Objective/Subjective

Quote:

north wrote:

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:

Is only existence objective?

what I'm trying to say is this , despite our perspective or our existence , the object remains in existence and is what it is

to the object its self , our perspective of it , for any being , really , the object is what it is

1 Reply

@north,

We can only approximate what we observe of the object. The observer's training, observation skills and background affects the report but not the object unless a destructive test is done on it like dissecting a frog.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

We can only approximate what we observe of the object. The observer's training, observation skills and background affects the report but not the object unless a destructive test is done on it like dissecting a frog.

observation does not at all have to be the mind set of destruction

is the observation of the weather destructive ? NO

0 Replies

Subjectivity and Objectivity are no more real but perhaps more useful than Santa Clause. Both are organizing concepts. The "thing-in-itself" is one more such concept. We say the thing-in-itself is unknowable, and yet we somehow know it is unknowable. Why? Because the concept is a negation of thing-as-it-appears and is otherwise empty. Primary and secondary qualities are probably more honest, as they are more nakedly nodes in the system of concepts that structures the nonconceptual sensual-emotional aspect/layer of our experience. Perhaps I am a voice crying in the wilderness on this issue, but it amuses enough that I don't mind finding new contexts within or ways to type it up. I wrestled w/ this issue with an intense desire to resolve the contradictions and complexities of it, and they are certainly there. We bounce around like in balls in our system of dichotomies, taking concepts for what other concepts re-present, living in a contradictory dichotomy of ideas and what these ideas mediate, forgetting that "what-these-ideas-mediate" is also just an idea.
Just 2 cents from the Gipper.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

Subjectivity and Objectivity are no more real but perhaps more useful than Santa Clause. Both are organizing concepts. The "thing-in-itself" is one more such concept. We say the thing-in-itself is unknowable, and yet we somehow know it is unknowable. Why? Because the concept is a negation of thing-as-it-appears and is otherwise empty. Primary and secondary qualities are probably more honest, as they are more nakedly nodes in the system of concepts that structures the nonconceptual sensual-emotional aspect/layer of our experience. Perhaps I am a voice crying in the wilderness on this issue, but it amuses enough that I don't mind finding new contexts within or ways to type it up. I wrestled w/ this issue with an intense desire to resolve the contradictions and complexities of it, and they are certainly there. We bounce around like in balls in our system of dichotomies, taking concepts for what other concepts re-present, living in a contradictory dichotomy of ideas and what these ideas mediate, forgetting that "what-these-ideas-mediate" is also just an idea.
Just 2 cents from the Gipper.

What would it mean, I wonder, for subjectivity and objectivity to be real (or not real)? There are certainly subjective statements like, "Vanilla ice-cream tastes better than does chocolate ice-cream", so it subjectivity is not real implies that there are no subjective statements, then subjectivity is not real is false.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

The tasteting evaluation is a true and objective statement regarding his makeup of his/her taste buds. Those whose taste buds are not so refined would disagree. In the sense that the same ice cream or wine taste different to each taster appears on the surface to be subjective but on a deeper level to a doctor or medical reseacher that the sensivity to certain aromas and tastes could indicate a conditon or his/her physiologial makeup.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

The tasteting evaluation is a true and objective statement regarding his makeup of his/her taste buds. Those whose taste buds are not so refined would disagree. In the sense that the same ice cream or wine taste different to each taster appears on the surface to be subjective but on a deeper level to a doctor or medical reseacher that the sensivity to certain aromas and tastes could indicate a conditon or his/her physiologial makeup.

Does all this mean that the statement, vanilla tastes better than chocolate is not a subjective statement in just the sense that there is no fact of the matter? Of course, the statement that most people think that vanilla tastes better than chocolate is not subjective but an objective statement about what is subjective. In fact it is a statistical statement which is either true or false. But, of course, that statement and the statement that vanilla tastes better than chocolate are not the same statement, and you are mixing them up. By the way, the statement that the same ice cream or wine taste different to each taster appears on the surface to be subjective, is, of course false. It does not in the least appear to be subjective on the surface or any place else. It is an objective statement, and appears to be an objective statement, not a subjective statement, since it can be determined to be true or false. You are confused about the difference between subjective and objective statements, and, in particular, you confuse objective statements about the subjective with subjective statements.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

There are certainly subjective statements like, "Vanilla ice-cream tastes better than does chocolate ice-cream",

You are the one confused.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

Quote:
There are certainly subjective statements like, "Vanilla ice-cream tastes better than does chocolate ice-cream",

You are the one confused.

Usually

0 Replies

@Huxley,

You should learn the concepts of the Two-Element Metaphyscis.
Objective means by definition.
Subjective means by description.
Language rests upon a convention of names. A definition is the preservation of the social convention which preserves an identity between the name of a thing and the names of that things two elements, its form and the material difference in that form.
Thus, of the three categories of names, only 1 can be defined the names of things,
The names of that things elements cannot be defined, they must be learned by what Aristotle called induction, or some have called senory abstraction. I simply say abstraction.
To help effect participation in the naming convention a description provides directions to a thing by which an abstraction can be made.
Suffice it to say, where definitions are absolute, descriptions are relative, many descriptions can lead to the same abstraction.
However, the description cannot abstract for one. That is up to one's own abilities.
Thus, unlike modern scholars who believe that words define words ad infinitem, there were ancients who had real understanding.

0 Replies

@Huxley,

I think the philosopher John Searle commented that everything is subjective and that is an objective fact.

0 Replies

@A Lyn Fei,

> There is no such thing as objectivity.

Sure there is.

> The objective, as a word, is used to describe a common viewpoint that is inherently subjective to a culture or subculture or group of some kind.

You are mistaken. Objectivity is not based in viewpoint nor is it reducible to subjectivity.

> 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.

No, you don't have a valid answer to that because it is a strong logical argument against any form of relativism. It's the same as "there are no universal truths". You are saying "there is no objectivity". Your friend has a valid point, to which you cannot have a logically-valid reply.

There is no mystery about objectivity. Plenty of things are objective and I'm not sure why you are trying to prove otherwise.

That hydrogen atoms have 1 electron orbiting its nucleus is an epistemically objective fact. Rocks are ontologically objective. What's the problem?

0 Replies

@Huxley,

Attitude. That's something I think of as subjective or objective.

To approach something objectively is to consider it without including considerations of how that something relates to you, the subject. There are issues with this, as it seems that given how our perception seems to function, it isn't possible to be truly objective.

To approach it subjectively is to include presonal preferences in your considerations.

0 Replies

@Huxley,

Maybe we cannot understand what is objective without understanding what is subjective. Therefore, compare "objectively, the subjective" to "subjectively, the objective". Then see how they integrate: objectively, the subjective holds forms of (1) itself and (2) the objective, it believes will fit the world intuitively yet precisely, until it realizes its dream or it realizes its mistake.

0 Replies

Tigger, many social theorists might use the term, "intersubjective" to refer to the following: "The objective, as a word, is used to describe a common viewpoint that is inherently subjective to a culture or subculture or group of some kind."

0 Replies

Objective/Subjective

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know