An Objective View

I agree with Fil that (while JHuber does try to distill a nice generalization from a complex reality) Huber's principle oversimplifies too much (but of course all generalizations are necessarily simplifications). As I understand the terms subject(ive) and object(ive) the former refers to the "interior" contents of our lives and the latter to its "exterior" contents (which is ultimately a false dichtomy). But with this perspective I can say that (although I am biased regarding everything) I have emotional attachments to many objects (e.g., mementos and artworks) and I can be detached from (i.e, indifferent to) the subjective life of many humans and animals--I wish it weren't so. I wish I were more empathetic.

Let me put it this way. If you stand in each of the four corners of your backyard each corner provides a different view. These are subjective views because they are by you. However, for each view it is the same backyard. The backyard independent of you is the objective view.

Why are the words subjective and objective used? Obviously, you are a subject which is why subjective works in this example, but there is no object viewing the backyard, real or imaginary, so why is the word objective used to describe it? As there is no object viewing the backyard, technically saying it is an objective view is an abuse of the word, objective.

So then, why is the word objective used? The only difference between an object and a subject is the fact that an object does not have emotional ramifications and a subject does. People sometimes observe competitions biased in their favor because people have emotions. An object wouldn't do that of course which is why we attribute independent views as objective. Other than that the words subject and object are interchangeable.

I don't think this was a complex problem at all.

Think again !

Its not primarily and emotional issue. That use of "subjectivity" applies to differences of social judgement. We speak here of a general perceptual issue with regard to species specificity.Try the view of "the backyard" from the point of view of an ant. Then answer the question "what constitutes the objective back yard", or indeed "the backyard" at all !

Well put fresco. But it seems people have the tedency to heap empirical knowledge into 'grand narratives' to fill the opaque objectivity we so desperately want to turn into facts. Whether an ant does that in some way is intriguing to know. (Maybe on some chemical level and maybe not in 'narratives' as such) If it's perceptions that is the issue on the quest for an 'objective view', than relatively the 'subject' is relative to what it may be subjected to. ie; ant to backyard, human to city, blue whale to ocean etc..

I agree that it is primarily not a emotional issue. I would say that on a genralised view it may have connections with proximal spatial awarness and how one associates (and even navigate through) environments. I'm sure there would be more to it than that though.

In addition to the ant's perception, there's the matter of the effects of INTERESTS on human definitions of the situation: your neighbor may possibly call for a survey of property boundries insisting that part of "your" backyard is really part of "his" backyard. Here we have an overlap of subjective and objective desiderata.

One may argue that while two people may differ over the ownership of a "property" it is, nevertheless, the SAME property--that "it" is an absolute entity.
But one cannot deny that it also VARIES ontologically depending on the many possible levels of its reality we choose to consider. For example (at the human level alone), one can "define" it as a legally defined "property"; an ecologist may see it as a system of competing and cooperating forces; another may focus on the area as a cosmos of "molecules", or, still deeper "atoms" and so forth "all the way down." This relativism is undeniable, but so, in a sense, is the fact that each level and perspective is absolute in--what buddhism may refer to as--its "suchness" or particularity.

This is not directly an emotional issue this is an issue of bias. A subjective view is biased, an objective view is not. Subjects have bias, objects do not. Bias exists because of emotion however.

The objective view of the backyard from the point of view of an ant is an oxymoron. The ant is a subject not an object.

What constitutes the backyard is determined by the law which is interpreted by a judge. Of course the judge is a subject so whatever he determines is a subjective view. However, it is the judge's passion to be as objective as possible - without bias.

Your argument is in essence supportive of "reality as a social construction" Once again, you are talking about social decision procedures, not ontology or epistemology (existence and knowledge).. Kant identified the issue that "the world" was inaccessible to direct perception, and some phenomenologists went a step further in arguing that "the world" can be discounted in the analysis of "experience" except for what observers agree between themselves. Such a view is now encapsulated in Kuhn's concept of "scientific paradigms" insofar that "models of reality" are constituted by the social networking and methodology agreed by those we call "scientists" at a given time. There is no such thing as "an unbiased view" because all data collection is directed by temporary models. Pragmatists (cynically) point out that scientists merely attempt to control selective aspects of an elusive "reality", which like the carrot attached to to the stick attached to the donkey, forever remains out of reach.

Yes, like I wrote a few days ago, I believe the word objective is an abuse of the word object.

You say there is no such thing as "an unbiased view." As long as I have your ear there is something I'd like to ask. This pertains to the original post. If all views are subjective in the analysis of "experience," how would that apply to the view of subjects and relations? Although subjects and relations are abstract concepts they do exist in cognition. Being a view that contains all subjects, doesn't that count for being unbiased?

How can it be biased to claim that pride is the opposite of shame or right is the inverse of possession?

Once you get into "cognitive semantics" you depart from the realm of "scientific evidence" to which the adjective "objective" has a certain functional value involving a concept of "public observation". For example, in "embodiment theory" (e.g. Varela et al) the very location of "cognition" is disputed. Some say "the brain", others "the whole body", and others "the social environment". The latter makes it very difficult to talk about "subjectivity" since "the subject" turns out to a local social network, or even "mankind at a a time in history". And as to the concept of "inverse", Lakoff, another embodiment theorist, argues that our interpretation of this (and all mathematics btw !) is a direct result of our species specific anatomy (such that if we were not bipedal and crawled about, we would have no concept of "opposite" "ahead" behind" "inside" "outside" etc which act as basic domains for metaphorical mapping).

And all this is from embodiment theory alone, only one area of "metalogical analysis" i.e. analysis which transcends the dichotomy of "subjective-objective".

The concepts you talk about seem sound to me but a thought did enter my mind.. Not to be cruel or anything, but what about those with mental retardation or people in deep coma's?

Clearly, both retardation and coma are concepts used by others who need to "deal" with social behaviour. The individual on whom the others are focussing is living in his own "reality" which little or no overlap with what the others statistically share.

It doesn't take scientific evidence to make the claim that family members are cognitively called relatives in any social environment or public observation. (Please forgive me for stating the obvious.) Another obvious piece of evidence would be that the components in the topic of a conversation, a subject, are cognitively called relevant. I'm not sure if those pieces of evidence would be considered as metalogic or not, I'd probably call them "as by definition" myself. Certainly the scientific evidence for subjects and relations theory shouldn't be in dispute.

To make the claim that subjects and relations theory is nonbiased should only require the simple premise that the term subject is the category of all categories and that the term relation never consists of a singularity. As all is included, it couldn't be biased. It must be an objective view and it should exist in academic philosophy somewhere. What I am looking for is the fault in that logic.

I've decided to change the definition of subject in this theory and also to include entity and concept. The first four lines shall now be:

Subject - an abstraction for or in a relation

Relation - more than one subject combined together

Entity - tangible subject

Concept - intangible subject

I'm curious, Can an object also be an abstraction for "in a relation"?
And can a relation be between two objects? Would they become one object?
When you say that a subject is an abstraction for "in a relation" is that like when we think about "I and me"?

u must change it again if u mean any serious interest about those facts

but since u change it says how it is never about being true urself but even for lies interests over existing rights abuse ur theory is a shame to mention a fake relation with objective intelligence, much better to say nothing and stay **** powers of subjective pervert wills as gods life limits kind of dirty freedom one

i is an abstraction of a relation for u, as ur i so ur freedom is from taking advantage of pretending being real by relating to smthg

this is the source of what is called bitching urself

u dont care about urself all u care about is the freedom out of getting smthg

in truth, i is infinity limited to one superior fact free existing justification sense, like from what u objectively do alone giving u a sense of true superiority being someone as smthg of value, but only u as free one and exclusively bc of what u did alone

while me is the true self which is related to objective existence as a whole fact free by being free self too of the same truth concept being constant result
me is the awareness of being still, so the freedom out of the fact that u r still here, that same awareness that still become smthg alone a true self without doing anything

JL, those are excellent questions.

Abstract words are higher in scope than generalizations or categories. There are only four truly abstract words. They are subject, object, unit and relation. Objects do not have emotional ramifications, subjects can. For example, if a child's toy is broken as an object it is just a broken toy, but if it is as a subject then it is an emotional issue. Units are only used for counting. Relations are combinations of any of these. Relations of objects is engineering. Relations of units is mathematics. Relations of subjects is, supposed to be, philosophy.

Entity and concepts are also abstract words but they, I believe, are special cases of subjects. Entities are tangible subjects, concepts are intangible.

I decided to define subject as "an abstraction for or in a relation" because all subjects are either extrinsic or intrinsic. Extrinsic subjects are used for a relation (to identify a relation), intrinsic subjects are subjects in a relation (they are related together). There simply is no example of a subject one can think of that is neither extrinsic or intrinsic. If a subject has a determinant (a, the, some) then it is intrinsic. If it comes after "of" or "in" then it is extrinsic. Even subjects that do not have these prepositions associated with them do have them implied. There are no exceptions.

Objects similarly only come in extrinsic and intrinsic forms as well. The only difference, like I said before, is that objects have no emotional ramifications.

If you or anyone finds a fault with this I want to know. I'm only trying to get it right.

u dont get what abstract is at all
only freedom can b a matter of abstraction, but how freedom can b existing to mean it as an objective fact??? well, from its fact being absolute value

then abstract become normal thing animations out of all, where liars get the life of it calling it spiritual ends of creations supervalues, very abstract myass say it blankly how it is all lies and nothing to do with any abstraction truth

the problem with ur way of thinking abstract is what obviously u r too limited concrete, so not even regular concrete which is objective absolute sight missing the freedom of it all

Abstractions are free of anything specific. In that sense I agree with you, abstraction is freedom. However, freedom is a quality or an attribute. Qualities or attributes aren't abstractions.

Subjects, objects, units and relations are abstractions. They are free of anything specific.

This thread is supposed to be about the theory of subjects and relations. It is presented in the original post. I am making the claim that it is an absolute truth. Neitzsche claims that there are no absolute truths in philosophy. What do you believe?