Subjectivity versus Objectivity

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?

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.

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

[tab]Greetings from Spain:

2017_09_29_19_43_51.png[/tab]

Subjective 10

Objective 5

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.

To me this question is like asking if I believe more in mathematics or in geometry, which? :confused:

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

[tab]Greetings from Spain:

[/tab]

Thank you. It is. But in my view the objective can only be subjective, or the substance making up subjectivity.


Subjective 9 Objective 6

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.

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 ]

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.

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.

[tab]Greetings from Spain:

[/tab]

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.

Arminius wrote:

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.

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

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

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.

[/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.

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.

Why is your self-evaluation with regard to objectivity “1” then?

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.

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.