A Lyn Fei wrote:
A friend of mine, in arguing with me on this, asked "if everything is entirely subjective, does that mean that subjectivity is objective?" I have an answer to that, but I'll leave it to you if you'd like to give an opinion. I thought it was a very clever response.
I would like to hear your answer, as this is a retort I've used.
The definitions of objective and subjective, unless one is speaking of how the words are used (or misused) in ordinary language, are specific to a philosophical position; these positions would not only produce a very wide group of definitions for either term, but from within a single philosophy could easily produce a nuanced set for either term depending on the circumstances.
This was very insightful to me. Thank you. If it's the philosophic context that gives the terms meaning, then that would explain my confusion in trying to determine what the words mean in a clearer way.
Moreover, another question might concern itself with whether, or under what circumstances, the two terms would be considered opposite. Would one have to necessarily categorize an "occasion" (to find a neutral description for an event of intention without any Whiteheadian connotations) as either subject/or objective? Could not an event have both characteristics---objective (public) and subjective ("private") and these in different degrees depending on the event (imagine a teeter-totter with a child at one end representing objectivity and one on the other end subjectivity)?
I don't think that classifying an occasion as one necessarily eliminates the possibility for classifying that occasion as the other; I think that they're more descriptors than they are a disjunctive judgment.
Now of course we can walk through the world and readily classify occasions as subjective or objective, because we know in a general sense what they mean. Using language often means: knowing "rough and ready definitions" that serve their purpose; that is until something comes up that seems not to fit, that intrudes itself in an unmannerly fashion, and we must attend to it. Isn't it the case that when this happens, and we really think about it, that our ready-made definitions begin to have exceptions and special rules guiding a more precise use?
Yes, true. And so, from this, my tentative conclusion is that everything can
be classified as objective/subjective, but perhaps all things ought not to be.
Objectivity is an idea, a concept.
To what does this idea apply? Other concepts, statements...?
I think (once again) that our objectivity can be had in degrees - and in that way is useful - but never absolute, at least not to our perceptions.
Can we determine the degrees of objectivity we have in a given (Your answer to the above question here)?
In at least one meaning of that much abused term, a proposition is an objective proposition if, and only if, its truth is independent of what anyone believes (hopes, desires). On the other hand, a proposition is subjective if and only if, it truth, does depend on what is believed, hoped, or desired to me true. In a somewhat different meaning of that term, a sentence is objective if, and only if, there is (in W.V. Quine's useful phrase) there is "a fact about the matter", and a sentence is subjective if, and only if, there is no "fact of the matter".
Of course there are propositions or sentences that everyone (who is not in a philosophy classroom when all bets are off) think are objective. For instance, that the Sun is approximately 93,000,000 million miles from Earth, or that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And, that vanilla tastes better than chocolate ice-cream is what most people would thing of as subjective.
It partly depends on what everything is. If you are talking about statements, then apparently, yes, all statements are either objective or subjective. But no mongooses are either subjective or objective.
If it partly depends on what everything is, and we don't know what everything is, then how are we to determine if everything can be objective or subjective?
At least, I'm not going to claim that I know what everything is. My conclusion from the above would be: There are objective things, but all things that we deal with are subjective. Or, we deal with the objective, but we can't determine if something is objective or subjective. Which is fine, but I'm stating this to see if you conclude the same.
If something is described to be objective, what makes that thing objective?
for me to exist and/or die makes no difference to the things existence
Is only existence objective?
If something is described to be subjective, what makes that thing subjective?
thought or perspective just from your point of view
What are some things you commonly think of as objective?
water , rocks , the Universe
What are some things you commonly think of as subjective?
style , law , entertainment
Can everything be properly categorized as being either objective or subjective?
So, everything is either 1) Existence, or 2) A Perspective/Thought. Is this a correct characterization?