Well, there is some ambiguity here to deal with about subjecthood, but, on second thought, it seems logic alone is sufficent to answer the question:
If only a person can have subjecthood, and God is not a person, then the answer is no. And if God is everything that can (truly) be said of the world, but it can't (truly) be said of the world that it possesses subjecthood, as seems to be the case, then the answer is also no. And if you meant [i]anything at all[/I] that can be said of the world, then that leads to contradiction, so the answer would be no in this case as well.
So, if I'm interpreting you correctly, and my reasoning is sound, then the answer is no.
Nice analysis. Yet, most religions, perhaps excluding Judaism, talk about God as a person or as if "It" was a subject residing in the world instead of treating "It" as everything that is the case. Why is that?
Nice analysis. Yet, most religions, perhaps excluding Judaism, talk about God as a person or as if "It" was a subject residing in the world instead of treating "It" as everything that is the case. Why is that?
Thanks. It's an irrational emotional attachment. They want something which they can relate to.
Pattern-chaserDecember 30, 2018 at 15:51#2418370 likes
It's an irrational emotional attachment. They want something which they can relate to.
It's worth remembering that this topic is not about God, but whether a particular word - "subjecthood" - might apply to God. We might as usefully ask whether a dog or a martian is adequately described by "subjecthood".... :chin:
It's worth remembering that this topic is not about God, but whether a particular word - "subjecthood" - might apply to God. We might as usefully ask whether a dog or a martian is adequately described by "subjecthood".... :chin:
You're right, it's not really about God at all, it's about everything that can be said about the world or everything that is the case, and if we can call that "God", then it's virtually anything goes. You might just as well call your toaster "God" if that floats your boat.
If we assume that God is not a person and is everything that can be said about the world, then does God posses 'subjecthood'?
Your assumption sounds an awful lot like Spinoza declining to project our sense of agency upon the element that created it. In Spinoza's case, he was expelled from his congregation for not accepting the "I am that I am" as something that was said by some entity.
I'm not sure. I think that my assertion isn't really that different from claiming that God is not something that can be talked about. "It" (God) has no subject because he transcends the subject-object distinction. Therefore, some form of quietism is apt when wanting to "talk" about God. Of course, there's a paradox here because I am talking about God; but, it can be interpreted as babble, along with what anyone else would want to say something about God.
Harry HinduDecember 31, 2018 at 13:08#2420390 likes
If we assume that God is not a person and is everything that can be said about the world, then does God posses 'subjecthood'?
Yeah, I interpret this as babble. It would be more coherent to ask if God is an object. If God is the world then God is an object.
As I mentioned in the other thread we can dispense with these terms, "subject" and "subjective" and get by just fine. It seems to me that it is the use of those terms that causes the confusion.
Pattern-chaserDecember 31, 2018 at 13:16#2420410 likes
we can dispense with these terms, "subject" and "subjective" and get by just fine. It seems to me that it is the use of those terms that cause the confusion.
:up:
Terrapin StationJanuary 02, 2019 at 15:52#2425020 likes
As I mentioned in the other thread we can dispense with these terms, "subject" and "subjective" and get by just fine. It seems to me that it is the use of those terms that causes the confusion.
I think it's a handy term for referring to mind-dependent or mind-oriented rather than mind-independent or extramental etc.
Deleted UserJanuary 02, 2019 at 16:44#2425120 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Harry HinduJanuary 02, 2019 at 20:33#2425600 likes
I think it's a handy term for referring to mind-dependent or mind-oriented rather than mind-independent or extramental etc.
If your saying that subjectivity is a feature of minds, then how is that any different than talking about the features of some other process or thing in reality? Everything has distinctive features that make them different from other things. Subjectivity would be no more special than some other feature of reality, and would be a subset of reality (the objective).
Reply to Wallows As I interpret it 'subjecthood' implicates the attributes of awareness, knowledge, intelligence, intention, purposeful motivation, concern and action, and self-reflective awareness, knowledge, intelligence, intention, purposeful motivation, concern and action.
Do these sound like attributes which are normally predicated of God?
Terrapin StationJanuary 02, 2019 at 23:23#2426050 likes
If your saying that subjectivity is a feature of minds, then how is that any different than talking about the features of some other process or thing in reality? Everything has distinctive features that make them different from other things. Subjectivity would be no more special than some other feature of reality, and would be a subset of reality (the objective).
I use the terms "subjective" and "objective" to refer to whether something is a mental phenomenon or not. Is that understandable?
Do these sound like attributes which are normally predicated of God?
Yes, they do sound like attributes we ascribe to God.
Harry HinduJanuary 03, 2019 at 00:24#2426240 likes
Reply to Terrapin Station Right, so you're saying that mental phenomena are special where they deserve a special term while all other phenomena fall into the other category. What I've been saying is that there is nothing special about mental phenomenon that would require me to use a special term for it.
I wouldn't say "special" necessarily, but there's a need sometimes to refer to a distinction between "mind-dependent" or "mind-oriented" rather than "mind-independent" or "extramental" etc, and those terms, especially "mind-independent" and the like, can read pretty cumbersomely if you have to write them a lot..
It would be similar to if we often had occasion to refer to whether something is loudspeaker-dependent versus loudspeaker-independent. Less cumbersome words would be handy in that case. Who wants to keep writing or reading "loudspeaker-independent"?
Harry HinduJanuary 03, 2019 at 01:25#2426340 likes
Reply to Terrapin Station Right, so just use "mental" to refer to mental phenomena and "loudspeaker" to refer to loudspeaker phenomena, "stellar" to refer to stellar phenomena, etc. Using a term to distinguish between one phenomena and all others implies that there is something special about that particular phenomena when all phenomena are different, or distinguishable, in some way.
Perhaps I should mention that in the Judeo-Christian traditions God most often has qualities of subjecthood. I don't know many religions that ascribe meaning onto God without giving him or her or it some qualitative manner...
When I think about god I think about how 0 represents infinity and so does 8. Two iterations of the exact same
Thing. It’s coincidental as well that the Roman Catholic religion claims that the world was made in seven days. and that there happens to be 7 numbers between 0 and 8. I guess if there was a true god he/she/they/it would encompass all the numbers 0 to 8. This leads me to the question was god asleep and having nightmares when the snake snuck into the garden of Eden to tempt eve. Or was this whole good versus evil thing meant to get the wheel turning and force is to overcome our limits and evolve?
Terrapin StationJanuary 03, 2019 at 11:52#2427150 likes
Again, there's often reason to refer to mental versus nonmental, and I don't think there's anything wrong with having synonyms.
Harry HinduJanuary 03, 2019 at 14:04#2427390 likes
Reply to Terrapin Station I don't see any reason to make that kind of distinction. List one example when it would be a good reason to use those terms where you couldn't use more specific, and therefore more accurate, terms.
Like I said, you can use "mental" to make the distinction between mental and non-mental, just like you use "loudspeaker" to distinguish between loudspeaker and nonloudspeaker.
All you are doing is attributing something special to mental phenomena where they deserve this special category where all other phenomena don't.
Terrapin StationJanuary 03, 2019 at 16:25#2427660 likes
If I'm understanding you correctly you asking is God a thing, If not a person. If I'm understanding correctly then you frist need to answer the question what constitutes a thing.
Comments (34)
@Banno what do you think?
Talk about a gross overgeneralization! Or not...
Humor--How does it work?
Well, there is some ambiguity here to deal with about subjecthood, but, on second thought, it seems logic alone is sufficent to answer the question:
If only a person can have subjecthood, and God is not a person, then the answer is no. And if God is everything that can (truly) be said of the world, but it can't (truly) be said of the world that it possesses subjecthood, as seems to be the case, then the answer is also no. And if you meant [i]anything at all[/I] that can be said of the world, then that leads to contradiction, so the answer would be no in this case as well.
So, if I'm interpreting you correctly, and my reasoning is sound, then the answer is no.
Nice analysis. Yet, most religions, perhaps excluding Judaism, talk about God as a person or as if "It" was a subject residing in the world instead of treating "It" as everything that is the case. Why is that?
Thanks. It's an irrational emotional attachment. They want something which they can relate to.
It's worth remembering that this topic is not about God, but whether a particular word - "subjecthood" - might apply to God. We might as usefully ask whether a dog or a martian is adequately described by "subjecthood".... :chin:
You're right, it's not really about God at all, it's about everything that can be said about the world or everything that is the case, and if we can call that "God", then it's virtually anything goes. You might just as well call your toaster "God" if that floats your boat.
No. From the OP:
Quoting Wallows
It's about a word, and whether that word applies to God. So does it? :chin:
Whoosh.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I've already answered. :brow:
Your assumption sounds an awful lot like Spinoza declining to project our sense of agency upon the element that created it. In Spinoza's case, he was expelled from his congregation for not accepting the "I am that I am" as something that was said by some entity.
Is your question different from that dispute?
I'm not sure. I think that my assertion isn't really that different from claiming that God is not something that can be talked about. "It" (God) has no subject because he transcends the subject-object distinction. Therefore, some form of quietism is apt when wanting to "talk" about God. Of course, there's a paradox here because I am talking about God; but, it can be interpreted as babble, along with what anyone else would want to say something about God.
Yeah, I interpret this as babble. It would be more coherent to ask if God is an object. If God is the world then God is an object.
As I mentioned in the other thread we can dispense with these terms, "subject" and "subjective" and get by just fine. It seems to me that it is the use of those terms that causes the confusion.
:up:
I think it's a handy term for referring to mind-dependent or mind-oriented rather than mind-independent or extramental etc.
If your saying that subjectivity is a feature of minds, then how is that any different than talking about the features of some other process or thing in reality? Everything has distinctive features that make them different from other things. Subjectivity would be no more special than some other feature of reality, and would be a subset of reality (the objective).
Do these sound like attributes which are normally predicated of God?
I use the terms "subjective" and "objective" to refer to whether something is a mental phenomenon or not. Is that understandable?
Yes, they do sound like attributes we ascribe to God.
I wouldn't say "special" necessarily, but there's a need sometimes to refer to a distinction between "mind-dependent" or "mind-oriented" rather than "mind-independent" or "extramental" etc, and those terms, especially "mind-independent" and the like, can read pretty cumbersomely if you have to write them a lot..
It would be similar to if we often had occasion to refer to whether something is loudspeaker-dependent versus loudspeaker-independent. Less cumbersome words would be handy in that case. Who wants to keep writing or reading "loudspeaker-independent"?
Perhaps I should mention that in the Judeo-Christian traditions God most often has qualities of subjecthood. I don't know many religions that ascribe meaning onto God without giving him or her or it some qualitative manner...
Thing. It’s coincidental as well that the Roman Catholic religion claims that the world was made in seven days. and that there happens to be 7 numbers between 0 and 8. I guess if there was a true god he/she/they/it would encompass all the numbers 0 to 8. This leads me to the question was god asleep and having nightmares when the snake snuck into the garden of Eden to tempt eve. Or was this whole good versus evil thing meant to get the wheel turning and force is to overcome our limits and evolve?
Again, there's often reason to refer to mental versus nonmental, and I don't think there's anything wrong with having synonyms.
Like I said, you can use "mental" to make the distinction between mental and non-mental, just like you use "loudspeaker" to distinguish between loudspeaker and nonloudspeaker.
All you are doing is attributing something special to mental phenomena where they deserve this special category where all other phenomena don't.
It's just a synonym for "mental" or "mind-sourced."
You don't have a problem with saying that something is a mental phenomenon, do you?