@Isa,
Isa wrote:Hi Boagie,
But it is not the truth if the subject gives the objective/physical world meaning that it does not posses.
I think the problem is all the baggage that has been attached to the words objective and subjective. In common use, even in science, we have been told that a person can be objective in their observations if they are impartial. Whereas, a person is considered to be making a subjective observation if they are showing partiality; like making choices simply as a matter of taste.
The use of subjective observation, because the person making the observation is the subject observing the object which is anything else that is in the world or reality, is correct: but it flies in the face of the common concept of being "objective" in ones observation, to denote one trying to be impartial in ones observations in order to accurately find out the truth of a matter.
Hi Isa!
I think it is a matter of degree don't you, there can never truely be an objective observation, it is a matter of how invested and in what ways the subject has an interest in the out come. I Hear again Schopenhaur in my ears, subject and object stand or fall together. Any experiment which fails to consider the observing subject as part of the equation, is at least partially a failure.
"But it is not true if the subject gives the objective/physical world meaning it does not possess."
Lack of the proper perception or fantasy, even lieing might be examples, mistakes or deception. Niether perception nor judgement are infalliable. Personification of nature in the literary world, is not deception, it gives the metaphor a wonderfully clear vivid connotation which can overlapp with other concepts, until the physcial world all most becomes a character and main player of any story.