The objective-subjective trap
The objective subjective trap is something I have noticed occurring for quite some time now. People talk about being objective or subjective; but, what does that even mean? How does one know one is being objective or subjective. Fundamentally, it seems that the claim that one is being either objective or subjective is the Sorites paradox.
Furthermore, when we talk about being objective as opposed to being subjective, we are really talking about criteria for evaluating knowledge. I have raised this thorny issue already in a fairly recent thread, here.
Thoughts or criticisms welcome.
Furthermore, when we talk about being objective as opposed to being subjective, we are really talking about criteria for evaluating knowledge. I have raised this thorny issue already in a fairly recent thread, here.
Thoughts or criticisms welcome.
Comments (185)
Subjective deals with how I feel about knowledge.
I am particularly aware of this when dealing with my favorite subject, morality.
Objectively racism exists (going by definitions as Moliere points out.)
Racism being good, evil, whatever is subjective. It is based on what guiding principle a person wants to live by.
Choosing a guiding objective is subjective. Once chosen living by it is objective. If one starts making exceptions to the rule, then how do they justify, beyond their own feelings, that others' exceptions are invalid?
Looking at The New Dualism thread, I am reading it casually, as becoming well versed enough to argue in it is not a good use of my time, utterly subjective.
The reason why is I get tired of arguing around ideas that cannot be solved. Someone mentioned that the materialists have not won. But we are winning currently (Note: I am a recovering dualist.) Through our available evidence our consciousnesses is an emergent property from our physiology. There COULD be invisible forces affecting things, but you all COULD be a fevered dream of mine, so prove otherwise.
Now that was not meant to be a slight, it is just why I do not participate in a lot of arguments beyond trying to bring up some pragmatic point for discussion.
If you want to argue about such things in your free time, or if it happens to be your job - go for it.
That seems to suggest to me, that there is a HUGE difference between objective and subjective reasoning. One assessment is from me and one from you. Which is subjective or objective changes situationally.
None of the most important philosophical issues can be "solved." Dualism vs. materialism, free will vs. determinism, or whatever, are not a matters of fact. They're matters of, what? Opinion? Choice? Different approaches can be more or less useful depending on the situation.
I think of "objective" as how someone completely outside the system, i.e. God, sees things. That's not a definition, but it helps me think about it. Although the concept of objectivity can be useful, I think it's hard to justify on a broader scale. Of course, that probably means that the concept of subjectivity also has a limited application.
I think that's a good way of putting it. And I would contrast the meaning of "subjective" (as I have most often seen it used) as how someone (you or me) completely INSIDE the system sees things.
We have shortcomings in every aspect of our perceptions; God is lucky enough to (somehow) perceive everything as it actually is. And yet, no matter how superior objective perception might seem, God's view is foreign to us, and our view is comfortable and familiar. It is the human view. For that reason, it's the view I am most interested in. If I was God, I'm sure the opposite would be the case. :wink:
Some people call an objective view the "view from nowhere". This means that the explanation is one in which there are no mentions, or implying of appearances. There is just an explanation of what that thing, or process, is or does.
On the other side of the coin, an objective explanation is an explanation that holds true no matter what perspective you have. This is why scientists test each others' theories, to see if they are applicable at all time, everywhere, for everyone. Objective explanations will be useful for everyone.
Subjective explanations are not useful for everyone. They do not apply in all cases. Objectivity is so difficult (if not impossible) to attain when you are a being in time and space and have your own sensory devices and a memory to store the information they receive. You have a view from somewhere, not from everywhere, which is why you rely on others to verify your interpretation of what you are experiencing. It's just that an objective view is impossible - paradoxical even. We can only attain a degree of it by using the scientific method.
I don't think science is any closer to objectivity or truth than lots of other ways of seeing things. In fact, it's further away than some because it tries to give the illusion of objectivity where none exists.
I wouldn't say "speculation," I'd say preference. My view is not a majority view.
Quoting Kamikaze Butter
I don't see it that way. I think philosophical and scientific issues are different in kind.
Quoting Kamikaze Butter
I don't think scientific approaches are objective in any but the most limited way.
Quoting Kamikaze Butter
This seems like a non sequitur. Anyway, to me, it's not the fact that homosexuality is not voluntary that makes it not a moral issue, it's because it's none of our damn business. As for pedophilia, we shouldn't prosecute people for thoughts or fantasies, but if they hurt a child, throw them in the slammer. For a long time.
How about providing one of those "ways" of seeing things that is more objective than science.
I don't think an objective way of seeing things exists. The problem is that science pretends to be one.
So, the issue seems to be, when does one know they are being objective, correct?
Quoting Moliere
Yes, words are circular, they derive their meaning from other words. What do you think this says about the objective/subjective dichotomy? I'm trying to point at a third alternative.
Nicely put. So, you're talking about intersubjectivity?
That's irrelevant. We don't have to be omniscient to be objective about things.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting T Clark
So you can't provide just one way of seeing things that is more objective than science.
Science doesn't pretend anything. You do science anytime you use reason to explain your experiences and error-check to ensure that they are consistent with the rest of your experiences.
In my opinion, "objective" and "omniscient" are pretty much synonymous.
I'm not sure about that. Many philosophers think otherwise; but, am not going to delve into that. Namely, in that through the analysis of the subject (self) relative to the object (the world), one can become more objective. Just a thought.
I think my response to your comment answered that question.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Is that what objectivity means - experiences which are consistent with other experiences? If so, I would have no problem, but that's not how the term is generally used.
Well, for myself at least, I just began to think that the use of the terms added more confusion than clarity. But in not using them their importance seemed to drop out with them, and you could get on with thinking about the topic at hand.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I'm open to a third way. I still don't think that the terms are terribly important, merely that they are tolerable as long as we remain clear about what we mean - hardly a passionate defense of an old dichotomy :D.
I am uncertain what the derivation of meaning from other words might say about objective/subjective. I'd have to have it spelled out for me more.
Do you think the doctor ceases to be 'objective' if s(he)'s plan of action is undertaking, since like a narrator s(he) now becomes part of the story?
I don't understand the point. The nature of metaphysical things like free will are simply speculation unless we can somehow observe them.
Quoting T Clark
How so? I mean I noted they were different, so we do not need Democritus' philosophizing on atomic theory any longer, as we are smashing atoms together to study the subatomic level.
Quoting T Clark
It's more of an object lesson in subjectivity. Why exactly is anything other individuals do our business? What does "hurt" a child mean? Why are you characterizing pedophilia as a crime rather than a mental disease?
You do not have to answer those. The point is we can debate the answers, but the basis for and resulting belief will come down to "because I want it to be that way." Which is subjective.
An atom exists whether we want it to or not. Which is objective.
I think Tiff gave a good response. I'll add a bit more. As Tiff pointed out, if I give you a report of what happening internally, it's clearly subjective, i.e., it originates with the subject. If I give a piece of knowledge that is dependent on me, then it's also subjective. For example, it's true that I like orange juice, and someone can claim that they know that I like orange juice, but this kind of knowledge is dependent on the subject (me). Objective knowledge is not dependent of the how I feel or think, it's independent of how I feel or think. Thus, the fact that the Earth has one moon is an objective fact, i.e., it's not dependent on how anyone feels or thinks. Objective facts can exist apart from minds, subjective facts cannot. This is not that difficult to comprehend. I love the way people want to throw out words that they find difficult, or that they cannot fit into their world view.
The idea that objective is synonymous with omniscience is just silly.
Also, words don't get their meaning from other words, words primarily get their meaning from how they're used.
Which is to say that how other words are used in combination with the word of interest, contextually speaking.
To make my point further, if we create a simple language-game with only one word, say, "slab," and we use it to refer to one object, how is it dependent on other words? Sure we use words in conjunction with other words, but that doesn't mean that they get their meaning from those words. If I say, "Go get the chair!" - how is chair dependent, in terms of meaning, on go or get or the? It may be that to form a proper sentence, words are dependent on each other, but that's a far cry from saying words get their meaning from other words.
Well, to put it another way, the definitions of most non-rigid designators are circular and depends on other words to determine their meaning. So, that can limit the scope of all things that are not ostensibly defined to be categorized into the subjective category, which I suppose many philosophers agree with. But, then if we assume the implications of the private language argument, then doesn't that mean that the feeling of 'pain' and with it the word used is not in some sense also objective or rather intersubjective?
I don't understand the point of bringing up circularity, as if it's a negative. We're not talking about arguments, which is the point of the fallacy of circularity. But maybe you're using circular in another way, I'm not sure.
Yes, the word pain does have an objectivity to it, as I said in the other thread. There is both the subjective experience of pain, but there is also the cries and moans of pain, which it the objective part. I'm not saying that there aren't difficult aspects to the objective/subjective discussion, but that's true of most subjects. If I look at you and you're moaning, it's objective for me that that's happening, but you're expressing a subjective feeling that can be seen by all. So in some cases there is both a subjective component and an objective component.
I just brought it up because I thought language was self-justifying/self-sealing, giving me the impression that it is neither subjective nor objective; but, a social construct. And, calling it a social construct doesn't necessarily mean it is subjective or objective; but, intersubjective. I don't know if you recall the old thread over at the old Philosophy Forums, where @Banno had a thread about this same issue or similar to some extent. The whole thread was something like 80 pages long, and people kept on going back and forth trying to justify their own understanding of what it means for something to either be subjective or objective.
Anyway, it's a negative because there is an implicit criteria being deployed when one is trying to evaluate objective knowledge from subjective knowledge, which I'm not even sure if it (the criteria) can be talked about. It almost seems like an endless task to justify said criteria with another set of criteria to ensure its scope and consistency. The circularity of definitions is a confounding factor to the ambiguity and vagueness of establishing said criteria to evaluate the objective from the subjective.
So, my whole point is that instead of talking about the futile task of what is the subjective from the objective we ought to talk about the criteria used in delineating the two.
In my view, questions about metaphysical things such as free will are not matters of fact. They do not have yes or no answers. They, as R.G. Collingwood says, "....are not verifiable. This does not mean that we should like to verify them but are not able to; ·it means that the idea of verification is an idea which does not apply to them..." If thinking about such entities, discussing them, is speculation, then I'll grant your point.
Quoting Kamikaze Butter
Scientific questions, and other similar questions, have factual, yes or no, answers. Metaphysical questions do not.
Quoting Kamikaze Butter
Moral issues are subjective? Sure, but, in my view, there are no truly objective issues.
The fact you call it "silly" doesn't make it wrong. You've provided nothing to show that it is.
Yes, "objective" and "omniscient" are different words with different definitions, which is trivial, which may be what you are saying.
On the other hand, it seems clear to me there is no true objectivity without omniscience. You can add to that the fact that neither exists. The idea that there is no objective reality is not an exotic one. I'm not the first one to think of it. It's been discussed here on the forum a number of times in the year I've been here. I remember discussing it on the old forum too.
I have no problem making the objective/subjective distinction at the local level. There is value in knowing that an idea or fact is tied to documented evidence agreed on by relevant observers. That's the kind of tool we use all the time. It's a useful way of seeing things.
It's when you grant that distinction some sort of universal applicability that it falls apart.
Quoting Posty McPostface
On the face of it, it does not make sense to say of a subject, that it is objective. And yet...
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
... This is interesting, because one of the things the doctor observes is the subjective report of the patient. For example, it makes a difference to the doctor whether the patient indicates the location of the pain with a finger, a flat hand, or a fist. One might say that doctors are taught to objectify patients, such that their reports are treated as symptoms rather than communications. The doctor's reports are objective, and thus the doctor does not need to objectify himself, his observations are trained to be 'disinterested' and when he arrives at a diagnosis it is ...
Quoting Harry Hindu
Which does not equate to infallible, of course, but to trained indifference, which is of course just the way of being that Posty started with. It is the business of a doctor to 'be objective', or to take an objective view.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Damn, then there are no real doctors. Perhaps one can ameliorate the force of this a little, and say that an objective view is possible in at least some instances, though one can never be secure that one has taken the objective view in a particular instance.
Quoting Sam26
You deserve a better quote, Sam-I-am; it makes sense to divide knowledge into knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the object, and yet this is not what people have been wanting to refer to. So I will play hard-ball with you for a moment. Whatever is knowledge is true, and therefore objective.I can only know from what you tell me that you like orange juice, but if you are honest, I know the same thing that you know.
Quoting T Clark
What's an issue? I'm inclined to agree with you to the extent that an issue has to be an issue for some subject that they are not indifferent to. But beware the 'truly' formation it invites complaints of 'no true scotsman' fallacy.
Why the quantifier true in front of objectivity? Something is either objective or it is not. Why do I need to postulate omniscience in order to say that it's objective that the Earth has one moon? I don't see the connection, nor the need for omniscience. Moreover, many things get discussed in these forums, but that doesn't mean that they have significance, or that they're true, or that the discussion is worthwhile.
Sure many people make the claim that there is no objective reality, but that belies what the words mean and how they're used.
Finally, this was started with the claim that the word objective is somehow synonymous with omniscience. You still have given no evidence that this is the case. The burden of proof is on you, because most people would say what I've said, viz., that they're two different words with different meanings. To be synonymous - you have to have different words with the same meanings, or nearly the same meanings.
I'm not trying to be obscure or wishy-washy about what I'm saying. I'll try to be as definitive as I can. There are no objective facts, issues, ideas, observations, perceptions, events, measurements, interpretations, meanings, thoughts, explanations, phenomena,..... What did I leave out?
Then, is that not an objective fact unto itself?
Someone had to say it...
Objects.
If I say, "I like oranges," the truth of the statement is dependent on me, i.e., my likes and dislikes for example, and this is what makes it subjective. It's also a contingent truth besides being a subjective truth. There are subjective contingent truths like the one I cited, and there are objective contingent truths like the Earth has one moon.
Of course if it's knowledge it's true, that's not disputed, but not all knowledge is objective. If you know that Sam likes orange juice, the truth of that statement is dependent on me, not anything other than how I feel or think about oranges. Therefore, it's a piece of subjective knowledge, not objective knowledge. Of course you know the same thing that I know, but the point is that it's dependent on me, that's why it's subjective. Objective knowledge or facts are independent of minds, i.e., we could all cease to exist and the Earth would still have one moon, but if we all ceased to exist all subjective truths would simply be non-existent.
I think Tiff's response was good, too. What it gave was a very clear context of usage. I would say, however, that the context of usage for objective/subjective is not always so clear as that.
For one, I wasn't sure if the OP was even talking about knowledge per se (I see un brought up this point too). We could be talking about beliefs, facts, knowledge, or even entities. Any given philosopher has some project in mind which might help to understand the terms, but in speaking together, here, I'd say it is hard to pin down the exact meaning of the terms without a little leg-work. With Tiff's example we knew what was under consideration -- symptoms. So a patient gave a subjective symptom, whereas a doctor -- playing the role of an analyst -- gives an objective one. Makes perfect sense.
But using the words objective and subjective does not always play out so smoothly, nor is it clear what domain is under consideration even.
Quoting Sam26
I am more inclined to agree with you, but I didn't want to raise the point. I mostly wanted to understand what the implication was, regardless of whatever theory of meaning we might subscribe to.
Quoting Sam26
If earths and moons ceased to exist, truths about earths and moons would cease to exist. If Sam did not exist, he would not have likes - what's the difference?
I agree, but that's true of most subjects, things can and do get muddy. However, generally it seems fairly easy, especially in Tiff's case, to delineate between the subjective and objective.
Well, that's because I don't consider knowledge to be subject to the objective-subjective dichotomy.
It seems to me, re-reading your OP, your saying that you can replace all talk of objective or subjective knowledge with talk of criteria for knowledge. Though without the categories objective/subjective.
So you just mean that there are criteria for counting something as knowledge, and we can argue about those rather than argue over whether or not something is objective or subjective..
Subjective truths are dependent on minds, objective truths are not, so while it's true that if certain objects failed to exist, then truths about those objects would be meaningless. Thus both truths would fail to obtain without the supporting criteria, but that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between the two kinds of truths.
Yes.
Not true. The term is used in at least two different ways. 1) well supported by unbiased evidence, e.g. the reporter was objective or 2) absolute congruence with reality independent of mind, e.g. the way things would be if no consciousness existed.
Quoting Sam26
Earth has a number of things in orbit around it. We've chosen to call one of them "the moon." We've defined it as one of a kind. Just like Pluto used to be a planet but now it's not. That distinction makes a lot of sense.
We've observed the behavior of matter and energy. Based on those observations, we've concluded that, at the smallest scales, matter is made up of particles which are acted on by specific types of forces. Those distinctions make a lot of sense also, but they don't explain how the world works except in the most simplistic way. That is not predictable from reductionist, so-called objective "facts."
Quoting Sam26
My point was that a denial of objective reality is a well-established, well-supported philosophical position. And, no, it's not just a matter of language and words. If you want to say that position is self-evidently insignificant and not worth discussing, that's your choice.
Quoting Sam26
Here's what I wrote:
Quoting T Clark
So, I acknowledged you were correct.
No. It's not a fact at all. It's a metaphysical position.
I'll go further, if Sam and the rest of us did not exist, earths and moons would also cease to exist.
Both of these definitions support my contention, viz., that there is no need for the word "true" in front of "objectivity." Something is objective if it is either one of those definitions. How does this support your use of "true objectivity?"
Quoting T Clark
How does any of this support the contention that "objective" is synonymous with "omniscience?" I don't see any connection?
Quoting T Clark
We can go back and forth about what's well established, but I don't see any good arguments that there is no objective reality that make sense. Most of these arguments are misunderstandings, and most of them are misunderstandings of the way we derive meaning from words. I'm not saying that it's insignificant, I was simply pointing out that because something is discussed or argued for, that doesn't make it worthwhile, significant, or true. Many things are discussed in these forums and in philosophical circles that bare little resemblance to reality.
I think the words are quite squirrelly. So, yes, they can be used, but they have a tendency to shift meaning without notice.
But there is no evidence for this contention Clark. Unless you want to cite quantum mechanical theories, but even there, there is disagreement about what it means to say that something obtains because we're looking at it.
You didn't quite catch Posty's point earlier. You are treating objective statements as if they're truth apt.
That's all you need to be an embracer of objectivity.
Well, I am only for the moment talking about knowledge. To answer you question though, pragmatically speaking the patient is the subject at the doctors office with some purpose (objective) and the doctor is fulfilling this shared goal of returning the patient back to health.
Well there is a sense at least in which all truths are dependent on minds, to the extent that truth is a property of propositions, and propositions need proposers. I think you need stronger term than 'dependent on' - would you say that subjective truths are about (states of) mind? But even then, one can establish beyond reasonable doubt mens rea in a court of law.
And if one could not, it would become a beetle in a box. Oddly, the distinction as you are making it seems counter to Wittgenstein.
But what I wanted to draw attention town my first post was how very differently folks are using the terms, about knowledge, about attitudes, about explanations, about ways of being, about issues and so on.
"Moon" and "Earth" are concepts. Products of minds. They have no reality independent of language. If there were no consciousness, all there would be is a big pile of undifferentiated goo, or as we philosophers like to call it, the Tao.
I guess I did miss it. Can you give me a link to the particular post you're talking about.
I'm not sure what frank is referring to here. So, I'm in the dark too.
Patients have complaints, which are subjective (statements). Thus when Sam26 says "I like orange juice", it is a statement about the person making the statement. When Sam26's lawyer says "Sam26 likes orange juice", it is not a statement about the person making the statement, and at least purports to be objective. As such, we can consider his wife's testimony that he never drinks orange juice home to be significant. It may become less significant in the light of his lover's claim that his wife always buys cheap concentrate, and what he likes is fresh orange juice with juicy bits. And so on.
Talk about truths or facts is dependent on minds, and thus language is also mind dependent. However, the fact in reality is separate from the concept fact, and it's separate from talk about those facts. Thus, objective facts, i.e., the existence of objective facts are not mind dependent in the sense that they can still obtain whether we have the concepts or language to refer to them. So in that sense they are not dependent on minds, they can have their existence quite apart from minds. There is a sense where everything may be dependent on minds or consciousness, but that will take us far afield. This has more to do with my metaphysics.
Subjective truths are about propositions, and how we use them in relation to our mind. I'm not saying that meaning is derived from something in the mind, only that there is a connection, maybe causal, between subjective truths and minds.
Can you give an example of a fact in realty that is not a conceptual fact?
The moons and stars are not value judgments.
For us to talk about the facts (states-of-affairs) we need the concepts, but the existence of facts are not dependent on the concepts, they're only dependent on the concepts if we are to talk about the facts. Any existent thing is separate from the concept used to refer to it, so the fact that the Earth has one moon is separate from anything conceptual. So I think the confusion can be in our talk about facts, verses the thing itself.
And then wouldn't we actually be using the dichotomy as opposed to dropping it?
No, the whole point is that the predicates "objective" and "subjective" are undefinable. Hence, the paradox of treating them as definitions for things or objects or mental states and so on.
Quoting Moliere
No, we just do away with the dichotomy altogether and talk about criteria for establishing knowledge, some are better than others (criteria); but, aren't defined as being either subjective or objective.
I think the Earth/Moon example is a bad one. Twenty years ago there were, objectively, nine planets circling the sun. Now there are eight. Nothing physical has changed. The states-of-affairs haven't changed. "States-of-affairs" is itself a concept. The way we break up the world into conceptualizable packages is a construct of our minds. The universe does not break itself up into pieces, we do it.
I don't know if I agree, but I think I know what you are talking about. Doesn't it all come down to how we break the world up? The paradox, if it is one, just recognizes the vagueness of the way we conceptualize things.
Yeah, that depends on the criteria we're using to make sense of the world.
Quoting T Clark
Here is the Sorites Paradox with me adding the pertinent points that I raised to illustrate the point raised in the OP:
Quoting Wiki
The bolding is my doing.
I guess for me, the answer is that it became a heap when we called it one and stopped when we stopped. Clark's Rule 574 - a heap must have at least 5 levels of the things it is a heap of piled on top of each other. Fewer than that, and it's just some stuff.
The above is narrated in 3rd person. It's an obective account. No matter how you might revise it to make it closer to what you believe, it's still going to be spoken from an objective vantage point.
Whoever says that we can meaningfully escape that objective voice is crazy. We can analyze and imagine a pre-reflective state, but that's more objective story telling. We can't escape it unless we stop thinking (and fall back into unity with the world.)
All you are asking is "how is it used?". And as you can see from this thread, it is used in a variety of ways.
Problems tend to occur when someone says that theirs way is the only way; or that your way is actually their way.
Again, examples abound throughout this very thread.
How about criteria Banno?
I seem to have fixated on that term to describe what one or more consider something as objective or subjective?
Thanks for taking time to help us out here.
Hu?
Sorry, auto-correct changed "Banno" to "Banning" on my phone. Fixed it on my computer. lol
A better idea might be to use a dictionary - one on historical principles, that is descriptive rather than proscriptive.
That doesn't mean that the criteria cannot be changed or amended, much like a constitution. If there's no criteria then nothing meaningful can be said and anything goes.
I'm surprised you say that. You started the Daily Tao thread. What did you think Lao Tzu was talking about? He was not playing games. He meant what he said.
It says "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao," in third person. It speaks the unspeakable in third person. If you're speaking the unspeakable, does it matter what person you're using?
The Tao is not a metaphor. This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin around.
Why?
*hands over the reigns of this thread to Banno*
Because we need a set of rules and principles to delineate between what is the realm of bias, opinion, and such to that of the real, the "objective". Hypothesis testing just requires that.
When one conducts an experiment or a drug trial it is usually double-blinded or even triple blinded for a reason. Then there are levels of sigma to delineate chance from occurring in an experiment. Just in the recent case of discovering the Higgs boson, a level of probability of 5-sigma was required to assure that the experiment was not up to chance.
Must I go on further?
:meh:
No, thanks. Been there, done that.
Sorry to hear. :sad:
Quoting Posty McPostface
And how would we know that we had the right rules?
But that's the wrong question; there is no right, just use. Use changes. A quick look att he OED shows historical uses for objective that would now correspond to ways in which we use subjective. It's a mess.
Which is why i think it better to avoid using the terms, if at all possible.
I just think some folk are cleverer than others at portraying objectivity.
I have to admit to being drawn more towards the cleverer ones when it comes to reading something. Not so important for day to day interactions because other's particular skills become useful for me for carrying out, on a practical level (maybe saving some money in the process), certain actions.
This should not necessarily suggest I am just a user because people usually love explaining to others what they know about something, so it all works out mutually beneficial.
Again, you liking for orange juice is also separate from any concept and talk. Fruit flies like orange juice, though they do not say so.
I think it all arises from the standards we set in epistemology.
What counts as knowledge?
If I may say so it's a justified true belief. I think the JTB formulation of knowledge has its critics but what can't be faulted is J (justification). Every model for knowledge must include justification.
So, to discuss subjectivity and objectivity, we may focus on the J (justification) part.
J basically means be rational.
Question: What is it to be rational?
Answer:
1. Always look for reasons before believing any statement (that's basically J)
2. Apply correct logic
The above is a very rough sketch of what objectivity means.
Subjectivity is the opposite of that - faulty logic.
While the above seems simple to state it is difficult to practice because our logical capacity is influenced by other parts of our mind. We have emotions, inclinations, aversions, etc. and many of these haven't been analyzed logically either due to laziness or inability.
Whatever it may be, we're impaired by them as far as logical thinking is concerned. This impairment is termed ''subjectivity''.
Certainty is not required, though should be the goal of any dispute or conversation. We can get along without knowing if we're using the words the right or wrong way. That's just how learning occurs. On the other hand, formal languages could not exist without rules. On the most general level, even the process of inference is rule bound.
Quoting Banno
Well, there's something to learn from the discussion if you're so inclined. Namely, that some foundations are required to start with and build upon. Yes, meaning is use; but, that use is governed by something else apart from it.
Isn't the OED a type of rule-book?
Delve into what - The topic of your thread? :brow:
I'm not disagreeing with your latter statement. In fact, I have already said as much. The only way to analyze the self is through and it's relationship with the world is through it's own subjective prism. We attain a degree of objectivity by integrating all knowledge from every source, including other people, into a consistent world-view.
When we are able to explain all subjective experiences, for everyone, not just for yourself, why they are useful and why they are different for each person, we would be at a more objective outlook.
The infallible aspect of any explanation is it's subjective aspect. Objective explanations are infallible. That is their nature. Objective explanations reflect reality. Subjective explanations reflect the subject's values and skewed perspective of reality.
Quoting unenlightenedI did say in the same thread that you are cherry-picking that we can attain a degree of objectivity through the scientific method. What is with the members on this sight that can't read a whole post and respond to the whole post - without cherry-picking? Your post was a waste of time, since I already addressed what it is that you believe you have a problem with.
No, the whole German continentalism/romanticism that elevated the welfare of the self above the rest of the world.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I think you sort of deflated the issue with qualifying "objectivity" here with "degree of objectivity", yet I can't help as though feel that you've fallen into this objective-subjective trap too. Is there no other way to understand the state of being impartial and free from bias, instead of referring to the objective-subjective fallacious distinction?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Ideally, yes, assuming perfect knowledge, information, and exchange of thought.
I rather agree, but for different reasons. It's not that I want to refute what you or any of the others are saying, rather I want to draw attention to the fact that people are talking about different things. Everyone is, like you, defending their own usage. What might count as objective knowledge can hardly be expected to fit the same criteria as an objective person, an objective view, an objective explanation and so on, though they may be related.
I also said that true objectivity is impossible, which is why it can only come in degrees of limiting subjectivity. The same goes for your "heap". There are degrees of "heaps". It seems to me that you are trapped and are content to stay that way.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Isn't that what I already said?
And that is why clarifying definitions are so important, unenlightened. :smirk:
Objective knowledge, explanations and views are only part of a person. If a person has all of these qualities, then they qualify as a objective person, but I already explained that that is impossible. The differences lie only in your subjective mind. As I said, fallacies are due to subjectivity.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I don't quite see your point here. Care to expand? Genuinely interested.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yeah, I'm in the dark here.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I wasn't sure, so I had to put it in my own words.
I feel as though we're all talking about the same thing. Just that we're kind of confused about what it is.
Two different heaps have a different amount of grains of sand. They both qualify as heaps, (subjectivity), but one has less subjectivity than the other (the smaller heap). Once you remove all grains of sand (all subjectivity) you have attained true objectivity, not just degrees of it by removing a bit of subjectivity at a time.
I'll think about that, thanks.
Well they are related, but perhaps in some instances only as closely as a firedog is related to the canine species.
I am inclined to take a grammatical sense as the root of things. Of statements, a statement is subjective if it claims something about the person making it, and objective if it claims something about the rest of the world. 'I like orange juice' is a subjective statement, whereas 'Sam likes orange juice' is an objective one. (Note though that if I were to say 'unenlightened likes orange juice' it would be subjective statement in masquerade.)
From this purely grammatical root, I think it is possible to trace the way the use of the distinction becomes extended to cover all the other ways it has been used in the thread. And also how they can become terms of authority and dismissal.
Some people, including me, would disagree with calling subjectivity an impairment, even in the context of logical thinking.
I think this is usually called consensus, not objectivity. :chin: Objectivity, at least in its most absolute sense, is unchallengeably correct. A consensus is an opinion accepted by most/all; it need not be correct.
Quoting Harry Hindu
What you seem to be saying here is that when we succeed in converting the subjective into the objective - and good luck with that! :wink: - we will "be at a more objective outlook". Well yes, but why would we even consider such a thing? Subject and object are complements, not enemies. Subjectivity is not less than (or greater than) objectivity; it's a different and complementary perspective.
I have toyed with the idea that the truth is what you can convince people of. I think that's true in the context of truth leading to action, which is a political, not logical or philosophical, truth. That's where consensus comes in. When it's time to act, we have to do the best we can, which is consensus. Of course, as is shown by the climate change debate, it's easier said than done.
The point was that this is not an empirical enquiry in the sense that any rule you set up giving the meaning of "subjective" can immediately be falsified by using the word in a novel way.
Then what is it if not an empirical inquiry?
Maybe it's better to think of objectivity as invariance. Invariance can still be relative to some situation and/or some set of transformations. A clear sky is blue during the day - this is an observation that is independent of where you look from the surface of the earth facing the sun, what shape or color you are, what the surrounding circumstance is like. It's objective relative to humans that can perceive blue. But when you expand the group of observers or include observers with traits that don't have the ability to perceive blue then the fact is no longer objective relative to this new group of observers- its now subjective or dependent on a subgroup of observers.
People think of objectivity as if it's synonymous with invariance to all observers and all conditions. I think that leads to confusion and unnecessarily limits the applicability of the term. Not saying absolute invariance is
Sorry to hear that.
Subjectivity, by definition, means variation with the observer.
Logic, if you start with premises agreed upon, will always lead to the same conclusion. That's objectivity.
So, if there's any value in being subjective then it has to do with non-logical stuff. The rules of logic don't change and if you start with the same premises you reach the same conclusion.
I'm not devaluing subjectivity though. As far as logic is concerned, starting with different premises and reaching different conclusions can be termed as subjectivity.
P1. I like orange juice.
P2. I drink what I like if it is available.
P3. Orange juice is available.
C. I drink orange juice.
Is this not a logical argument? Is it not also a subjective one?
But what I'm saying is the kind of subjectivity you're referring to is pre-logic i.e. they're fed into our logic CPU, if I may use a computer metaphor, and out pops the results, conclusions.
Nothing can be done about them. Likes and dislikes are, if you like, subconscious and only matter as inputs for our internal logic apparatus.
What matters, therefore, is logic itself, which must be weilded with competence so that we may reach the correct conclusions implied by our premises (based on our preferences or otherwise).
Application of logic, consistent rules and premises, are foundational to achieving objectivity.
Like I said, the subjectivity-objectivity distinction is essential to rationality. What is rationality? To be logical and being logical means adhereing to correct ''forms'' of logical inference. Logic never can inform us about the truth of our premises except for the instance when we put forth inconsistent premises.
And while you're thinking about that, you can think about it in reverse as well. Think of each grain of sand representing objectivity instead of subjectivity. The more sand, the more objectivity, until you fill the uni/multi-verse with sand, at which point you have achieved true objectivity. This represents how difficult to near-impossible it is to be attain true objectivity.
Heaps come in degrees. Objectivity comes in degrees.
How is it subjective? Every statement looks objective to me. Is it not objectively true that you like orange juice, or does it depend on who you ask?
No. Equating consensus with objectivity would be overlooking the existence of mass-delusions, which need to be explained.
For instance, most people believe in a creator, but there is no logic, or objectivity in believing what most people believe. You have to account for those that don't believe, and the fact that there are many conflicting descriptions of a creator, and the fact that a creator has not made it's existence known, etc. In other words, you have to come up with an explanation that entails all of these factors and can explain why some people believe in such things and why some don't.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Subjectivity is always less than objectivity because subjectivity can be seen as parts of objectivity. It's like having only one piece of the puzzle.
Me liking orange juice is subjective.
You knowing I like orange juice is objective.
If time is relative due to our reference, then why can’t other concepts be? The point is you have to state the circumstance we are evaluating from.
Seems like opinion is the acceleration that creates subjectivity.
There is that no true Scotsman fallacy again. He seems to like this thread a lot.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Agreed, although I am wary of using that term ad infinitum.
I don't think so. Whether or not you like orange juice is objectively true or false.
Of course it depends who you ask. Some people will say "I don't like orange juice."
Quoting ChrisH
Whether or not you like orange juice depends on who I'm addressing. It is true or false in any particular case, give or take a bit of indifference, but what does it mean to be 'objectively true or false'? That is to say, what sorts of claim could be 'subjectively true or false'?
I've always assumed that 'objectively true' means true regardless of anyone's opinion/preferences.
That's why "X likes orange juice" is an objective claim.
On the other hand "Orange juice is delicious" is subjective - it's dependent on a particular viewpoint.
That''s how I've always understood the distinction.
I would have thought that the truth of 'X likes orange juice' was entirely dependent on X's preferences...
So...
1. 'Orange juice is delicious', is subjective.
2. 'I like orange juice' is objective.
3. 'Orange juice is delicious to me'... objective???
And yet, it would seem quite normal to me, if you asked me whether I liked orange juice, to reply 'Yes, it's delicious', without specifying that it is delicious to me but might not be to everyone. The fact that you asked me would suggest you already knew that.
No, this doesn't make sense. It's not the case that whether or not X likes orange juice is dependent on whether or not X prefers to like orange juice.
That isn't what I asked. If I asked Donald Trump, "Does Unelightened like orange juice?" will the fact that you do or don't like orange juice be based on Trump's answer, or based on the state-of-affairs that is your fondness of orange juice?
Do YOU, unenlightened, like orange juice or not? You seem to be confusing "I like orange juice" with "Orange juice is the greatest". The former is objective, while the latter is subjective. Any time you make a value statement, you are making a subjective statement. Any time you make a statement about some state-of-affairs, like your relationship with orange juice, then you are making an objective statement.
I don't see the fallacy in my post.
Quoting Posty McPostface
:sad: I never said we need to use it ad infinitum - only where it applies.
Ok. Would you say that truth is a value?
Ancient Greek subject-object metaphysics divides (life, the universe and) Everything into subject and object as its first cut (as Pirsig puts it). There is no way in which it is correct to view the subject or subjectivity as part of the object or objectivity. The "puzzle" is the combination of these two parts. They are complements, the two halves of Everything, as it were. :wink:
I'm almost entirely sure the subject-object distinction came about long, long after the ancient Greeks, and that the words - or their equivalents - didn't even exist in that time either. I'd be curious to be proven wrong, but as far as I know it's an entirely Latinate distinction (which, incidentally, used to mean the exact opposite of what the terms now mean). From Daston and Galison's Objectivity: "Its cognates in European languages derive from the Latin adverbial or adjectival form obiectivus/obiective, introduced by fourteenth-century scholastic philosophers such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. (The substantive form does not emerge until much later, around the turn of the nineteenth century.) From the very beginning, it was always paired with subiectivus/subiective, but the terms originally meant almost precisely the opposite of what they mean today".
Or, as Simon Critchley points out, to the degree that one can look to the Greek for its genesis, 'subject' in the Greek meant more or less what is referred to as 'object' today, and does not function as one-half of an idiotic dualism: "Subjectum translates the Greek hupokeimenon, ‘that which lies under’, ‘the substratum’; a term which refers in Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics to that of which all other entities are predicated but which is itself not predicated of anything else. In a classical context, then, the subject is the subject of predication; the hupokeimenon is that which persists through change, the substratum, and which has a function analogous to matter (hule) ... Indeed, one immediately here notes the oddity that the word subject can also designate an object. ... The modern philosophical use of the word subject as the conscious or thinking subject ... first appears in the English language as late as 1796." (Critchley, Ethics, Politics, Subjectivity).
In any case, the Greeks, as far as I know, were neither stupid nor facile enough to employ the subject-object distinction in the manner in which it is generally used today.
Meanings evolve like everything else. There's nothing stupid about the Cartesian outlook. Yes, it produced conundrums, but what view doesn't (aside from post frontal lobotomy view)?
Cool graphs though.
No. Truth is the relationship between some state-of-affairs and some statement, explanation, or other representation of that state-of-affairs. Values are derived from having goals.
Is it true that you like orange juice - yes or no? Is that not a fact of reality? Is that not something that is true regardless of who else likes or hates orange juice? Knowing what your likes and dislikes are valuable in any goal I might have to buy you a particular juice to drink.
So truth is objective. And 'objectively true' is a tautology, like 'truly true'.
The best ice cream is vanilla.
That statement is often held as not able to be true or false. However, on my view it is perhaps much better understood as an incomplete or ill-formed belief statement. It is an expression of personal preference/taste. It is a belief statement. As such, it is true if it is the case that the speaker prefers vanilla ice cream. It would be true by virtue of corresponding to all the events resulting in the speaker's preferences(subjective facts). It's about the speaker's belief. Thus, with an insincere speaker the claim would be false.
My favorite flavor of ice cream is vanilla.
That statement is true/false by virtue of corresponding(or not) to the same set of facts. I'm working on the notion of what makes the statement true. It is true or not despite what everyone aside from the speaker thinks and/or believes. It's truth is established solely by virtue of correspondence to the speaker's belief.
When a statement is true solely by virtue of corresponding to the speaker's belief, then it ought be called something along the lines of "subjectively true"; "true by virtue of sincerity"; or perhaps "true by subjective means".
That is an acorn tree.
That statement is either true or not, by virtue of whether or not the thing being talked about is the kind that we've named an acorn tree. Here, the truth of the statement is not determined(in part) by virtue of corresponding to the speaker's belief regarding his/her own statement. But rather, it is true(or not) by virtue of corresponding to the events which resulted in it's being given a namesake. Those events are the objective facts. The statement tells the name of a thing. The name of the thing is not established by the speaker's belief(we'll assume the tree has already been named). That is an acorn tree or not, and it doesn't depend upon the belief of the speaker.
When a statement is true regardless of whether or not it corresponds to the speaker's belief, then it ought be called something along the lines of "objectively true"; "true by virtue of others' belief"; or perhaps "true by objective means".
I'll leave it there for now, bedtime...
Hmmm...
This seems to cover some statements. However, what if it is the case that what everyone believes is wrong?
Can we not say that this is objectively false, but was believed to be objectively true? IOW, there is an objective/subjective distinction that is orthogonal to the true/false distinction.
Then we can be a bit more subtle, and say that "vanilla ice-cream is the best" has the form of an objective claim, but is usually intended subjectively, with a suppressed qualification of 'to me' or else, objectively, 'to most people'. But sometimes, such forms can be actually made simpliciter as objective claims, and then they strictly meaningless.
Thus when you claim as subjective truth, 'I like vanilla ice-cream best', I can still question the truth of it - 'But have you tried salted caramel?' In the same way as I can question the truth of 'There are no black swans' with 'Have you been to Australia?'
When the brain writes memories to the cerebral matter, aspects of the limbic system, in the core of the brain, will add emotional tags during the writing process. The result is our memory has both sensory data combined with emotional tags. Our strongest memories will have the strongest emotional attachments.
The value of this schema is that it allows the animal to make decisions without needing to think. If a similar situation arises, it will trigger the old memory and the attached feeling, with the animal reacting to the feeling. For example, if the animal ate a strange new food, and it was good and caused no ill affects, the next time they encounter that food, they will feel a positive feeling and eat. They do not have to recreate the wheel and run another cautious experiment.
Since our memories are binary and have both data and feelings tags, it is possible to trigger the memory in two different ways. We can think about a particular feeling and certain data will appear, with that feeling attachment. Or we can think about certain data, and the emotional tag will appear as a feeling. For example, if I feel hungry, images; data, of my favorite foods will appear in my mind. On the other hand, if I think of my favorite food, it can make me feel hungry. Objective versus subjective is loosely based on which side of the memory; emotion or data, you use to induce memory. It is also connected to natural or unnatural tagging.
Subjective; emotional side inductions, can be objective if there was a natural emotional tag added during the writing process, based on natural instinct. In the example, of the animal eating the new food, his final tag feeling tag was based on previously gathered data and his experiment that was drawn to a successful conclusion. His feeling is objective, based on previous cause and affect. Sometimes a gut feeling seems subjective to others, but it can actually be based on an internal logic synthesis. The gut feeling allows you to know the answer before the solution is fully conscious.
Where subjectivity; emotional side induction, remains subjective is usually connected to group think that is not filtered through natural instinct for tagging. This other feeling can still trigger memory but it will not have the correct natural tag and will thereby become subjective.
A good example is the anti-Trump movement in American politics. All memory tagging by this movement, no matter what Trump does, gets a negative tag, due to group think propaganda inductions. This tagging process is not objective, based on case by case studies. This emotional thinker will draw subjective conclusions, env with sound logic, due to premises that are not natural with cause and affect.
Objective; data side induction of memory, can also be both objective and subjective. For example, if you based the value of your chosen beliefs, on prestige; this is a type of memory tagging is based on what the group subjectively feels is correct. One may induce this memory, directly, and arrange it with other memory, in a sound logical way to draw a what appears to be a rational conclusion, but the original premises were not objective, so the result is subjective.
For example, at one time it was believed that the earth was flat. There was a social prestige in this belief, since the leaders; highest social prestige, assumed it to be truth; in good faith. The average Joe would use this feeling of prestige and assume this premise was objective. As we reason from there, using sound logic, if the earth was flat and you sailed to the edge, you would fall off. This follows logically, but is not objective in terms of reality. Typically, as humans, we go both ways in terms of memory inductions, with logic not always using premises that objective, to draw what we assume is an objective conclusion.
It can get very complicated and requires you question your memory tagging to make sure each premise is self standing based on logic and data. Throwing money at a theory does not make it objective in proportion to the money spent. The value of emotional side inductions, based on sound tagging of memory, is speed. Then you translate the result in the opposite way; data side, making sure the induced feelings, during translation are also adding up. It is a skill you can learn.
Belief in such a consciousness, separate from body, but somehow "emergent" from it, is Spiritualist delusion.
For the purposes of the physical story, "consciousness" can be defined as the property of being a purposefully-responsive device that is similar enough to the speaker that the speaker feels enough kinship with it to say that it's "conscious".
Circular, but unavoidably so, because it's an individual subjective matter where you draw the line.
You're a purposefully-responsive device, in principle not significantly qualitatively different from a Roomba or a mousetrap.
Michael Ossipoff
I agree. They are symptoms of our Cartesian hangover. We have essentially grown up in a culture that long ago adopted the idea that we are self-sufficient minds (res cogitans-subjects-internal) that through the miracle of transcendence are able to interact with self-sufficient matter out there in the world (res-extensa-objects-external). Simply put, we consider ourselves to be on the outside looking in.
Yet we are the consummate insider. We know of no other being that is more inside the world than us. And so we are on the inside thinking we are on the outside looking in and then we wonder why we are so confused by what we see. Significant cognitive dissonance is built in to our Cartesian culture.
Quoting unenlightened
The above strike me as inconsistent.
If I had said, the existence of truth (or falsehood) depends upon the existence of an assertion, would you have agreed? I do believe that would reconcile the apparent inconsistency in the above statements.
I think we are close.
I restate my notion: an assertion is true if the entity toward which the assertion is directed shows itself to be as asserted.
I am uncertain as to what subject/object adds to the discussion. Feel free to enlighten me in that regard.
Or actually real? Or really true? Or truly real? Or actually true?
I love the classics. :smile:
What entity is this assertion directed towards? I need to see if it is as asserted, before assenting to it.
It is rather a problem for such theories of truth, that one needs to judge whether or not they are true, and one only has the theory by which to judge the truth of the theory. So I prefer to say at the outset that an assertion "S" is true iff S, and leave it at that, which is close to what you want to say, I think.
Quoting Arne
Well sometimes Like to talk about myself. If I say my back aches, I might be telling a falsehood, or I might be telling the truth. And if you saw me doing gymnastics without grimacing you would be justified in doubting me. Still, it is convenient to distinguish such claims about the speakers' experience from those about potentially common experience - you can find out directly if the cat is on the mat or not, by looking to see where the cat is. And at this point it is usual to go into a long discussion of phantom limb pain, where an amputee can have a real pain in a non-existent appendage. 'Objectively' there is no leg, but that does not stop it really hurting.
Pain is subjective, but legs are objective. True pain in false leg -- and low, we arrive happily at a distinction between experience and reality. Gotta love that.
I use the word entity rather than object.
Stick around a while and you will see why.
An assertion is true if the entity (object) toward which the assertion is directed shows itself as it is asserted.
The assertion that the car (entity, object) is blue is true if the car shows itself to be blue.
Well who is in a position to make the call for the pain in an amputated leg? We all agree that the amputee does not have the leg any more than you or I have it. What position counts as a position?
Hmm, why is that?
I do not know who it is but I know it is not me.
If there is a person in a position to make a final determination of true/false, calling the decision subjective/objective does not make it any less true/false.
Just saying.
I try and avoid the internal/external baggage that comes with subjective/objective.
It is like taking aspirin for my Cartesian hangover.
It is better than hair of the dog.
What's that? Sounds like material for a new topic.
If "objectively" is being used in its hardest and most absolute sense, then it refers to that which actually is, which is something more than merely true. But I'm not sure if this is the sense that was intended. :chin:
And in what way is that which actually is different from that which is?
And what about that which really is?
I can't believe you walked right in to that one.
Or are you messing with our heads?
:smile:
If you start a topic on the hangover philosophy has faced since Descartes, I would gladly post about my own secret remedy. If not then I referenced a very pertinent topic in the OP which hasn't been touched.
That's right. It's a different distinction. Pain and pleasure are subjective. Legs and vaginas are objective. Nothing to do with truth and falsehood. Truly, amputees commonly feel excruciating pain in the limbs they do not have for several years, on and off. The object is missing, but the pain is felt.This has already been determined and agreed by medicine. Phantom limb pain is real pain in a phantom limb. There are subjective truths.
You keep begging the question.
How is your proposition regarding truth being an attribute of the assertion advanced in any way by this subjective/objective distinction?
It seems to me that this distinction is (as always) just getting in the way and muddying up the waters.
And is that not a central claim of the original post?
Is this arguably unnecessary and continually introduced distinction proof positive that Posty McPostface is correct, at least in this instance?
How about "the rock I am thinking about actually is, therefore I am"
I am puzzled how the Cartesians ended up convincing us that the rock (object in the external world) is actually real while grudgingly granting some sort of diminished realness to the (internal) experiences in my head. After all, Descartes was emphatic that those sort of real things inside my head are the only real things the existence of which are beyond doubt. How did they turn that inside out?
What is? I'm afraid I'm confused myself.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I was asking unenlightened whether attaching the word subjective to an agreed upon truth created unnecessary confusion. It opens the objective-subjective trap and the next thing you know people are talking about the actually true and the true that is sort of less than actually true. ITS A TRAP
And the trap is a gibberish machine.
Yes, the truth has been spoken.
You rock!!
It gets deeper though.
See, if anyone cares to explore.
It isn't. And it does cause confusion, because people muddle 'true or false' with 'objective or subjective'. So philosophers sometimes avoid them and then find themselves talking instead about 'noumena' and 'phenomena', or 'reality' and 'appearance', or some such equivalent distinction, and they still get confused, because life is confusing.
So to tell the truth is to say 'the cat is on the mat' only when the cat is on the mat, and 'I can see an oasis' only when I can see an oasis. And then one has to allow that though there must be a cat, and it must be on the mat, in order for it to be true that the cat is on the mat, it is not the case that there must be an oasis when I see an oasis, because there are mirages.
Huh? :chin: Actually is just an amplifier, to make the intended sense doubly clear. "That which actually is" is shorthand for something having Objective existence. I.e. it exists in Objective reality, independent of any perceptions, thoughts, beliefs or opinions that you or I or anyone else might have. So that which actually is is that which really is. But surely that's obvious? :chin: No, I'm not messing with anyone's head, just trying to be clear. :up: But I think you knew that? Being autistic, I can't tell....