Can you help me come up with a situalion that is similiar to this one but different?
Question by Ryan Tyhurst: Can you help me come up with a situalion that is similiar to this one but different?
For instance, I might say, had I jumped forward from medieval times and had never seen a TV
before, that it appeared that there was a very tiny man behind a very tiny desk trapped behind the glass
presenting to me the evening news. This would be my subjective conception of it, formed only from my
observations without any outside reflection on it. Stepping outside of that, reflecting on what is
happening, and researching a bit in to modern technology, I would come to find out about video cameras
and how television shows were broadcast. This would be my objective conception of it. I could also say,
objectively, that, while at first appearance it did understandably seem to be a tiny man and desk trapped
behind glass, I am now sure that it is not. In this way the objective viewpoint obviously trumps the
subjective viewpoint, while still explaining how the subjective viewpoint would be arrived at.
Best answer:
Answer by Daniel
This is loosely described as a form of Anachronism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism
That being said, lets do the rest:
“I am now sure that it is not. In this way the objective viewpoint obviously trumps the
subjective viewpoint, while still explaining how the subjective viewpoint would be arrived at.”
This idea and your ideas related to Universal through objective understanding is very greek in origin including the anachronism. I’ll use Plato to help us grasp at what you’re talking about. The naive man perceived a Particular representation of knowledge. After critical inquiry he arrived at the truth, but his previous representation allowed him a degree of understanding while still incorrect. After achieving a universal he’s able to see the tv for what it really is.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good
and read Plato’s dialogues.
***
You should stray away from using the terms objective and subjective in your arguments. It’s often too general of terms to describe how we come to know something. It also may give you trouble later on in reading Philosophy. e.g. Dualism has issues with interactionism and Physicalism has it’s own with qualia. It’s important to at least understand what each school are talking about. Going too far with objective and subjective can lead to biases.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!