Objectivity is shared subjectivity

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Objectivity is shared subjectivity

Everything we perceive is dependent upon our biological nature and reality has meaning only in what our sense and perception biology provide us. Real for me is only what I perceive to be real.

Someone said that objectivity is shared subjectivity; this phrase resonates for me; really. What we can say about reality is based upon our shared objectivity, it does not say anything significant about reality in-it-self, except in its constancy, but it is significant in that we humans share it universally; it is reality-for-humans

Each different comprehension of a situation provides a commitment to what is real about a situation. Each such real commitment is a version of a commitment to truth.

The arts and the sciences endeavor to discover and communicate to the world the meaning of reality. There came a time in the evolution of the human psychic when we became semantic creatures; we discovered the power of symbolic representation of events. Art focuses on the inner reality of the subject whereas science focused on the reality that was external to the subject.

"From this traditionalist standpoint information and the perception of meaning

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,311 • Replies: 27

No top replies

Coberst,

Congratulations on highlighting a major philosophical point, albeit not an original one.

The "problem of objectivity" is little understood especially amongst scientists themselves. It is encapsulated in the Copenhagen Convention for quantum mechanics and in the Santiago theory of cognition. Extrapolation leads to the concept of "reality as a social structure" from which it follows that many traditional arguments about e.g. the "existence of God" are futile since "God" like any other "concept" becomes merely another node in a social exchange network.

Because of the iconoclastic nature of this issue I doubt whether you will find many who are tempted to explore it.

0 Replies

If we could list all the things that all normal humans share we could then say anything out side of this container of objectivity is subjective. Perhaps the container of objectivity contains 1000 things and we found one thing in a particular situation that was out side this container. Then would the matter under consideration to be objective or subjective?

I would be inclined to say that the difference between objective and subjective is a matter of degree. Some things would be very, very, subjective whereas some things might be only somewhat slightly subjective. I think that we might recognize that everything is subjective to some degree.

I am inclined to say that a professional physicist who is very careful and is not dealing with something that impinges on her ideology would make most measurements in only a very small subjective way.

0 Replies

Wouldn't 'shared' and 'subjectivity' be an oxymoron?

0 Replies

The word "objectivity" doesn't traditionally mean "shared subjectivity". It means something more. If there were an omniscient God, he would be able to be objective.

Perhaps we are only capable of intersubjectivity, and not objectivity. But objectivity is still in theory possible, don't you think? There is a world out there, even if we can't see it as it actually is, in-itself. Isn't there?

0 Replies

agrote

What you have to come to terms with is that "existence" or "is-ness" is relative to some observer. YOU are that observer of your hypothetical "objective world"....you see it in your minds eye ! Remove "you" and we remove that "existence." This is the crux of the philosophical point....the ad hoc "solution" being to evoke a "God" as the "ultimate observer" (Bishop Berkeley).

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

The word "objectivity" doesn't traditionally mean "shared subjectivity". It means something more. If there were an omniscient God, he would be able to be objective.

Perhaps we are only capable of intersubjectivity, and not objectivity. But objectivity is still in theory possible, don't you think? There is a world out there, even if we can't see it as it actually is, in-itself. Isn't there?

The path to objectivity is pretty much a given ... walk into a tree head first and you have no doubts concerning it's objectivity. Subjectivity, driven by intellect, provides definition and due to differences in intellect, different conclusions. Hence the definition of the earth as a cube.

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Wouldn't 'shared' and 'subjectivity' be an oxymoron?

What is subjectivity? I would say subjectivity is that what a subject does or is. Since every subject, i.e. every human shares much in common this what is common is called objective. Shared in that we all do the same thing. We all perceive, conceive, infer, etc. exactly with the same biology. However each subject has things that make that subject unique and that is not shared and thus we call it subjective.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

The word "objectivity" doesn't traditionally mean "shared subjectivity". It means something more. If there were an omniscient God, he would be able to be objective.

Perhaps we are only capable of intersubjectivity, and not objectivity. But objectivity is still in theory possible, don't you think? There is a world out there, even if we can't see it as it actually is, in-itself. Isn't there?

There is a world out there that is stable and allows us to perceive it. Our perceiptions are partly from the world and partly from our biology. We have no way of knowing the world without perceiving it.

0 Replies

Quote:

There is a world out there that is stable and allows us to perceive it. Our perceiptions are partly from the world and partly from our biology. We have no way of knowing the world without perceiving it.

No...you don't understand your original quotation! There is no world "out there" other than the one we evoke by consensus !

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Quote:
There is a world out there that is stable and allows us to perceive it. Our perceiptions are partly from the world and partly from our biology. We have no way of knowing the world without perceiving it.

No...you don't understand your original quotation! There is no world "out there" other than the one we evoke by consensus !

Good point. It is a puzzlement isn't it.

0 Replies

Maybe not such "a puzzle". All depends on scale of analysis. Our common "perception" is that "tables are solid". This is ostensibly a prediction about our interralationship with a categorization we call table. Then the physicist comes along and tells us that "we" and "tables" are mostly empty space ....and "solidity" can be perceived as "repulsive forces" between the constituents. What he is really saying is that "we" and "tables" fall into a category for him called "matter" such that he can predict his laboratory interrelationship with that category. The difference in levels implies a difference in functional generalities which may have no significance between levels. Unless we are are astronauts, we all comfortably operate with a "reality" of "the sun going round the earth" or perhaps even a "flat earth". Problems only arise when we see "existence of categories" (including "self") as having independent reality from the interractional process we call "perception".

0 Replies

Fresco

I have been thinking about a different format that a forum might add that would facilitate dialogue. What is your opinion?

I find only frustration when I try to engage in a serious discourse on the Internet. I would like to suggest for consideration that the forum facilitate a Talking Circles dialogue.

Talking Circles is a technique used in colleges to teach dialogical thinking. This technique has evidently proved effective when decisions are required about issues wherein there is no right or wrong answer; such matters as social and moral concerns can be discussed within a non-judgmental climate.

A particular issue is defined in a short statement and every entry is directed only to that statement and no comment is directed at other comments. The group should be small, perhaps seven members or less.
This whole matter is described here:
http://sesd.sk.ca/psychology/Psych20/dialectical_reasoning.htm

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

The "problem of objectivity" is little understood especially amongst scientists themselves.

My thoughts exactly. Scientists are one ironic bunch. Unfortunately, many of them don't see the humor in it. Frustrated me in the sciences at an early age.

Sorry Coberst, but I need to go on a bit of a tangeant here. Have not some systems of scientific thought accounted for this 'problem of objectivity'. Don't know a terrible lot about it, only thinking to my brief love affair with traditional chinese medicine and some of the philosophical-historic roots. A system of scientific thought which accounted for the 'instrument' influencing the 'experiment' hence all conclusions being only malleable, humane truths!

That seemed revolutionary to me reading it. Physics actually started to make a little bit of sense. Laughing

Sorry C, again. Interesting concept you are presenting with the Talking Circle. <listening>

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

There is no world "out there" other than the one we evoke by consensus !

How do you know?

If there's no world "out there", there aren't any other people... Who's "we"? Who's reaching any concensus?

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Quote:
There is a world out there that is stable and allows us to perceive it. Our perceiptions are partly from the world and partly from our biology. We have no way of knowing the world without perceiving it.

No...you don't understand your original quotation! There is no world "out there" other than the one we evoke by consensus !

This sounds like 'universal consciousness' ... is it?

0 Replies

agrote

Solipsism in a communicative forum would indeed be perverse !
What must be the starting point here is thinking via language the acquired vehicle of thought and social consensus.

Rosbourne,

I don't think we need to advocate universal consciousness at this level of discourse but certainly "local" consciousness.

Coberst,

I'll give some thought to your proposal and get back.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Rosbourne,

I don't think we need to advocate universal consciousness at this level of discourse but certainly "local" consciousness.

At the risk of sounding obtuse could you define 'local' for me? Local as in 'intrinsic'?
Rosbourne?

0 Replies

Gelisgesti,

By "local" I mean "local semantic field". Perhaps a good illustration of its breakdown is when the joker at the airport is arrested for answering "a machine gun of course" to the question "whats in that violin case ?". Clearly the joker was ignorant of the change in "social reality"and its associated semantic field particular to current air travel. Similar breakdowns occur over the concep of "blasphemy" between believers and atheists.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Quote:
There is a world out there that is stable and allows us to perceive it. Our perceiptions are partly from the world and partly from our biology. We have no way of knowing the world without perceiving it.

No...you don't understand your original quotation! There is no world "out there" other than the one we evoke by consensus !

I disagree. Even a man completely unaware of walls will get knocked the frig out if he runs into one at full speed.

0 Replies

Objectivity is shared subjectivity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know