Subjectivity versus Objectivity

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Look at the syntax. A sentence requires a subject, not necessarily an object.

And with Schopenhauer I say that everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject.

Rarely, but then the subject substantially consumes its object.