The subject

[hoopla]

Why do some philosophers, want to do away with them subject? I have heard that the subject has devestating consequences :huh:

Cheers

[ComradeRed]

What the hell are you talking about? Maybe it's because I'm a physicist rather than a philosopher, but I have no clue what the hell you mean by "the subject".

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think he means that some philosophers seem to base their philosophy around criticizing philosophy. Unfortunately, they can be hypocritical and still present valid criticisms of the field. I generally disagree with anti-philosophical thought, unless it is directed at a specific area of philosophy rather than the subject as a whole.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:04 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Maybe it's because I'm a physicist rather than a philosopher, but I have no clue what the hell you mean by "the subject".
Well I am a subject, you are a subject, Dooga is a subject, angels would be subjects, a rock is not a subject, some people would say that a chimp is a subject... do you see a common thread across these categories - that is "the subject". No?

:lol:

Am 100% I am a subject, on account that I have perceptions. I could dig out a quote from phenomenology that backs up the claim that many people beleive that they, and probably me too, are subjects. If you want to discuss whether there isa difference between subjectivity and the ego...

:)

Dooga - I am unsure if you are suggesting that this is a reaction to Rosa, its not, really: are you saying, then, that the critique of the subject is just a critique of philosophy (in general!) - and that there is no political consequence to not grounding one's analysis in radical subjectivities, iyswim

:lol:

[hoopla]

:lol:

I did not mean the subject of philosophy!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla, notice how, when you use philosophical terminology, as you tried to, it is all to easy for normal human beings (like Dooga and Red) to misunderstand you.

That is probably why some want to get rid of whatever meaningless 'entity' ('the subject' -- wtf is that??) you were referring to -- because it is meaningless when used philosophically.

And can I thank you for indirectly proving my point: traditional philosophy makes no sort of sense.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I have to agree... Hoopla, the boxing gloves have returned. :(

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn, boxing gloves or no, there is nothing anyone can do, I think, to make this much over-used term of art ('The subject') comprehensible.

Supposedly it is the title, or perhaps the proper name, of..., well, what?

A collection of souls?

That which every sentence or book is about?

The singular name of all our 'collective identities'?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It almost makes me want to join the Appeal To Ordinary Language gang. Although, I must admit, I don't see how it solves anything much, meaning is what matters, not how meaning is expressed. Surely?

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn: you are assuming that the two are indpendent of each other. If they are, you might be right, If not, not.

But, unfortunately the word 'meaning' (and its cognates) is complex in itself; indeed there are many identifiably different meanings of 'meaning', among which are the following (some of which overlap):

(1) Significance or importance: as in “His Teddy Bear means a lot to him.”

(2) Evaluative import: as in “May Day means different things to different classes.”

(3) Point or purpose: as in “Life has no meaning.”

(4) Linguistic meaning: as in “‘Vixen’ means female fox.”

(5) Aim or intention: as in “They mean to win this strike.”

(6) Implication: as in “Winning that strike means the boss won’t try another wage cut again in a hurry.”

(7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in “Those clouds mean rain.”

(8) Reference: as in “I mean him over there.”

(9) Artistic theme: as in “The whole meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity.”

(10) Conversational focus: as in “I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?”

(11) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in “I mean it, I really do want to go on the demonstration!”

(12) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in “It means that the strike starts on Monday”, or “It means you have to queue here.”

(13) Interpretation: as in “You will need to read the author’s novels if you want to give a new meaning to her latest play.”

(14) The import of a work of art: as in “Part of the meaning of that play was to change our view of drama.

Many theorists, because they run one or more of these together, end up making simple errors (Voloshinov being one).

Now I suspect you mean one of these, but you too might have confused it with other senses of typographically the same word.

[More Fire for the People]

I think the only philosophers who want to do away the subject are Althusser and Derrida, and they have a limtied following — well, maybe Derrida has a large following but you can't tell because they all have too much différance. :D

I admit that I'm not too knowledgable about the subject of anti-subjectivism but I could probably draw up a few random opinions. The subject is essentially an object aware of its ‘objectness’, i.e. it is cognitive of its surroundings, but furthermore the subject is aware of conscious choices. A subject, as a real part of the world, can voluntarily affect other objects.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rosa - Okay... But do you really think people will wonder what I mean (lol) when I say meaning? I can't fault your list, they are all different yet conveyed by the same word... I just don't see that it's a real difficulty, until someone's point is actually totally missed because of the language.

I suppose you just figure it out from context. When I said meaning, you could certainly rule out number 1, for example, just by looking at the context in which it was said.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hop:


The subject is essentially an object aware of its ‘objectness’, i.e. it is cognitive of its surroundings, but furthermore the subject is aware of conscious choices. A subject, as a real part of the world, can voluntarily affect other objects.

Hop, this looks like yet more a priori supescience to me.

Worse, until you tell us what a 'subject' is, not what it can do, your attempt at characterisation is empty.

In that case, you might as well have posted this:


The squiggle is essentially an object aware of its ‘objectness’, i.e. it is cognitive of its surroundings, but furthermore the squiggle is aware of conscious choices. A squiggle as a real part of the world, can voluntarily affect other objects.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn, I am not denying ordinary people do what you say, and typically, but philosophers notoriously do not, and they screw up accordingly.


I suppose you just figure it out from context.

Well, if you could do that it will be because of all the socialisation that has gone on before, and that is largely based on linguistic skills you will already have acquired -- which would make the avenue you suggest circular. [Ie., to understand what is relevant form the surroundings you would need to understand what is said to you, otherwise anything could do. In that case, except in special cases, surroundings cannot help yopu determine meaning.]

To see this, try and make sense a sentence said to you in a foreign language you have never heard before. Except in very special circumsatnces, the surroundings would be no help to you. Until you were socialised in that language, it would be a closed book to you.

Also, think of sentences said to you that have nothing to do with your surroundings; so, if I were to say to you that the Nile is longer than the Thames, your surroundings would not help you understand this. But your socialisation into the English language would.

And that is all to the good, since it locates meaning not in the individual surroundings of acts of communication (or in the atomised 'consciousness' of you or I), but in wider social featues of communal life -- exactly as Marx saw, but as Wittgenstein more precisely brought out.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Yes. Yes, I understand it now. :) Gracias.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn; no probs.

Comrades might like to know that I have just published an Essay on Wittgenstein and Marxism (an updated and much longer version of something I posted on an earlier thread here a month or so ago).

You can read it here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Wittgenstein.htm

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 01:35 PM
I have to agree... Hoopla, the boxing gloves have returned. :(

-Alex
Er, maybe it is better summed as "what it is like to be a..." So that the subjectivity of a bat is "what it is like to be a bat".


it is cognitive of its surroundings, but furthermore the subject is aware of conscious choices. A subject, as a real part of the world, can voluntarily affect other objects.Don't forget Foucault!

I don't see a problem, with the subject ;) , from what you have written. Is it a philosophical or political problem?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


So that the subjectivity of a bat is "what it is like to be a bat".

Unfortunately, Nagel was wrong; there is not such thing as 'what it is like to be a bat'.


Don't forget Foucault!

Yes, his pendulum is quite useful.


Is it a philosophical or political problem?

No, a pseudoproblem.

[Bretty123]

What about problems such as with the word tree, wherein, someone looks to a tree and says that it is like this and like that yet or simply to observe it, yet the person does not understand which tree to view because it is unclear which tree he speaks of? even with this poor example, how can your ideas solve miscommunication in simple ordinary language in this form of context?

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 13 2006, 01:29 AM
Unfortunately, Nagel was wrong; there is not such thing as 'what it is like to be a bat'.


Is it a philosophical or political problem?

No, a pseudoproblem.
More ambuguities, Rosa :unsure: You don't want me reading things into your words again, surely.

Shrug. Maybe you just aren't saying much.



Don't forget Foucault!

Yes, his pendulum is quite useful.
:huh: :unsure:

Foucault describes Satre's subjectivism, as "transcendental narcism" :lol:
(iirc)

Edit: Gotcha!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


You don't want me reading things into your words again, surely.

You do not need any encouragement from me to do that.


Maybe you just aren't saying much.

I say even less when I quote you.


Foucault describes Satre's subjectivism, as "transcendental narcism"
(iirc)

Edit: Gotcha!

He might as well have said "Bu Bu Bu" for all the sense that makes.

Edit: no you haven't.

----------------------------------------------

Bretty:


What about problems such as with the word tree, wherein, someone looks to a tree and says that it is like this and like that yet or simply to observe it, yet the person does not understand which tree to view because it is unclear which tree he speaks of? even with this poor example, how can your ideas solve miscommunication in simple ordinary language in this form of context?

Unless you can pose such a 'problem' in ordinary language, then it isn't a problem (and I defy you to do that).

And this can be said with some confidence, since the word "problem" is already in ordinary language.

Of course, if you are using that word in a new way, you will need to say what that is.

[hoopla]

But you can't say what ordinary language is iirc, so, how are we to know how to word questions. Can you show how bretty's question is meaningless :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop, you use ordinary language every day.

Er, bad example: 99.9% of humanity uses it every day.

So, next time you wonder what ordinary language is, have a listen to these strange beings converse -- especially when they are engaging in collective work, or collectively trying to solve a practical problem.

And then report your findings back to me.

We need just such an outside observer of the human race such as you....


But you can't say what ordinary language is iirc, so, how are we to know how to word questions. Can you show how bretty's question is meaningless

I think he did a good job without my assistance.

As you generally do, too.