While I have a reasonable understanding of what people mean when they use either of the terms “subject” and “object”, I’m interested to know precisley the relationship that they have to one another. Or why either term is often used seemingly only to mask appeals to universals or what have you.
If anyone here has any relevant information, or could illustrate to me a complete understanding of this distinction, I would be very happy to hear it.
Subjectivity is used in language to denote something that is understandable or meaningful for a subject i.e. one or more persons. Objectivity is used in language to denote something that can be understood or meaningful for anyone and is independent of any individual intellect.
My problem with that is your definition of objective. Because it is an absolute, and all things contain elements of uncertainty, how can objectivity avoid being contingent upon something else (something uncertain)?
Is an assertion of objectivity one which accepts this limitation and admits its contingency? Or is it one which Truly appeals to the totality of a known, unchanging entity?
Can something that is considered subjective contain an objective element inasmuch as it is ever changing, relativistic and codependent? Does this undermine the supposition of it’s subjective status?
Objective:
“[x kinds of] red-stars are ‘hot’.”
“Water is H2O.”
Etc.
These are solid statistics, quantifications or conditions, that will not change universally or locally, 200 years from now, or more.
Subjective:
“Brooke Sheilds has nice ass!”
This is not a solid statistic, quantification or condition, as she will get old and become a corpse in a few years, and the person making thus statement, is expressing ‘personal taste’ that came about into a temporary, ever-chaning body/self.
Let’s not think in “outer” and “inner” worlds, either.
Because the “subjective” mind is still made of “objective” reality, real energies, real events, and real causes.
Objective and Subjective are actually different views about speeds.
Fast-changing, codependent, relativistic conditions are not solid, absolute or universal, only insofar as they change faster than the laws of physics change. But these physics were not always here, were they? It’s just this: The form of an earthly individual changes much more rapidly than the condition or half-life of something such as a hydrogen-atom.
In order for something to be “viewed” there must be a viewing SUBJECT to view it. Nothing can be viewed objectively, to say that it can doesn’t make sense. It is like the idea of viewing a football from no perspective… can anyone even conceive of what this MIGHT be like?
Does the subjective/objective distinction really make sense? If it does, it is in a way that makes the objective inaccessible to us in a positive sense.
All we can posit is our subjective views, sensations etc. Direct knowledge of the objective is nonsensical, it means nothing to try.
The objective has only a negative effect on us. That is to say: we cannot view things any way that we wish. Our conceptions are imbedded within our perceptions such that we do not see things as objective sense data, or objective anything, but our subjective conceptions alter our perception as we see things (this is actually an understatement… they are intrinsically linked in a way beyond this.) However, we cannot choose what to see, and sometimes our conceptions will be confused. We will see something that simply cannot be the case, or that contradicts something else. This is the objective impinging (Sp.?) negatively on our subjective perceptual/conceptual framework. This is the only point at which the objective has any contact with us or has any sense. We can only say that it is objective because we know it must be external; if it was internal, it would be part of our conceptual framework and thus not be able to affect a negative change within itself.
I think that we use both terms in an absolute sense. While I can recognize the distinction between the two, I’m confused about which is constant, and which is changing (at an abstract level).
What is the opposite of absolutism?
And I’d also say that we do perceive the objective.
It’s just that, by definition, everything we perceive is subjective.
Also, I think the whole aim of philosophy is to determine which subjective perceptions and ideas are closest to actual objective reality. So we can say, “I think objective reality is closer to THIS” even though it is all subjective evidence, ideas, perceptions, etc.
The definitions can remain constant (and I hope they do), but subjectivity and objectivity can be perpetually changing. Some would argue that motionlessness does not exist.
I think the term ‘conceive’ is applicable. But it depends upon what you mean by ‘objective’. If it’s about trying to emphasize ‘objectivity’ in a viewpoint or a debate, then it’s about the recognition of our default state - subjectivity - and supplying external evidence (or at least our subjective interpretation of that evidence ) to justify our view to others, all of whom have their own varied states of subjectivity. Messy, but it’s really the way we find common ground, no?
If it’s about how subject-object duality works in our consciousness, then it’s the conception of a separate self that has experiences. Or “I” and that which is “not-I”.
I can agree that experience is always subjective.
But what happens when a Taoist experiences the Tao as a universal? Would this be his subjective interpretation of something objective?
Or when an artist creates a work of art that is attuned to universal aesthetic principles?
Can individual subjective interpretations of it be mutually exclusive of one another?