Re: objective/subjective inversion

From: Douglas Brooker (dbrooker@clara.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jan 24 2001 - 19:11:34 GMT

  • Next message: Diane Benscoter: "Re: this list"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA26762 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:24:36 GMT
    Message-ID: <3A6F28E4.F831CF79@clara.co.uk>
    Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:11:34 +0000
    From: Douglas Brooker <dbrooker@clara.co.uk>
    Organization: University of London
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I)
    X-Accept-Language: en
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: objective/subjective inversion
    References: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEENJCMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> <00f701c081fe$021cebe0$5eaefea9@cable.rcn.com> <3A695604.DF0C5ADF@clara.co.uk> <20010121150343.B2340@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3A6C8169.35A54C2E@clara.co.uk> <20010123135837.A352@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Robin, here is a relevant bit from X OED at 643 re "objective"

    Start quotation (italics and other formatting have been lost in the extract
    below)
    ===================================================

    2. Philos. Used of the existence or nature of a thing as an object of
    consciousness (as distinguished from an existence or nature termed subjective).

    [OED note]: The Scholastic Philosophy made the distinction between what belongs
    to things subjectively (subjective -Latin accents omitted), or as they are 'in
    themselves', and what belongs to them objectively (objective - Latin accents
    omitted) ), as they are presented to consciousness. In later times the custom of
    considering the perceiving or thinking consciousness as pre-eminently 'the
    subject' brought about a different use of these words, which now prevails in
    philosophical language. According to this, what is considered as belonging to
    the perceiving or thinking self is called subjective, and what is considered as
    independent of the perceiving or thinking self is called in contrast objective.
    As to this transition of use (which primarily concerns the word subjective) and
    affects objective as its antithesis) resulting in what is almost an exchange of
    sense between the two adjective, see HAMILTON Reid's Wks. 806 note, R.L.
    Nettleship Phil. Lect. & Remains I.193.

    a. Opposed to subjective in the older sense = 'in itself': Existing as an object
    of consciousness as distinct from having any real existence; considered only as
    presented to the mind (not as it is, or may be, in itself or its own nature).
    Obs.

    Omitting: c.1325 quote from OCCAM Sent. 1. Dict. 2, qu *E
    1647 Jer. Taylor Lib. Prop. 133 [Wade note - is this a reference to Liberal?]
    [Other quotes omitted]

    b. Opposed to subjective in the modern sense: That is or belongs to what is
    presented to consciousness, as opposed to the consciousness itself; that is the
    object of perception or thought, as distinct from the perceiving or thinking
    subject; hence that is, or has the character of being, a 'thing' external to the
    mind, real.

    [OED note]: This sense is occasional in writers of the later 17th and early 18th
    c. (the early examples being more or less transitional); but its current use
    appears to be derived from Kant, and to appear in Eng. subsequently to 1790, and
    chiefly after 1817 (see quot. from Coleridge).

    [all quotes omitted.]

    ===========================================

    End quotation

    An interesting enquiry would be to explore writers since 1817, particularly 20th
    C. and see if there is extensive quotation of writers using the earlier use
    without recognition that this inversion had occurred.

    Robin Faichney wrote:

    > On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 06:52:26PM +0000, Douglas Brooker wrote:
    > > Robin Faichney wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 09:10:30AM +0000, Douglas Brooker wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > About 100 years ago the meanings of 'objective' and 'subjective' became
    > > > > inverted.
    > > >
    > > > Can you back up that claim?
    > >
    > > see "objective" in X OED (2d)
    >
    > I don't have OED access until I next visit the local Uni library.
    > Could you cut'n'paste or type in the relevant bit? I find this very
    > interesting.
    >
    > --
    > Robin Faichney
    > robin@reborntechnology.co.uk
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 24 2001 - 19:27:31 GMT