You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Talking to Yourself Isn't Crazy, It's Healthy
Disassociating yourself from the situation sound like a great technique. People around me have noticed and pointed out to me that while I seem to be good at giving advice to others, I'm much worse when it comes to myself. This is possibly because I can't assess myself and my own situations as impartially as I can when it comes to others. I will try talking to myself in the third person when thinking about my problems and hopefully it will help me make better choices in the future.
Yeah, objective detachment is what I call it. Don't subjectively view things through your personal wants, wishes, desire and predilections alone, but look at the situation objectively that considers a wider view that merely a subjective, purely selfish, self-interested or self-concerned perspective of being the only one (solipsism). Not that this is an "absolute" "pure" "objective detachment" lol.
Here is where your "purist" view of defining things gets troublesome. As you might always object to any use of the word that validly applies simply because it;s not some rigid absolute definition. We would need to create more words to apply them specifically to reality, rather than meaning that apply in various ways and don't restrict it to one specific thing. I would say get real and accept that this is how the language currently is, and you're not going to get your absolute perfect definitions that apply to only one thing. Maybe sometimes, but not often. I look to make sense of reality as reflected through words, and understand how the words apply as reflection of reality through how we use them. Word symbols are an improvement upon pictographic symbols that convey many factors more of potential interpretations and meanings. I think Sanskrit was the most elaborated word symbol language that tried to create words for each application, while English and other languages have one word that applies in many ways.
Again, you probably disagree with my use of the word objective :P, but that's because I understand the comparative difference and can use it in applicable ways that you seem to limit yourself from using. Maybe the other post with the link to my post on objective subjective defined will help hehe. I'm not just straw manning in case you do object, explaining more on objectivity.
Everything we do, is from the position of our subjective consciousness. From that perspective, you can say every single thing we say or do or think or claim, is purely "subjective", rich renders nothing at all objective because everything is simply "subjective" in that fallacious mindset. So then there is no way to use the work objective, and nothing ins objective. Hence why some people don't know how to think properly, and become subjectivists yet don't realize how they fooled themselves into misunderstanding reality and deny what is. I've met quite a few left-brain imbalanced and right-brain imbalanced people who think like this, subjectivism and solipsism, hyper-doubt yet sometimes also hyper-open-minded lol. It's weird and funny and frustrating lol to deal with that type of thinker. I end up going in circles.
I would say all kinds of views break down in the face of solipsism, hard solipsism has no real solution that I'm aware of. You won't see me arguing otherwise.
I don't think I have an unrealistic view of language and I really like the saying "words are not magic". It's up to us to define and agree on usages that are useful in certain contexts. Of course words are fluid and their meanings change and differ in different communication situations. When I get nitpicky about a definition, it's not the word I care about, it's the depth of understanding that we can have and might be implied in a particular term, I care about the concept.
Does the fact that perfection is not attainable need to dissuade us from trying to better our concepts and definitions when we can? I do think more reliable definitions are a good basis for deeper and more accurate understanding, that's why I might end up advocating for them.
I'm not so sure about that. I haven't noticed that much of a difference actually. We might disagree on how objective certain approaches are, but I don't think we use the word that differently or at least I haven't noticed the dissimilarity yet :P Judging from your post on the topic, I think we approach it with a similar sentiment. Where we might differ in our evaluation might be the implications to how we should approach some things.
I absolutely agree. While we have no way to decisively demonstrate that the reality we seem to share is indeed real and even that other people are real separate agents, we accept it out of necessity - it's the only reality we have access to after all. But when we accept that and go past that, when we accept that other people are real, we can start establishing some claims that are more objective than other. With time and effort the level of objectiveness in our understanding and concepts builds and I think we should strive for than. Sure, 100% objectivity might be hard, but I see no reason not try and get as close as we can. I simply don't see any utility in going from solipsism or pure subjectivism and it looks like we are in agreement here.