these are not terms that I would particularity choose to use to describe my beliefs)

Subjective - what I experience that other people can't directly confirm (but not as a principle)
Objective - what other people and I can directly confirm with one another
Mental - same as subjective
Physical - same as objective
1st-person - same as subjective
3rd-person - same as objective
Noumena - whatever reality *is*, if indeed reality *is*, in other words an assumption that there is something but making no further assumptions as to what "it" "is".
 
Thanks for this, BDZ. I will watch with great interest. I'd love to see the materialists try to resolve a set of coherent definitions with no input from me whatsover. :)

Mine:

Mental/Subjective/1st-person : all my experiences - everything I directly perceive.
Physical/Objective/3rd-person : The objects of my experiences
Phenomenal : All of the above.
Noumenal : None of the above, reality as it is is in itself
 
Last edited:
  • Subjective - of or having individual context or meaning; differing from individual to individual
  • Objective - of or having universal context or meaning; no difference from individual to individual.
  • Mental - having to do with the mind.
  • Physical - having to do with matter, energy, spacetime and all deriviatves thereof.
  • 1st-person - pertaining to the perspective of me, myself, I and all forms thereof.
  • 3rd-person - pertaining to the perspective of you, them, and all forms thereof.
 
Interesting, I believe this is a way to understand what you all think. I wish more people was answering. In the end, I like questions like this, because sometimes one "knows" what is what one beliefs, until one try to explain it.

Answering precise questions like this can helps us (to some of us) to make those thoughts a solid thing.
 
I have two (or perhaps more, depending on context) very different sets of answers, depending on the context of the discussion. Most of the terms are poorly defined and not useful to me in the context of my own belief system, but I am (usually) perfectly capable of conversing with others about such things, and as such I use these terms, as defined (vaguely, usually) by our language community. I am trying to figure out how to answer this thread without either being flippant or writing a ten-page essay. I have no desire to do either of those.
 
I noticed that I have to write again my answers, in the hope to make them more concrete.

Subjective or mental= Cognitive process, integrating the Noumena, perceptions (first cognition) and thinking/interpreting (second cognition)

Objective or Physical = An abstraction made to organize perceptions, this happens in the "second cognition"

1st person = The world that I see/think

3rd person = invention of an hypotetic point of view

Noumena = The "world" as it "is", truly "objective", "real". In the end the words and concepts (second cognition) cant grasp it. Still, we can "see" it, we "see" it all the time and we will continue to "see" it as it is us. As humans, we forget this fact, and believe the world and the human. Reaching the Advaita (Satori, Kensho, becoming the Buddha) means realizing (in live) that there is no duality. There never was.

NOTE! no, Im not talking about "human awareness" with this "see", just stating that the Noumena (Brahman) is "the only thing" and that the Atman (the world, us, perceptions, cognition) is an illusion.
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Thats interesting. Im assuming this do not mean that your opinion varies, according to who and why ask, so Im intrigued.
Click to expand...
Our words are always used in context. Talking to one person, I am using words in a different way than when I use the same words in talking to another...Talking to Jeff Corey, I can use phrases that are well-defined to behaviorists, but oxymoronic to others (like "positive punishment").

Words are used to communicate with others, not to represent some unchanging platonic ideal somewhere...so of course my own use of any given word will change.

Do I have my own view? Of course. But it does not use those words, other than perhaps in an attempt to translate to others.
 
Mercutio said:
Our words are always used in context.
Click to expand...

Granted. Still, if someone asks me if I believe in "god" I have to ask first what my interlocutor means with that word and then explain what I mean with the same word. Once that point is clear I believe I can answer in a more "objective" way, regarding the context.

Well, of course, assuming our interlocutor has some brains to start!!
 
Last edited:
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
I noticed that I have to write again my answers, in the hope to make them more concrete.

Subjective or mental= Cognitive process, integrating the Noumena, perceptions (first cognition) and thinking/interpreting (second cognition)

Objective or Physical = An abstraction made to organize perceptions, this happens in the "second cognition"
Click to expand...

My view is that these read as if you are shading a little bit into a form of dualism with these definitions. Which I don't think is your intention? Perhaps I'm not understanding your distinction between first and second cognition?

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
1st person = The world that I see/think
Click to expand...

Can this just not be expressed as "What I experience"?

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
3rd person = invention of an hypotetic point of view
Click to expand...

Before I go down the wrong path - exactly what definition are you using for "hypotetic"? ;)

Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Noumena = The "world" as it "is", truly "objective", "real". In the end the words and concepts (second cognition) cant grasp it. Still, we can "see" it, we "see" it all the time and we will continue to "see" it as it is us. As humans, we forget this fact, and believe the world and the human. Reaching the Advaita (Satori, Kensho, becoming the Buddha) means realizing (in live) that there is no duality. There never was.

NOTE! no, Im not talking about "human awareness" with this "see", just stating that the Noumena (Brahman) is "the only thing" and that the Atman (the world, us, perceptions, cognition) is an illusion.
Click to expand...

I presume you are using illusion not in the sense of something that doesn't exist but something that appears to have one set of characteristics but may or may not "be" what those characteristics lead us to experienced?

If so then I think I can accept* your definition of "Noumena" - I am curious as to why you use that word when we already have the word "reality"?

*This doesn't mean that I believe it to be true just that it seems to work as a descriptor of what we do "see" (in your sense of the word) around "us".

(English is bloody crap for these types of discussions!)
 
Subjective: Relating to the perception of the observer; something whose truth can differ based on the observer

Objective: True regardless of the observer; independently true

Mental: Of the mind

Physical: Of the material world

1st-person: From the point of view of the speaker/actor

3rd-person: From the point of view of someone other than the speaker/actor
 
Darat said:
My view is that these read as if you are shading a little bit into a form of dualism with these definitions. Which I don't think is your intention? Perhaps I'm not understanding your distinction between first and second cognition?
Click to expand...

Yes, dualism is operative and congruent in the everyday life, but that doesnt mean that it should be the same if we want to explain things. For first and second congnitions I mean two "semi arbitrarily" separated processes. One of them ocurrs in infants, or before going to sleep, higher cognitive processes (like language) do not ocurr in this first cognition. BTW, the world is very different from that perspective, there is no duality, for example. Which lead us to the "second" cognition, in which the separation between the "self" and the "world" happens. There is a "third" cognition, namely the Satori, in which one can integrate the other two.

Darat said:
Can this just not be expressed as "What I experience"?
Click to expand...

Could be, but "I experience" implies dualism, thats why "the world" is part of the equation.

Darat said:
Before I go down the wrong path - exactly what definition are you using for "hypotetic"? ;)
Click to expand...

We can't experience others points of view, its an inference, and in that sense an hypothesis. For Zen Buddhism, for example, there is no self, and of course no others.

Darat said:
I presume you are using illusion not in the sense of something that doesn't exist but something that appears to have one set of characteristics but may or may not "be" what those characteristics lead us to experienced?
Click to expand...

Yes, characteristics that have an appearance but no content, so to speak.

Darat said:
If so then I think I can accept* your definition of "Noumena" - I am curious as to why you use that word when we already have the word "reality"?
Click to expand...

Well, reality have some implications, like the thinking that "the world" is basically as we see it. When in fact what we see its only related to "that".

Darat said:
(English is bloody crap for these types of discussions!)
Click to expand...

Which would be a better language?
 
Geoff, Im still waiting for your comments, I believe my possition is easier to understand once you read my answers to your precise questions.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Granted. Still, if someone asks me if I believe in "god" I have to ask first what my interlocutor means with that word and then explain what I mean with the same word. Once that point is clear I believe I can answer in a more "objective" way, regarding the context.
Click to expand...
Subjective--undefined
Objective--undefined
Mental--undefined
Physical--undefined
1st-person--from the point of view of the actor; private
3rd-person--not from the point of view of the actor; public
Noumena--undefined

But of course, in casual conversation each of these terms may be useful, although I try not to use the undefined terms when there are more precise ways to phrase something, without the additional baggage of "whatever it is that the other speaker associates with these terms that I do not."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom