Subjectivity versus Objectivity

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Are you a subjectivist or an objectivist?

Subjectivist.
5
36%
Objectivist.
4
29%
I do not know.
5
36%
 
Total votes : 14

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Gamer » Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:45 am

It wasn’t my aim to state a belief just an observation. I have to formulate my hypotheses of reality based on only sense data, thoughts, logic, emotion and word games. This has led me to an observation that this is all we encounter, and it’s takes place in our brain or mind. it’s best to tell yourself there is an objective world outside your mind because if you don’t do that it will suck for you. But you have no logical reason to think that there is such a world or that even if there was you’d live in it as opposed to living in your mind. That’s a problem with having a mind. I liken it to being at a movie engrossed in a story and suddenly becoming aware of the row of seats and the little lights that line the aisle and the facts that movies are actors on a set. The story becomes flat and meaningless and you can’t get into it. However this is a bad thing, and you need to let yourself get lost in the movie and enjoy it. The best philosophy is one that lets you do this. It is pragmatic to filter out that which doesn’t support objective reality. Just eat your popcorn and enjoy the damn movie. Get some milk duds while you’re at it. To think brilliantly and correctly is to eventually break your soul and Shanghai it. Escaping from the event horizon of a black hole is hard but can be done. We are human and we are so good at delusion.
User avatar
Gamer
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:24 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:45 pm

But if the only thing that exists is a person's mind, and the mind is not a construct of objective, non-person flotsam and jetsam in the external world, is the mind eternal, or did it magically pop into existence from previous non-existence with all its absurd bells and whistles attached?
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Gamer » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:00 pm

or did it magically pop into existence from previous non-existence with all its absurd bells and whistles


At some point you have to ask that same question about any base system you decide to believe in, be it the universe, or even a creator of said universe. At some point there has to be a thing that either popped into existence or always was, and it will have some bells and whistles at the inception, and possibly have more as it persists and bounces off itself to create patterns. In any case, we can be objectivists all we want, but that's an act of faith, and probably not a bad idea, to be honest. I believe in objective reality in the same way others believe in God. It's a pragmatic leap of faith that pays genuine dividends. I don't find any empirical or logical reason to believe in it, not nearly as much a priori evidence as we obviously have to believe in subjective reality. It amazes me when philosopher-shaped beings in my mind disagree with this word game but then I remind myself that they are after all classified as human and it's a tough nut for most humans to withstand, self included, w/o going nuts. Thank God for the Peter Paul axiom .
User avatar
Gamer
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:24 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:05 am

At some point you have to ask that same question about any base system you decide to believe in, be it the universe, or even a creator of said universe. At some point there has to be a thing that either popped into existence or always was, and it will have some bells and whistles at the inception, and possibly have more as it persists and bounces off itself to create patterns. In any case, we can be objectivists all we want, but that's an act of faith, and probably not a bad idea, to be honest. I believe in objective reality in the same way others believe in God. It's a pragmatic leap of faith that pays genuine dividends. I don't find any empirical or logical reason to believe in it, not nearly as much a priori evidence as we obviously have to believe in subjective reality. It amazes me when philosopher-shaped beings in my mind disagree with this word game but then I remind myself that they are after all classified as human and it's a tough nut for most humans to withstand, self included, w/o going nuts. Thank God for the Peter Paul axiom .


You know, I can't really argue against this. Actually, I believed the same until I embraced subjective objectivism in the form of mental particles in the external world. But empirically, I believe you're right. One can have faith in the objective while observing the certainty of the subjective, with no proof, really, that the subjective---eternal or magically coming into existence from non-existence absurdly with bells and whistles with the ability to evolve and create external patterns of itself---is not the only thing in existence.

Bravo, it was like watching my younger self speak to the older.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:00 am

What is your self-evaluation?

SUBJECTIVE: 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10
OBJECTIVE : 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10

Greetings from Spain:

2017_09_29_19_43_51.png
2017_09_29_19_43_51.png (248.35 KiB) Viewed 452 times
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:03 am

Subjective 10

Objective 5
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Gamer » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:00 am

Ah, well if I’m right then it’s not “like” your younger self speaking to you. It literally is the case.

We should probably pick a new hobby.
User avatar
Gamer
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:24 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby James S Saint » Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:00 am

To me this question is like asking if I believe more in mathematics or in geometry, which? :-?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25427
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:24 pm

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Subjective 10

Objective 5

Although I do not know you very much, I guess that your self-evaluation is an honest one.

Greetings from Spain:

ImageImageImage
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby phenomenal_graffiti » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:05 pm

phenomenal_graffiti wrote:
Subjective 10

Objective 5


Although I do not know you very much, I guess that your self-evaluation is an honest one.


Thank you. It is. But in my view the objective can only be subjective, or the substance making up subjectivity.
J.Brewer
Image
The Truman Show, 1998 Paramount Pictures

Q: What lies beyond the "Matrix" that is consciousness?
A: The conscious and unconscious mind of God.


email me at: phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com
User avatar
phenomenal_graffiti
Thinker
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:08 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:55 am


Subjective 9 Objective 6
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Gamer » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:55 am

Subj 9
Obj 1

I don’t say the objective can only be subjective or the substance that makes it. The objective reality may possibly exist. I’m agnostic about it. Very similar to the atheist versus agnostic approach to God. I can’t abide wth an atheist who thinks God “can’t” exist. Just seems a bit extreme. Similarly I can’t bring myself to believe with certainty that objective reality isn’t a thing. There’s always that possibility.
User avatar
Gamer
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 5:24 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:24 am

Objective reality does exist but all interpretations of it are subjective even if they are fundamentally objective in them selves. So for example the laws
of physics are written in mathematical language which is a primarily deductive discipline but they are also an attempt by us to understand the Universe
The need to satisfy our curiosity is entirely subjective or emotional but the methods we use are fundamentally objective or logical [ science and math ]
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:47 pm

Arminius wrote:What is your self-evaluation?

SUBJECTIVE: 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10
OBJECTIVE : 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10

Greetings from Spain:

2017_09_29_19_43_51.png



If what you are asking here is, on a scale of one to ten, where are you subjectively and objectively, I would probably have to say more subjective thinking BUT hmmm I cannot even be sure about that. I am trying to learn to be more objective about things even though at times I do not like where that brings me... but still...

Wouldn't you say though that depending on what the subject matter is and how we hold something in particular as being important and having meaning, we may fluctuate from the one to the other; because it is so important we may be more objective about it wanting to come to the truth of things, rather than just believing what we want because we need to - if that made sense. It might sound a bit paradoxical but...

So, who knows? Perhaps at times I am at an even keel but strive to lean more toward the objective. lol #-o


That is some awesome sky there.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14851
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:27 pm

X says: "I am more subjective than objective".
By saying this, is X really "more subjective than objective"?

Y says: "I am more objective than subjective".
By saying this, is Y really "more objective than subjective"?

------------------------------------------------------

And does "really" here really mean "objectively"?
Isn't objectivity most similar to reality?

------------------------------------------------------

Also, what if X and Y are liars?
Would that not be similar to the Liar Paradox of the Cretan Epimenides who maintains that all Cretans lie.

Greetings from Spain:

ImageImage
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Meno_ » Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:19 pm

So the dilemma between an objective and a subjective stance is nothing else but a prejudicial opinion, whether it be consciously derived, or stemming from sources subjectified from by now unknown sources.

All opinion is derisively ambiguous and largely based on hearsay, and its simplified to , reduced phenomenal certainty. It is through such, that the subjective and the objective create an apparent certainty. In fact, it.can be argued that there is no real substantive subjectivity, but rather, only degrees of objective truth.

The less objective truth-values, that subjectivity is precursor
to, the more obvious the lack of clarity which such subjectivity becomes

But that does not minimise the apparent subjectivity from asserting its validity.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:33 pm

Arminius wrote:

X says: "I am more subjective than objective".
By saying this, is X really "more subjective than objective"?


No, not necessarily though in knowing himself, he just may be more subjective than objective.
I think that it may just come down to the source. If we know that the source is pretty truthful and capable of seeing himself as he IS, then we may take what he says as truth.


Y says: "I am more objective than subjective".
By saying this, is Y really "more objective than subjective"?


Same as above ~ with the opposite side of the coin.


And does "really" here really mean "objectively"?


Again, not necessarily. It just places emphasis on what is being said.

Isn't objectivity most similar to reality?


Hmmm that is a good question. I would say ONLY if someone IS looking at something objectively, without pre-judgment or personal opinion, searching for the facts, having "actual" knowledge of something.

Copernicus, among other scientists who turned out to be wrong, probably thought that he was being objective in his saying, his reality, that the Earth was the center of the Universe.
Was he being objective? I would suggest that he was or trying to be, barring unconscious intentions, but that
"reality" came to be disproved. But then again, he could only work with the knowledge for that time and there were NOT any telescopes available at that time.


Also, what if X and Y are liars?
Would that not be similar to the Liar Paradox of the Cretan Epimenides who maintains that all Cretans lie.
[/quote]

Wouldn't it have to be known that they are liars, that they always lie? If that is the case, then one could hold the opposite as true. But it cannot be that simple. If they are liars, how could one know anything which they say? Maybe I am wrong here.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14851
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Meno_ » Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:05 pm

No you are not wrong or right Arc, the objective criteria of some value of fact may be not factual, but only contingent on opinion.

In other words, an opinion need not be based on an immutable fact, but in a concurrency of opinion of authorities in the field. It never is, it always starts with a theoretical basis.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:58 pm

Gamer wrote:Subj 9
Obj 1

I don’t say the objective can only be subjective or the substance that makes it. The objective reality may possibly exist. I’m agnostic about it. Very similar to the atheist versus agnostic approach to God. I can’t abide wth an atheist who thinks God “can’t” exist. Just seems a bit extreme. Similarly I can’t bring myself to believe with certainty that objective reality isn’t a thing. There’s always that possibility.

Why is your self-evaluation with regard to objectivity "1" then?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:43 am

Meno_ wrote:... the objective criteria of some value of fact may be not factual, but only contingent on opinion.

In other words, an opinion need not be based on an immutable fact, but in a concurrency of opinion of authorities in the field. It never is, it always starts with a theoretical basis.

Do you mean that objectivity does not exist?

In this context, words like "value", "opinion", "authoritiy" stand for subjectivity, the dictatorship of subjectivity, the negation of objectivity.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Meno_ » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:04 am

No, objectivity is a concept with which it is possible to talk in terms that delineate subjective ideas. But as You and Arc point out, liers can try to convince others and themselves of their supposed objectivism, but what if this supposed objectivism is held in suspense only until their honesty can be sustained.

In this sense, objectivism , or holding to an objective belief, is contingent upon a belief for supposing honesty. Is there other ways to hold to objective truth and belief, other than in the way of believing in it? So belief and objectivity are contingent via reasonable assessment and consensus by repetition

It isn't that pure objectivity doesent exist, but that assumptions like the solar system is in the middle of the universe was objective from the ancient Greeks to the men of the Rennessaince. The objectivity of Neeton's Second Law was objective until the quantum -relativity theory became objective.

Here an interesting turn of events turned everything around. The 'Object' of the objective, became no mere reified linguistic meaning, but the objective/s of science have diluted the object be increasing awareness of the porousness of the objects, into smaller and smaller particles.

The term 'objective', has remained meaningful, however, more in terms of meaning which used the term to mean 'plan of action' apart from the traditional meaning: inferring a more credible state (of mind, or of matter).

Hence degrees of subjectivity correspond to complimentary but inverse degrees of objectivity. However both concepts comprise of approximations of each other , in inverse relation, heeding the fact, that they share a common source. They do exist, but no longer as nominal concepts, but as opinions and belief systems, strengthened by repetitive and commonly held instances of usage, while weakening as they loose they devolve into less repetitive and commonly held usage.

Strictly speaking, there are no absolutely objective or subjective ideas , states of mind, only assuredly so, entangled in various channels of points of view.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Meno_ » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:23 am

Incidentally, even if this poll is fairly new, it's interesting to note, the symmetry of 1/3-1/3-1/3 between 12 people, with 4-4-4 votes each. If anything can be said at this stage, is, that there is a uniformity in meaning between objective/don't know/subjective matrix, and even if embryonic in its reach, the grasp represents a fairly predictable start of further possible reach.

May the poll at this point come to this kind of interpretation? I am not trying to pad my argument with this kind of reasoning, but possibly, more than a patent evaluation may be the object(objective) of the poll.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Arminius » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:51 pm

Meno_ wrote:No, objectivity is a concept with which it is possible to talk in terms that delineate subjective ideas.

No. That would be again: Subjectivity.

Objectivity is letting the objects "talk", "speak" (to the subject). Epistemologically, the subject should not be involved, at least in the most possible sense.

Meno_ wrote:But as You and Arc point out, liers can try to convince others and themselves of their supposed objectivism, but what if this supposed objectivism is held in suspense only until their honesty can be sustained.

In this sense, objectivism , or holding to an objective belief, is contingent upon a belief for supposing honesty. Is there other ways to hold to objective truth and belief, other than in the way of believing in it?

Objectivity has also and certainly or likely even basically to do with belief, yes, but just not only. You can try to let the other things (objects) "talk" or "speak" to you; you can try to let them be phenomenons which have nothing to do with you; you can try to observe them by excluding yourself as a subject. And all this can be learned, trained, exercised - more and more -, so that you can become more and more an objectivist, at least in the sense of an objective listener, an objective phenomenolgist, an objective observer, an objective monk, an objective scientist ... and so on.

Meno_ wrote: So belief and objectivity are contingent via reasonable assessment and consensus by repetition

No. A consensus is not really necessary. You can be objective without others, without agreement or consensus. But you have to take in account that others or some of them will indeed disagree. If an Occidental monk, for example, had always considered the consensus, he would have never become the first scientist. And if scientists had always considered the consensus, they would have never had success in the accordingly centuries. They have become less successful because of the fact that they have more and more considered the consensus and become dependend.

Meno_ wrote:It isn't that pure objectivity doesent exist, but that assumptions like the solar system is in the middle of the universe was objective from the ancient Greeks to the men of the Rennessaince. The objectivity of Neeton's Second Law was objective until the quantum -relativity theory became objective.

What changed was what they called "truth", but "truth" and "objectivity" do not mean the same. Newton’s physics was "true" till Clausius’ second law ("entropy") of thermodynamics, in any case till Planck’s constant, Planck’s quantum theory, and Einstein’s (actually Hilbert’s) relativity theory. The "truth" about dynamics and about time changed. Both "truths" are very typical for the Occidental culture. One of the both led to the knowledge that entropy and irreversibility make probabilities and statistics more relevant, more "true"; the other one of the both led to the knowledge that time is more organic than anorganic, more historical than physical, more chronic than mathematical.

So what changed was a pattern of the Occidental way of life, experience, the kind of epistemology, the interpretation of "truth", also of "subjectivity" and "objectivity". The cultural goal, aim, target, object came closer.

But all this does not mean that "truth" and "objectivity" were, are and will be the same.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5437
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Brando » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:40 pm

A short model of object and subject.
Events bifurcate reality between confirmation and Experiment. They are by Chance. This led to a belief, which is subjective as a mode of confirmation. And an opportunity to make an Experiment, which is objective.
Brando
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:39 am

Re: Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Postby Meno_ » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:00 pm

Brando wrote:A short model of object and subject.
Events bifurcate reality between confirmation and Experiment. They are by Chance. This led to a belief, which is subjective as a mode of confirmation. And an opportunity to make an Experiment, which is
objective.



Equally briefly, where does the confirmation come from, and what is its status of difference from experiment? If it is different from experiment/experience, then what conclusions can be drawn from it, as far as the difference is concerned?
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users