Objective/Subjective

If something is described to be objective, what makes that thing objective?

If something is described to be subjective, what makes that thing subjective?

What are some things you commonly think of as objective?

What are some things you commonly think of as subjective?

Can everything be properly categorized as being either objective or subjective?

I've been thinking about this as well, as I seem to use both terms, and after much thought, I tend use them in a broad yet limited sense. Broad in its ambiguity, and limited because I refer to the subjective as the experience, and objective as the thing outside of the subjective. So, perhaps through my own use, I can not claim something as objective unless I state what is subjective. The subjective though, is only used through something conscious, and the objective can pretty much be anything sensed. Apart from that I don't tend to understand the usage outside of the existential/phenomenological ontology.

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.

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)?

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?

If something is described to be objective, what makes that thing objective?

If something is described to be subjective, what makes that thing subjective?

What are some things you commonly think of as objective?

What are some things you commonly think of as subjective?

Can everything be properly categorized as being either objective or subjective?

If something is described to be objective, what makes that thing objective?

If something is described to be subjective, what makes that thing subjective?

What are some things you commonly think of as objective?

What are some things you commonly think of as subjective?

Can everything be properly categorized as being either objective or subjective?

* "I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on are no more than mere names so far as the object in which we locate them are concerned, and that they reside in consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be wiped away and annihilated"

—Galileo Galilei, The Assayer (published 1623)

a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject. Contrary to this, most recent philosophers, since the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, have concluded that scientific knowledge is systematic knowledge of the nature of existing things as we perceive them, rather than as they are in themselves.

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.

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.

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)?

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?

Objectivity is an idea, a concept.

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.

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.

Huxley wrote:

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

Quote:

If something is described to be subjective, what makes that thing subjective?

thought or perspective just from your point of view

Quote:

What are some things you commonly think of as objective?

water , rocks , the Universe

Quote:

What are some things you commonly think of as subjective?

style , law , entertainment

Quote:

Can everything be properly categorized as being either objective or subjective?

yes

I'm a nurse, so I routinely distinguish between symptoms and signs. I learn about symptoms by listening to my patient. And then I write:

Patient states, "It feels like an elephant is standing on my chest."

Then I observe signs and I write:

Heart rate 124, respiratory rate 28, bilateral breathsounds with coarse wheezing throughout..

What makes the symptoms a subjective account is that I can't observe what's being described, only the patient can. Anyone can observe the objective signs.

Heidegger said the word subjective comes from the latin subjectum, which was a translation of a greek word that meant core.

Would you characterize the subjective as more fundamental than the objective, then? (this is what I take from your last statement)

Objectivity is an idea, a concept.

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.

Huxley wrote:

Would you characterize the subjective as more fundamental than the objective, then? (this is what I take from your last statement)

If you mean is the subjective more real, no. It can't stand alone. Meaning requires both.

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.

Huxley wrote:

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.

Simple: The answer is no. Subjectivity is still subjective because it takes one person looking at how many people interpret different things to determine that they are subjective. That person is being subjective. Objectivity could only exist if we could prove that some stable force outside of ourselves exists and that force determined what "is" and what "is not".
I cannot prove "objectively" that there is no objectivity because there is not- my saying that is subjective.

What's fun is that anyone saying that there is objectivity is being subjective.