The appositeness of your metaphor is entirely a matter of
opinion, i.e. entirely subjective.
>The story so far- (as far as I can tell- I am not a philosophy major,
>never was, never will be. Just kant do it. Speak english, troops.)
>
>Objective- The thermometer reads 22C.
OK
>Subjective- I'll think I'll go out and read on the porch.
Maybe, but a better example would be: The thermometer
appears to read 22C. Which, of course, is almost certainly
a more accurate rendering of the previous statement.
>Objectivity- Phoebe might be out on her porch today, I'll say hi....
Speculation about objectivity, followed by decision.
(Decisions are not, in themselves, either subjective
or objective.)
>Subjectivity- I wonder if this is warm to Phoebe?
Speculative intersubjectivity.
>Inter-subjectivity- Only Phoebe and I (and maybe that guy over there in
>the shorts, but is he actually there?) think this is warm, at least she's
>told me so, and I'm pretty sure I think this is warm- but who knows
>anything really?
Looks like an attempt to rubbish intersubjectivity.
Not worth taking seriously.
>So, my question is still- where is the non-objectness of subjectivity? If
>we're only talking of definitions within a philosophically determined and
>narrow range, well, pish-tosh.
Either you prefer your concepts to be clear, or you don't.
Those who are more interested in defending a position in
which they have made an investment, than in reaching
understanding, often find confusion to be very useful.
Subjectivity and objectivity are opposites, by definition.
And in practice: consciousness will never be found by
neuroscience. Correlates of consciousness, yes, but the
thing itself, no. It does not exist in the objective
world, being rather that for which the objective world
exists.
>I am a reductionist, and proud of it. If you relegate subjectivity to
>some realm outside of the objective- then where is it? And in what way is
>your explanation not supernatural?
It can as easily be argued that objectivity exists inside
subjectivity, as vice versa. But I think it's more like
a Klein (?) bottle. And I think the onus is on you to
show in what way my position is supernatural, as I have
not mentioned God, or the soul, or such, even once. And
just saying "if it's not materialist then it's
supernatural" will not cut much ice.
>And, while philosophical jargon is nice, it fails to get out of its box
>and pick a set of clothes for the weather.
Materialism is metaphysics too, you know, and is no better
than any other metaphysical stance in helping choose
appropriate clothes for the weather.
-- Robin