The View From Nowhere

       Humans experience the world from a perspective. The contents of an individual's experiences vary greatly with the individual's perspective, which is affected by his or her personal situation, details of his or her perceptual apparatus, language and culture, the physical conditions in which the perspective is made. While the experiences vary, there seems to be something that remains constant. The appearance of a tree will change as one approaches it but, at least possibly, the tree itself doesn't. A room may feel hot or cold depending on the climate one is used to but it will, at least possibly, have a degree of warmth that is independent of one's experiences. The object in front of a person does not, at least not necessarily, disappear just because the lights are turned off.

There is a conception of objectivity that presupposes that there are two kinds of qualities: ones that vary with the perspective one has or takes, and ones that remain constant through changes of perspective. The latter are the objective properties. Thomas Nagel explains that we arrive at the idea of objective properties in three steps (Nagel 1986: 14). The first step is to realize (or postulate) that our perceptions are caused by the actions of things on us, through their effects on our bodies. The second step is to realize (or postulate) that since the same properties that cause perceptions in us also have effects on other things and can exist without causing any perceptions at all, their true nature must be detachable from their perspectival appearance and need not resemble it. The final step is to form a conception of that “true nature” independently of any perspective. Nagel calls that conception the “view from nowhere”, Bernard Williams the “absolute conception” (Williams 1985 [2011]). It represents the world as it is, unmediated by human minds and other “distortions”.

Many scientific realists maintain that science, or at least natural science, does and indeed ought to aim to describe the world in terms of this absolute conception and that it is to some extent successful in doing so (for a detailed discussion of scientific realism, see the entry on scientific realism). There is an immediate sense in which the absolute conception is an attractive one to have. If two people looking at a colored patch in front of them disagree whether it is green or brown, the absolute conception provides an answer to the question (e.g., “The patch emits light at a wavelength of 510 nanometers”). By making these facts accessible through, say, a spectroscope, we can arbitrate between the conflicting viewpoints (viz., by stating that the patch should look green to a normal observer in daylight).

Another reason for this conception to be attractive is that it will provide for a simpler and more unified representation of the world. Theories of trees will be very hard to come by if they use predicates such as “height as seen by an observer” and a hodgepodge if their predicates track the habits of ordinary language users rather than the properties of the world. To the extent, then, that science aims to provide explanations for natural phenomena, casting them in terms of the absolute conception would help to realize this aim. Bernard Williams makes a related point about explanation:

The substance of the absolute conception (as opposed to those vacuous or vanishing ideas of “the world” that were offered before) lies in the idea that it could nonvacuously explain how it itself, and the various perspectival views of the world, are possible. (Williams 1985 [2011]: 139)

Thus, a scientific account cast in the language of the absolute conception may not only be able to explain why a tree is as tall as it is but also why we see it in one way when viewed from one standpoint and in a different way when viewed from another.

A third reason to find the view from nowhere attractive is that if the world came in structures as characterized by it and we did have access to it, we could use our knowledge of it to ground predictions (which, to the extent that our theories do track the absolute structures, will be borne out). A fourth and related reason is that attempts to manipulate and control phenomena can similarly be grounded in our knowledge of these structures. To attain any of the four purposes—settling disagreements, explaining the world, predicting phenomena and manipulation and control—the absolute conception is at best sufficient but not necessary. We can, for instance, settle disagreements by imposing the rule that the person who speaks first is always right or the person who is of higher social rank or by an agreed-upon measurement procedure that does not track absolute properties. We can explain the world and our image of it by means of theories that do not represent absolute structures and properties, and there is no need to get things (absolutely) right in order to predict successfully. Nevertheless, there is something appealing in the idea that disagreements concerning certain matters of fact can be settled by the very facts themselves, that explanations and predictions grounded in what's really there rather than in a distorted image of it.

No matter how desirable, it is clear that our ability to use scientific claims to represent all and only facts about the world depends on whether these claims can unambiguously be established on the basis of evidence. We test scientific claims by means of their implications, and it is an elementary principle of logic that claims whose implications are true need not themselves be true. It is the job of scientific method to make sure that observations, measurements, experiments, tests—pieces of the scientific evidence—speak in favor of the scientific claim at hand. Alas, the relation between evidence and scientific hypothesis is not straightforward. Subsection 2.2 and Subsection 2.3 will look at two challenges of the idea that even the best scientific method will yield claims that describe an aperspectival view from nowhere. Subsection 2.4 will challenge the idea that the view from nowhere is a good thing to have.

-excerpt from Scientific Objectivity / Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Exploring " Not having a Objective "

Must We all,try to delay our judgement,and take the Time for Attention, or else fall short of truth,thus have a distorted view of reality?

I believe in "Newton's idea of ,For every action,there is a equal and opposite reaction

Thus,with technology,we have gained more time for paying "Attention",yet how are we not taking the Time?

The Beauty of" Doodling", for myself is, I have no " objective " in that of which I draw

Is total empathy,in it's purest form- "having no objective?".

           Simone Weil talks of creating the "Void" in "Gravity and Grace",is that simply Observing with no Bias, with such great   Attention,no pre-conceived notions to hinder our "Perspective"?

Links related to seeing from "Perspective"


One socio-historical explanation that has been offered for the growing prevalence of the abstract in modern art – an explanation linked to the name of Theodor W. Adorno – is that such abstraction is a response to, and a reflection of, the growing abstraction of social relations in industrial society.[42]

Frederic Jameson similarly sees modernist abstraction as a function of the abstract power of money, equating all things equally as exchange-values.[43] The social content of abstract art is then precisely the abstract nature of social existence – legal formalities, bureaucratic impersonalization, information/power – in the world of late modernity.[44]

Post-Jungians by contrast would see the quantum theories with their disintegration of conventional ideas of form and matter as underlying the divorce of the concrete and the abstract in modern art.-abstract art / wikipedia

These are called the possible and agent intellect. The possible intellect is an "unscribed tablet" and the store-house of all concepts, i.e. universal ideas like "triangle", "tree", "man", "red", etc. When the mind wishes to think, the agent intellect recalls these ideas from the possible intellect and combines them to form thoughts. The agent intellect is also the faculty which abstracts the "whatness" or intelligibility of all sensed objects and stores them in the possible intellect. For example, when a student learns a proof for the Pythagorean theorem, his agent intellect abstracts the intelligibility of all the images his eye senses (and that are a result of the translation by imagination of sense perceptions into immaterial phantasmata), i.e. the triangles and squares in the diagrams, and stores the concepts that make up the proof in his possible intellect. When he wishes to recall the proof, say, for demonstration in class the next day, his agent intellect recalls the concepts and their relations from the possible intellect and formulates the statements that make up the arguments in the proof.

Universal design / Wikipedia

Universal design (close relation to inclusive design) refers to broad-spectrum ideas meant to produce buildings, products and environments that are inherently accessible to older people, people without disabilities, and people with disabilities.

The term "universal design" was coined by the architect Ronald Mace to describe the concept of designing all products and the built environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life.[1] However, it was the work of Selwyn Goldsmith, author of Designing for the Disabled (1963), who really pioneered the concept of free access for people with disabilities. His most significant achievement was the creation of the dropped curb – now a standard feature of the built environment.


National Center On Universal Design for Learning

Note: I have conflicting views with Ayn Rand,yet I still can learn and study her view points

  1.Ayn Rand, author and developer of Objectivism, held controversial views regarding homosexuality and gender roles. Although her personal view of homosexuality was unambiguously negative, considering it immoral and disgusting, Rand endorsed non-discrimination protection for homosexuals in the public sphere while opposing laws against discrimination in the private sector on the basis of economic freedom.

       Yet I do like her view:

On sex roles

Rand asserted that "the essence of femininity is hero worship – the desire to look up to man" and that "an ideal woman is a man-worshipper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind."[9] In other words, Rand felt that it was part of human nature for a psychologically healthy woman to want to be ruled in sexual matters by a man worthy of ruling her. In an authorized article in The Objectivist, psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, Rand's onetime extramarital lover and "intellectual heir," explains Rand's view as the idea that "man experiences the essence of his masculinity in the act of romantic dominance; woman experiences the essence of her femininity in the act of romantic surrender." This however, would be very different than any brutal form of rule.

After Rand's death

After Rand's death in 1982, her heir, Leonard Peikoff, publicly disagreed with some of her views. Peikoff argued that homosexuality itself is not open to moral judgment. Other contemporary Objectivists generally continue to support the view that, while government should not discriminate for or against homosexuals in any way, private individuals and private organizations should be free to do so.

In 1983, Branden wrote that Rand was "absolutely and totally ignorant” about homosexuality. Branden added that he saw her perspective "as calamitous, as wrong, as reckless, as irresponsible, and as cruel, and as one which I know has hurt too many people who ... looked up to her and assumed that if she would make that strong a statement she must have awfully good reasons."[11]

According to an FAQ from The Atlas Society (formerly The Objectivist Center):



(objective)-if one creates a "Law",are they content,happy,do they realize truly what they created?-do they know what homosexuality,even is?  Laws are very Strong statements,and once made are hard to get rid of,from my studies I don't think many people have any ability to decide some-one else's sexual orientation,it is to abstract,and individually complex,,as the blowing of the wind,or flow of a river,-ever in change/flux,and upon circumstance.   Lets say,over the years I have had sex with over ,say a 100 black,proclaimed heterosexuals,men, as -myself-a "proclaimed "Fem-male",.(They where acting in the male role! and I was acting in the female role)..are these men homosexual,or simply for a moment where acting in a homosexual way?,-,this is Question one must ask before even creating the "Objective in one's mind prior to creating "Laws".      see- down-low

S.M.A.R.T. Objectives

Measurable w/Measurement


Specific answers the questions "what is to be done?" "how will you know it is done?" and describes the results (end product) of the work to be done. The description is written in such a way that anyone reading the objective will most likely interpret it the same way. To ensure that an objective is specific is to make sure that the way it is described is observable.  Observable means that somebody can see or hear (physically observe) someone doing something.

Measurable w/Measurement

Measurable w/Measurement answers the question "how will you know it meets expectations?" and defines the objective using assessable terms (quantity, quality, frequency, costs, deadlines, etc.). It refers to the extent to which something can be evaluated against some standard.  An objective with a quantity measurements uses terms of amount, percentages, etc..  A frequency measurement could be daily, weekly, 1 in 3.  An objective with a quality measurement would describe a requirement in terms of accuracy, format, within university guidelines.


Achievable answers the questions "can the person do it?" "Can the measurable objective be achieved by the person?" "Does he/she have the experience, knowledge or capability of fulfilling the expectation?" It also answers the question "Can it be done giving the time frame, opportunity and resources?" These items should be included in the SMART objective if they will be a factor in the achievement. 


Relevant answers the questions, "should it be done?",  "why?" and "what will be the impact?"  Is the objective aligned with the S/C/D’s implementation plan and the university’s strategic plan?


Time-oriented answers the question, "when will it be done?"  It refers to the fact that an objective has end points and check points built into it.  Sometimes a task may only have an end point or due date. Sometimes that end point or due date is the actual end of the task, or sometimes the end point of one task is the start point of another. Sometimes a task has several milestones or check points to help you or others assess how well something is going before it is finished so that corrections or modifications can be made as needed to make sure the end result meets expectations.  Other times, an employee’s style is such that the due dates or milestones are there to create a sense of urgency that helps them to get something finished.-Wayne State University © 2017


excerpt from Intergral Perspectives:

Here are some of the questions classical philosophers have struggled with:

  • What is real? What is true? What can we know (what is the nature and limits of knowledge)?
  • Is the reality of the world different from how we perceive and experience it in our minds? Does physical reality exist apart from the human mind?
  • When something changes or transforms (ages, melts, divides, etc.) it is still essentially the same thing; is its identity preserved?
  • Can consciousness (or ideas, or spirit) exist without the body, outside the physical world? Can pure thought have an impact on physical reality (or vice versa)? Is there anything other than physical reality?
  • Does everything that happens have to have a cause? Is everything that happens predetermined? Is there free will?
  • Can science discover the ultimate nature of realty? Can pure reason (or even intuition) tell us anything about the ultimate nature of reality?

I will reveal the answers to the questions a little later, but for now, it is surprising how many pages have been written and how many lives dedicated to these questions–how many true geniuses have wracked their brains and engaged in prolonged theoretical battles over them–given that we now, finally, have the answers to all of them.

Lets do a bit of a whirlwind tour of some of the central questions, brawls really, of classical western philosophy. Stepping into the ring are well known celebrities such as Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes, and many others whom you may remember from your college philosophy class, including Lock, Hume, and Kant. The contenders are seen as having been members of several schools (clubs or gangs) of thought, including idealism, materialism, empiricism, rationalism, and skepticism (BTW, philosophers are not restricted to being in only one gang).

                                            My views of course(if one has studied this site much,side with Plato,to a extreme,thus I almost despise(problem of mine) Aristole,and often wonder if he had only continued Plato's and Socrates,that civilization might be more evolved ,I think Aristole forgot the Common Person ,Where I believe Plato knew teaching Empiricist's views though practical,also limited the key element of Empathtic Attention to Reality,the practical view,in essense "Claims Certainity"-me

Plato was an Idealist, who claimed that the world of ideas, for example the ideal nature or essence of a tree or a circle or a color, was more fundamental, more “real,” than physical reality, and that physical reality, a tree for instance, comes into being as an imperfect instance of the ideal. Plotinus, a staunch defender of Plato against Plato’s rivals and misinterpreters, had a more mystical bent, and believed that matter was a manifestation of something deeper and more ethereal. His Platonic philosophy argued that spirit creates the world by stepping from eternity into time and form.

Aristotle was Plato’s student and chief critic. He said “Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is the truth”—ouch! Aristotle was quintessentially practical, none of that invisible eternal spiritual formless essence stuff for him. He worked out some of the basic rules for logic and the scientific method that are still respected today.

Other appreciators of the world of sensation and physical experiences, the Empiricist “I’ll believe it if I see it” team, followed in Aristotle’s footsteps. John Locke, of “tabla rasa” fame, said that the mind starts out without any knowledge and everything one knows is built up from experience through the senses. Bishop George Berkeley one-upped Locke by claiming that things not perceived through the senses can not logically be said to exist at all. His contemporaries assumed that this lead the nonsensical conclusion that the “real” world is an illusion, and, though they could not refute the logic of his theory, rejected it outright.

Scotsman David Hume (who taunted Berkeley by saying that he “often astounds, but rarely can convince”), not to be outdone by an Irishman, brought the Empiricist linage to its skeptical extreme, and, some thought, brought all of philosophy down with it. It would seem that there is virtually no knowledge that we can rationally justify with certainty. We can’t be certain that the cup exists in the just-closed cupboard (we can’t see it now), nor that the sun will continue to rise in the East (just because it always has).

All this was a slap in the face to Idealists, especially Descartes, the “I think therefore I am” guy on the Rationalist team, who pointed out that sensations and experience are famously fallible, so it is pure reason, not the senses, that must form the basis of Truth. For example, what about mathematics? Isn’t that fact that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees True regardless of whether anyone ever saw or even thought about one? Some things are undeniably and eternally true, showing truths that come straight from a pure realm of mind and reason, regardless of the messy, transient world of dirt, blood, and ash.

Training for Empathy

Some of the tools we can employ to develop our empathy skills include the following:

  • Try to be really curious about other people, imagining what might be going in their lives
  • Take time to consider what we have in common with people and pay more attention to that, instead of focusing on what makes us different
  • During conversation, try to ask more questions and spend more time listening - excerpt from " Huffington Post"