Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Subject–object problem - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blue Mist 1 (talk | contribs) at 02:39, 13 May 2015 (→Subject–object problem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:39, 13 May 2015 by Blue Mist 1 (talk | contribs) (→Subject–object problem)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Subject–object problem

AfDs for this article:
Subject–object problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy point 6 disallows articles "that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes …" Misplaced Pages:No original research states that 'original research' includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." This article is a synthesis of many different 'subject object' problems, mostly unrelated, and the material in it already exists in other parts of the encyclopedia. I have been unable to locate the term as referring to any single problem in the literature, or with an established unambiguously understood use. Peter Damian (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • delete. I tagged it a long time ago with the quotation tag but I see that has not been fixed. It is still just a long list of quotations, whether inline or broken out into paragraphs, as if someone has done a google search then just copied and pasted the results rather than trying to write an article based on them. There is as far as I can see no encyclopaedic content on the actual subject. At no place do the quotations stop and actual content begin. So there's nothing to salvage and after years in this state it looks like it will never be fixed.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 19:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as nominator.Peter Damian (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • comment looking for anything salvageable I looked through the history for a version before the large scale addition of quotes commenced. It still is far from perfect but at least seems much closer to an acceptable article than the assembly of quotes that it was before nomination, so I updated the article from it.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 21:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • comment I don't think it is appropriate for the article under consideration to be completely replaced in the midst of a deletion hearing by some earlier version as done by Blackburne. Accordingly I have put back the version under review. Brews ohare (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • the AfD notice, which you have just removed, says 'Feel free to edit the article' which I did with the straightforward purpose of showing editors a more acceptable version. There is no prohibition on editing an article while it up for deletion, and it actively encouraged if editors think they can address concerns raised in the deletion discussion.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 21:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I replaced the deletion banner, as seems appropriate. However, a blanket replacement of the disputed article by a version from June 2012 seems extreme. Brews ohare (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article is well sourced and provides a very complete coverage of this subject as defined in its lede and first subsection. Charges of WP:OR or WP:SYN, policies that counter WP editors presenting unsupported conclusions or opinions of their own, are misplaced because there is nothing in this article of that kind. The idea that a philosophy term can be expected to have "an established unambiguously understood use" can be taken only with a smile. In any event, any doubt about the widespread discussion of this topic is dispelled by a Google book search for the exact wording "subject-object problem" (5440 hits) or Google scholar. As it is, the article has stood pretty much in its present form for several years with only minor changes. This sudden decision to delete it has appeared from nowhere. The reasons given, there being too many quotations, and that it appears to be a cut-and-paste job, are insubstantial and do not challenge the content as containing specific passages that are misleading, incomplete, or erroneous in some way. If there are objections to particular portions of this article, they can be addressed on its talk page in the manner usually adopted for handling revision suggestions. Brews ohare (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • comment Yes let's look at Google scholar. This returns (a) the subject object problem in architecture, (b) in anthropology (c) subject and object in Mandarin (d) a sociology article (e) "The deep structure of adjectives in noun phrases" (f) a paper about "dominance-submission economy of the sexes within the patriarchy", (g) theory of class consciousness. It should be obvious that these are all entirely different subjects, and different meanings and contexts of the same term. It does not imply that there is a single 'subject object' problem to which the same department or journal or historical study could be devoted. It's rather like googling the word 'and' and writing an article about 'and', based on the returns. Pure synthesis. Peter Damian (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the relevance of this comment is that avoiding the "obvious...entirely different subjects" is an unlikely skill unless you have an expert background and I guess the claim is that did not happen with this article. Of course, such an expert could provide expert guidance to improve the article, pointing out what specifics appear to be violations of WP:SYNTH. That could lead to improvements, but it would involve engagement rather than pronouncements. Brews ohare (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't take an expert to see that this article is just the same as what one might find on some self-important personal internet page circa the 1990s. I'm sure you thought it was really fun to stitch together all these ideas into one piece, but Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be about this kind of amalgamation. Copy the content and publish it elsewhere where original research is allowed. jps (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
jps: Your challenge is that this article is an "amalgamation", which I would take to mean a collection of unrelated tidbits. If that is so, you should be able to provide an example where this occurs. Can you do that? Brews ohare (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
No source is connected to any other source, essentially. No source mentions any of the other sources. jps (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
WP policy does not require sources to be mentioned by other sources, although that might indicate the importance of a source to the community. It is a requirement that the purpose of a source in relation to the text be clear, for example, that the source supports the WP text, or amplifies the text by providing more detail. I believe this kind of connection is present for all sources cited. If that is not so, perhaps you can supply an instance? Brews ohare (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
You are in violation of WP:SYNTH. That's the end of it. This has typically been your problem at this website. It is why you are banned from editing certain other articles. jps (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
jps: It would be helpful if you could elaborate upon your finding of a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and what you mean by "sourcing without coherence". So far as I can see, the sourcing is used to identify the origin of various points of view and various quotations. I do not see any conclusions or opinions that are not those of cited reputable publications. Maybe your objection is that the article structure lacks cohesion, which would be a call for some reorganization rather than deletion? Brews ohare (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You have no secondary sources which connect all your disparate sources. If this is a standard idea in philosophy, surely you could point to one source that would connect a few of the mishmash of quotes you stitched together. If you can't do that, then you are simply doing something that is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. jps (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
jps: Thanks for your reply. You request a single source that connects the quotes together. However, if more than one quote attaches to the same point, I see no need to find another source that connects the two. I don't see why two quotes supporting the same point need to be referred to by yet another source just to make clear that two different authors commented in their own way upon the same issue. For example, this section contains a quote from Velmans and another from Malpas that provide these two authors' definitions of subjective and objective. I don't think we need an additional source that says "Velmans said this and Malpas said that.." There may be instances where the connection of a quotation to the gist of the article is unclear, or there is some non sequitur, and if there are any such examples, they should be corrected. Perhaps you can point out some cases? Brews ohare (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The burden is on you to show that you aren't committing WP:SYNTH. You have not met that burden. You are simply arguing that different authors who have no connection to one another are connected simply by their commentary on superficially similar ideas -- ideas connected only in your mind and not found connected in reliable sources. This is just not what Misplaced Pages is for. jps (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
jps: It is not the authors that have to be connected, but their subject: in this case their definitions of the topic. The notion that their definitions in this instance are only superficially connected ideas is mistaken, as you will rapidly discover if you read their complete discussions linked in the article. WP policy is that one must provide a source for a statement when it is challenged, and obviously that requires the challenge to specify the difficulty so it can be responded to by a correction or addition of a source. Read WP:SECONDARY to check that this article is in compliance with WP policy. Brews ohare (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You've included syntax and aesthetics in the same article as though these two are connected. I don't see any source that connects them. jps (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out an instance where syntax and/or aesthetics are presented without connection to the subject-object problem? Brews ohare (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not how you demonstrate two subjects are connected. You are arguing something along the lines of if source A and source B both use the same vocabularly, they must be connected. That's just not true. jps (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This editor comes from a weird modernist approach to philosophy as can be seen from his references in this supposed philosophical "problem," or in other supposed philosophical "problem" pages he has created, such as the Dilemma of determinism page (Just go through the talk page discussion with this editor there, if you have the time for it). All these pages articles, which all refer to the same type of fringe modernist philosophy websites and references, should all be deleted. From a serious traditional philosophical point of view, all these supposed "problems" and "issues" are just a waste of time, in my view. warshy 17:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Warshy: One might conclude without more detail from you that Thomas Nagel, Evan Thompson, Francisco Varela, Stephen Pinker, and I don't know how many others (maybe Immanuel Kant and Ludwig Wittgenstein?) are exponents of a "weird modern approach" to this subject. Brews ohare (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are several issues confounded here. The subject-object topic is fundamental to philosophy and to the philosophical understanding of modern science. It is most succinctly developed in the section on the nature of perception in Plato's Theaetetus, which claims that perception and its objects, as well as its subjects are all subjective! 'Real' objects are later developed elsewhere from mixed perceptions and cognition. Unfortunately, Plato is still at least decades ahead of the current literature, and the topic is strongly counter-intuitive, so that it is more properly discussed only in a formal philosophical setting.
In this article, everything past the lead paragraph is worse than worthless, as has been pointed out above. The list of people and the quotes of ignorance only illustrates the confusion, and serves to muddy an extremely complex topic. Switching from subject-object to subjective-objective makes things even worse. BlueMist (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You might have a look at the version I restored it to, from before it became a ÷dumping ground for search results, is acceptable or at least more easily salvageable.JohnBlackburnedeeds 23:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Blue Mist: It's a bit harsh on modern philosophers to say they haven't added much but confusion since Plato, if that is your position. Brews ohare (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not what I said, nor is that my position. Modern philosophers have made huge strides, but not on this topic. Look at the SEP article on ~ BlueMist (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Deletion is an inappropriate measure: Deletion of the article is not the right way to handle claims of policy violations, of "incoherence", and of a "weird modernist approach". Specific instances of policy violations, or incoherencies, or weirdness should be identified on the article talk page, and dealt with individually. Blanket deletion based on unsupported, non-specific, vague reservations is not a constructive response. Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I have unbolded the initial part of your comment as it looked like a second !vote and you only get to !vote once.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there are valid past versions, it's obvious that one should revert to them, not delete the article! (otherwise someone can mess a good article and then the article will be deleted?!? LOL?!?) My opinion is that all these quotes should be moved to https://en.wikiquote.org/, and that this is a notable theme, and that instead of wasting time in this debate (not a voting, it seems...), the editors involved should start to work towards saving this (even if they have not worked on it before, because it's disrespectful and a great inconsiderateness, even evilness to erase the works of others -- this is not the attitude of true Wikipedians, the ones that prefer to improve things). Sincerely, Thetootpoem (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that if there are objections to quotations, that is certainly not a basis for reversion of the article. I put a lot of verbatim quotes into this article because I wanted to assure the readers that what was said was a true reflection of what authors had to say about the subject, and not some crackpot WP editor's point of view. And, of course, the quotations often were more eloquently stated than my own writing. The upshot from the assembled is that this form of presentation is actually more controversial than just paraphrasing these authors and risking WP:SYN. In fact, the suggestion is made that such extended verbatim quotes from authors is a form of WP:SYN, as if I were putting words in their mouths instead of letting the authors speak for themselves. I find this view to be an alarming misreading of policy.
There is no "better" version to appeal to, and although Blackburne has suggested going back to the article as it was before my first edit, I am pretty confident that he is not going to engage in any rewrites. I undertook rewriting this article at the suggestion of MachineElf several years ago because this article was in terrible shape. Page traffic greatly increased afterwards (compare with May 2012), exceeding that for Mind-body problem. There was no hue and cry about these changes until now, and over time and still today, no-one has exhibited any inclination to actually do some work. If there are volunteers, they can go to the article talk page and begin proposing changes. Brews ohare (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not always referred to as the "Subject-object problem" (it is often referred to as "Subject/Object Dichotomy", as well as other similar constructs), this article covers a valid philosophical issue and as such should remain. There is even a pretty extensive discussion about this in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ormr2014 | Talk  — Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • comment where does SEP refer explicitly to the "Subject/Object Dichotomy"? Can you point me to other reliable secondary sources separate from other existing subjects, such as mind body problem? It might be resolved by a disambiguating page, of course. Peter Damian (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems Damian, that you persist in the belief that the term "subject-object problem" is an invention of WP. However, we do have Cassirer's The subject-object problem, Letorsky's The subject-object problem in epistemology, Dourley's discussion of Tillich and Eckhart on the subject-object problem John Dewey Kosaka's statement: "There has been a longstanding issue, the subject-object problem in the history of philosophy. The problem arose from the premise that the universe or world consists of objects or entities perceived by subjects or observers."
I think you can convince yourself that this subject is not an invention, nor is it identical with or subsumed by the mind-body problem. Brews ohare (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course Cassirer is discussing a subject-object problem. As are grammarians who are concerned about grammatical subjects and objects. Where is the subject-object problem? This is just one more example of WP:COMPETENCE. Peter Damian (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I would be happy with subject-object problem (aesthetics) or subject-object problem (linguistics), by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess you are happy with this kind of verbal sparring. I'm not. Cassirer is not limiting the subject-object problem to aesthetics or linguistics. And neither are the rest of these authors. Brews ohare (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • comment The question is how do you jump from Cassirer straight to Kosaka and information Technology. There is no such bridge or connection yet made in traditional, step-by-step philosophy. Only in your new-fangled websites such a supposed "bridge" or "connection" exists. Philosphy is still thinking the problem methodically, and until some real philosophers get to the IT stage, there is no point in wasting WP time with this type of pseudo-philosophy. In my view, at least. warshy 18:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete its clear synthesis, an essay written by an undergraduate based on what they are interested in, or have found on the web rather than an encyclopaedia entry ----Snowded 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Why should we accept the opinion of editors that do not employ sources or analysis, do not address any specific portions of the article but castigate it in its entirety, and rely entirely upon their personal coronation as "experts" for credibility? Brews ohare (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as synthesis per Snowded. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentThis has been discussed in the works of Plato, Kant, Hegel, and many other major philosophers... Come on, just fully reference the introduction and save this article (keywords for Google Scholar: "subject object relation(s)", "issue", etc)... WP:TNT doesn't apply here because the introduction is okay, and one doesn't erase an article just because there are bad parts. Discuss with the others if what is below the introduction should or should not be removed (and if most agree that it should, then accept it). It's a simple procedure to save this article from deletion (but I won't do it because I don't edit Philosophy articles). 189.6.192.138 (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The idea that there is some sort of monolithic "subject-object problem" in philosophy is not a claim that has been established. Sure, philosophers talk about subject-object relationships, but the idea of a "problem" is one that has a very particular meaning in philosophy and it is basically an invention of Misplaced Pages to claim that it exists as such. jps (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Links have been provided already to Cassirer and others who discuss the subject-object problem. One would think that a list of such occurrences would dispel the notion that this is a non-subject, or as Damian has suggested earlier, one restricted to the philosophy of art or aesthetics, but apparently not. One can weed this Google book search to find many more instances. The article Subject-object problem has many as well. Brews ohare (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. There does not seem to be a revision of the article that is not OR by synthesis to revert back to. If a properly sourced article can be written that identifies, in philosophy, the "subject-object problem", then we can write an article based on those sources. But WP:TNT until then. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The idea that it is a violation of WP:SYN to support text by citing WP:SECONDARY sources is a strange but widespread misconception. WP:SYN counsels that one should avoid making assertions or conclusion that are not found in secondary sources, not to avoid secondary sources. The article Subject-object problem makes no such unsupported assertions and draws no such unsupported conclusions. (A contrary belief is easily supported by pointing out any such offending items in the article.) It may be that Sławomir Biały has other sources in mind — he is free to add them, or that he supports some sourced opinion that is not mentioned — he can add that. Sławomir Biały also seems to think that the topic Subject-object problem has not been related to a proper philosophy source which seems to indicate a failure to read the article. Brews ohare (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Despite your reassurances to the contrary, the article is most certainly a novel synthesis of sources. I don't know where you get the idea that we should avoid secondary sources. Indeed, we should summarize secondary sources. A non-original research template for an article like this would go something like "According to X, the subject-object problem concerns Y, where they discuss that project blue brain is relevant because Z." It's really alarming that an experienced Misplaced Pages would claim otherwise, and this post just looks like Wikilawyering to me. Let me focus on just a small example of this. The following paragraph, for instance:
"Some subjective personal experiences have aspects that fall squarely into the realm of objective fact, and have implications that can be objectively verified. An example is the experience of pain, an entirely subjective matter, but one that sometimes (but not invariably) can be related to the objectively observable operation of receptors, communication channels and brain activity. The consequence is that the subjective sense of pain is sometimes empirically connected to observable events, but the fundamental experience of pain itself is subjective. Other examples are addiction and psychological disorders. Besides the subjective and objective aspects, one may discuss the mechanisms connecting subjective experiences and objective observables, and the role of programming upon these connections, such as psychiatric treatment, conditioning, and evolutionary limits."
David R Soderquist (2002). Sensory Processes. SAGE. p. 110. ISBN 0761923330. Pain is always subjective
Here the reference is to Soderquist, a neurology textbook having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article. In fact, the relevant quotation from Soderquist is "Pain is always subjective." We are going from a single pithy statement by an author to an entire paragraph of original conclusions pertaining to the subject of the article. Now that's clear original research. The rest of the article follows the same pattern: quote some peripherally relevant text, and draw conclusions from it (usually in Misplaced Pages's voice). Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Sławomir Biały: Thank you for undertaking discussion of something specific in this article. I think it is clear that the gist of the paragraph is that pain is an example of a subjective experience with objectively observable correlates in some cases. This discussion appears in a sub-section titled Subjective-objective correlations, and seems to fit under that header. I would take it that in your opinion this entire sub-section is irrelevant to the article Subject-object problem. I'd argue that it is indeed relevant, because of its relevance to things like the hard problem of consciousness. The basic issue of course is whether things like pain are "nothing more" than the associated correlates in the brain/body or if the conscious perception of such things is something "extra and apart". Perhaps you feel this topic lies outside the subject-object problem, but then you seem to doubt there is such a problem at all, apparently doubting that there exist "some definitive accounts of this problem in philosophy". In any event, I'd suggest that deletion of the article is not a reasonable way to handle such a discussion, which should be done on the article talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
To this I would add that even if it were the case that this topic is peripheral to the "subject-object problem", its supposed lack of relevance provides no basis for invoking WP:SYN or WP:OR as grounds for dismissal of this section. You can of course challenge particular statements in the paragraph, which according to WP policy then would require further sourcing. But until such a challenge occurs and it is found the challenge cannot be met, there is still no occurrence of WP:OR or WP:SYN. So, again, if there are statements here you wish to challenge, that should be done on the article talk page, and is not a grounds for deletion. Brews ohare (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
If an article is OR by SYNTH, that can be a grounds for deletion. As I said, the whole article consists of quotes from peripherally related sources on disparate topics, with the text then drawing conclusions from and making a narrative out of those quotes. If there is some core part of the article that is not original research, please state plainly where that part is. Failing this, deletion is indeed a possible outcome (per WP:DEL#6). Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
However, so far we have only assertions and no evidence of WP:OR or WP:SYN. The need is to identify violations, and more than that, that they are beyond repair and so egregious the article cannot be repaired and must be deleted. That is not the case. Moreover, there are indications that objections so far are more about the style than the content. Or, in your case, about inclusion of material you do not think germane, despite your lament that there is no clear idea of what the topic is. Brews ohare (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I gave you evidence of WP:OR, which you dismissed because I hadn't tagged it and taken it to the discussion page. Yet, the entire article consists of synthesis of a similar style. "Or, in your case, about inclusion of material you do not think germane, despite your lament that there is no clear idea of what the topic is." No, I didn't say this. I said that the sources used in the article do not define the subject of the article. Instead, the very subject of the article has been constructed as a synthesis of those sources. For example, the entire first section has this character. None of the sources addresses the "subject-object problem" as such. Instead, various different ideas have been combined under the heading of "subject-object dichotomy". Do any of these sources refer to a "dichotomy"? Do any authors assert that project blue brain is relevant to the "subject-object dichotomy"? Do any authors hold the view that the hard problem of consciousness is relevant to the "subject-object dichotomy"? Or is Misplaced Pages making this synthetic claim? Similarly, the entire section "Model assessment", beginning with the first paragraph, is OR. Do Davies or Popper or Kuhn discuss "model assessment" in relation to the "subject-object problem"? Or is this a synthetic claim being made in Misplaced Pages's voice? Etc. So, I ask again, rather than have me go through the article and file the same critique against every part of it, please identify the part of the article that is not WP:OR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Sławomir Biały: You say "I gave you evidence of WP:OR, which you dismissed". No, what you actually did, contrary to your description of it, was to challenge one paragraph in the article as insufficiently sourced. I suggested that if you took this challenge to the Talk page I would undertake to find sources for those assertions you wanted sources for. If I could not meet the challenge, I said, then WP:OR would require their alteration or removal.
The remainder of your comment is not about WP:OR but a complaint that the material in Subject-object problem does not fit your idea of the subject. You would allow, I guess, that the article does have to do with what Kosaka says exists as a " "longstanding issue, the subject-object problem in the history of philosophy. The problem arose from the premise that the universe or world consists of objects or entities perceived by subjects or observers." You might allow that the hard problem of consciousness has a bearing upon the subject-object problem. Here is another Google search. I think your objection comes down to your opinion that this article should be exclusively and entirely a philosophy article and that (possibly) fields like neurophilosophy are not "true" philosophy, and that people like Kosaka involved in information systems are welcome to speak about philosophical issues (as rank amateurs, of course), but their comments are not to be used in philosophy articles. You probably feel that Schrödinger and Bohr are in the same boat (amateurs), and possibly the same applies to psychologists and psychological commentary, and cognitive science. In the realm of philosophy, you probably exclude enactivism as nouveau, and deem off-topic the comment by philosopher Evan Thompson in Mind and Life: "In recent years, however, it has become increasingly clear to many researchers that cognitive science is incomplete. ..a complete science of the mind needs to account for subjectivity and consciousness." Because Thomas Nagel does not use the words "subject-object problem" you probably think an inclusion of his remarks about "mental rather than physical objectivity" would lie outside this topic. So far his remarks have not been included, but I'd judge they would fit in.
In short, the bulk of this argument of yours appears to be an argument over the title of the article and about your idea of what is "philosophical" and what is not, and is not an argument about OR and the accuracy of the content of Subject-object problem. Brews ohare (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes subject (philosophy) and object (philosophy) are things that we have (rather poor) articles on. What does not seem settled is that there is a single thing called the "subject-object problem" in philosophy. I find Brews' advice that we are to look at the output of this Google book search most telling. It indicates, at least, the manner in which this article was likely written. What we would need for an article by this title would be some definitive accounts of this problem in philosophy, not a bunch of titles where the words "subject-object" have appeared juxtaposed in disparate settings. That doesn't seem like a recipe for an encyclopedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, this page looks to me like garbage nonsence (so perhaps delete), but once again, my background in this subject area is rather limited. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I am dismayed that My very best wishes labeled the article as garbage despite a modest disclaimer of having a limited background, which apparently does not include reading the article or consulting the sources cited in it. I am further dismayed by Sławomir Biały, who now suggests as evidence of poor quality that my suggestion that those assembled might examine some books found by Google search should understand this suggestion as indicating the mode of construction of this article, ostensibly based uopn the occurrence of the words 'subject' and 'object' in Google searches. Has WP degenerated to this lamentable substitute for honest and careful appraisal?. Brews ohare (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
This page is named "Subject-object problem". What is the problem, exactly? Yes, I know about this problem, for example. What is the "problem" here? Can it be solved and how? My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
My very best wishes: A reasonable question. According to the lede, the problem is to answer the question: "If the world consists of objects which are perceived or otherwise presumed to exist by subjects, how do 'subjects' relate to 'objects'?" In the section Subjective-objective dichotomy it says “the relation between the world 'out there' as perceived by the mind and the interior world of conscious events is much debated.” Malpas is quoted as saying "There is a common philosophical tendency...to conceive of the realm of belief and attitude as clearly distinct from the world of objects and events. This separation is typically presented in terms of a distinction between subjective and objective ...". Schrödinger is quoted as saying: "By this I mean the thing that is so frequently called the 'hypothesis of the real world' around us. I maintain that it amounts to certain simplifications which we adopt in order to master the infinitely intricate problem of nature. Without being aware of it... we exclude the Subject of Cognizance from the domain of nature that we endeavor to understand. We step with our own person back into the part of an onlooker who does not belong to the world, which by this very procedure becomes an objective world." Another writer (Gorton on the Internet Encyclopedia) says: “These theorists argue that coming to understand a culture or society – or another person or even a text or work of art – does not involve producing an objective description of an independent object. That is, the philosophical hermeneutics approach rejects a subject/object ontology in which knowledge consists of an accurate representation of an external world in the mind of a subject.” It would seem this problem is not going "to be solved" but is going to be pried apart to reveal its various aspects.
Apparently there is a thirst among WP editors for a specific text providing a specific definition rather than accept a discussion of a complex of issues. You might note that Ernst Cassirer's article titled The subject-object problem in the philosophy of the Renaissance which discusses the background of this problem for an entire chapter, never does state a 'definition' of the "subject-object problem", but does say it has to do with the Renaissance concerns with self-consciousness and has its beginning with Descartes and the introduction of the thoughtful reflection of the mind upon itself.
I don't know if the lede identifies the topic adequately for you. Does the complexity of this topic make it unsuitable for WP? If this title is good enough for Cassirer, is it good enough for WP? Brews ohare (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Here’s an example. “Like Kant, Chomsky and Pinker raise the issue of the mind's inherent programming . Chomsky selected as a particular example the acquiring of language by children.29 This study supplements Wittgenstein's use of an idealized model of 'examples and practice' to explain how a child learns language.88 A quick check on the sources shows no support for the idea that Chomsky's study supplements – as though a conscious addendum to or continuation of – Wittgenstein's work. My view, supported by scholarly consensus, is that Chomsky's view of linguistic understanding is not compatible with the later Wittgenstein. (Perhaps not the early Wittgenstein, but Brews' example is not from there). Peter Damian (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Damian: Thanks for the example of your confusion. Of course you are right that Kant did not talk about "programming". He didn't talk about "factory settings" either. But I anticipate that most readers are not in a mind set where a reasonable description of early authors requires the exact wording they used to get the gist across. Of course, objections to using modern language instead of the exact wording of past authors who did not think about computers or factories are best met by deleting the article in its entirety. Brews ohare (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
My very best wishes:
There is a subject-object problem internal to philosophy, which is the status of the relation between subjects (agents) and objects of perception or of science. Some claim that the world is made of the same objects that we ordinarily experience, some claim that all experience is subjective, and some claim that objects are the consequence of necessary interaction of objective possibilities (probabilities) and observers or observations (that's a basic postulate of all modern science but not of the philosophy of individual scientists). Unfortunately, this very important problem lacks adequate current professional understanding. Therefore, the problem cannot be reported in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages encyclopedic standards. BlueMist (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think WP is restricted to issues that have been resolved. See Free will for one that has been going on for millennia and still has no widely accepted definition, but instead exhibits an ongoing struggle to come up with one, largely predicated upon one's personal prejudices as to whether it exists or doesn't. Come to think about it: isn't that a suitable definition for philosophy? 😄 Brews ohare (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
To WP, an ongoing struggle means peer reviewed secondary sources from established journals. BlueMist (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
What constitutes a suitable basis for a WP article is not limited to reporting what peer-reviewed secondary sources say. Whatever your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, the article Subject-object problem accurately reports what distinguished scholars and encyclopedic articles have contributed, notes different points of view, and is within the scope of suitable WP topics. Brews ohare (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. OK, after looking at sources in Google books , such as this, I am convinced that such problem exists, has been described in multiple RS, and therefore deserves a page. I can easily agree that the page is in a poor shape right now, but this is a different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I have already mentioned that there are subject-object problems in the literature. I mentioned Sartre (for itself vs in itself). There is the ego/non-ego dichotomy. A similar problem is addressed by Wittgenstein's Private Language argument. Hume also famously addresses the problem of the 'I' and the 'soul'. The problem is that any article trying to synthesise these very different approaches by very different philosophers would be a masterful synthesis. Which Misplaced Pages is not allowed to do. No one to my knowledge has published a book whose focus is the 'subject object' problem, and which has shown how identifiably the same problem exists in Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer etc. If they had, we could have a Misplaced Pages article. For the moment, we have a bunch of separate articles.
    • And who do you propose to 'improve' the article? That would involve weeding out all the sources which are clearly not about the same problem, but that would in itself be a synthesis. Peter Damian (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
A "masterful synthesis" is not what is called for. What is needed is a statement of sourced opinions. I think the main problem you have here is that, to you, the various subsections are not connected. So for example, you cannot see a connection between Shrödinger's observations about the limitations of objectivity as a methodological issue with science when the subject is removed to gain impartiality, and Nagel's comment "The separateness of physical science, and its claim to completeness, has to end in the long run. And that poses the question: To what extent will the reductive form that is so central to contemporary physical science survive this transformation?"
So the issue here for you is can we depend upon an understanding of standard English to connect these observations, or do we need another source that says -"Guess what, Nagel's remarks have a connection to the subject-object problem and so do Schrödinger's. Schrödinger says science has introduced the subject-object distinction as part of how it works, and Nagel says the consequent limitation of science to a reductive form has to be overcome if we want a complete picture." I think this connection is obvious. Maybe some added text can make it more obvious, but we don't need a source to do it. Brews ohare (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It is beyond my standard English, for sure. It is hardly clear what the subject-object problem is, hence difficult to connect these remarks. The subject–object problem, a longstanding philosophical issue, is concerned with the analysis of human experience, and arises from the premise that the world consists of objects (entities) which are perceived or otherwise presumed to exist as entities, by subjects (observers). This division of experience results in questions regarding how subjects relate to objects. An important sub-topic is the question of how our own mind relates to other minds, and how to treat the "radical difference that holds between our access to our own experience and our access to the experience of all other human beings", known as the epistemological problem of other minds. What is the meaning of 'experience' here? Historians analyse the experience of troops in the trenches using letters they wrote home, biographers analyse the experience of their subjects from letters, interviews, accounts of other people, other biographies. Is an 'observer' the same as a 'subject'? Why are observers not objects, given they can be observed by other people? Why is 'ontology' relevant? So the whole introduction is unclear. And why is there no explanation of why this is a problem? Normally if I introduce a paper about some problem, I try to give a strong sense of why it is problematic. Even some Misplaced Pages articles attempt to do this. E.g. Problem of other minds. "Given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds?" Yup I can see that is a problem. What then is the subject-object problem? Peter Damian (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

..It is entirely possible that the page Subject-object problem could be divided into a number of pages each on an individual topic. Then an overview page could be written guiding the reader to the individual pages. I find myself completely open to such a suggestion. However, the ill will and calumny of this page and a recent launch of a topic ban against my further participation has soured my interest, and I do not intend to continue to edit philosophy. Brews ohare (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Bearian: I would very much like to agree with you. However, in philosophy, secondary sources are a crucial test of current professional interest in a topic, and when I search Jstor, I don't see anything promising. BlueMist (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Categories: