Incompatibility of Subjective and Objective Knowledge

Incompatibility between subjective knowledge and objective knowledge In his book "The View From Nowhere" (1986), Thomas Nagel considers the contrast between our objective world and ours I discuss various problems that arise at times. Think of a part of the objective world. It is the world. Nagel wrote that it is important to understand the relationship between these external and internal perspectives in order to solve these problems: "It is important to understand morality, knowledge, freedom, self, It is the most fundamental question about relationship between (p.3))).

For Popper, knowledge is objective, regardless whether it is objectively correct (or true), or knowledge has an existential position independent of the object of interest (ie knowledge as a subject) (objective Knowledge: evolutionary method, 1972). He proposed three worlds: the world's first, material world or material country, world 2, heart of mind, or state of mind, thinking and concept, and world 3, expressed in various forms As the subject of human knowledge, or the products of the second world, it appears in the materials of the first world (ie books, essays, paintings, symphonies, and all human products). He believes that the world 3 is the product of individual humans, the precise meaning is that the course of animals is the product of individual animals.

Objective human knowledge comes from actual observations of the world around us through empirical observations through senses first and then through various forms of reasoning. But parallelizing these objective forms of knowledge is a more abstract and intuitive subjective source of information. This allowed early humans to experience things in such a way as to perceive the rhythm of the earth and create artistic abstract concepts such as spirit, mind, and other invisible forces. Like early science derived from the above objective form, religion is derived from this subjective knowledge. But this is caught. Intuitive information is subjective, it is easily deformed as it is communicated from saints and prophets to the masses. Prophets talked about the heart of God, but their followers started religion. If there is no direct experience of the prophet, the believer must explain. This leaves a selfish agenda for misunderstanding and masses of mind.