Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Are you a subjectivist or an objectivist?

  • Subjectivist.
  • Objectivist.
  • I do not know.
0 voters

Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Most people are subjectivists, not objectivists. Even most scientists are subjectivists - they subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers.

Happy new year!

Can anyone really be truly Subjectivist or Objectivist?
As is everyone not actually a combination of the two?

There are places, where the meaning of a difference simply does not exist. There are people in such places where it is simply an excercise, mental aerobics.

The sun rises in the East.

In terms of what “is”, I am an objectivist because reality exists independently of any particular subject.

In terms of what “ought to be”, whilst the objective world definitely acts as a filter and restricts our actions ultimately humans choose how to live and reap the benefits and costs of their choices, all “oughts” are determined subjectively, aka, in accordance with a particular subject’s needs and desires. What “Is” can exist independently of any subject. What “ought to be” is a product of subjectivity and dependent upon it.

I honestly think subjectivism in the “what is” sense is so fundamentally wrong it’s logically inconsistent and doesn’t deserve to be recognize as a valid alternative to objectivism. And when it comes to “oughts”, the conflict isn’t between subjectivity and objectivity because only subjects can produce and project “oughts” in the first place.

Thus to me there isn’t too much wiggle room for argumentation here. One can provide more detailed descriptions of some of the aspects of these positions, but I think I got the basics right.

The subjectivist sees his glass as half empty simply because he “got up on the wrong side of the bed”. Something is missing.

The objectivist sees the subjectivist’s glass as half full simply because it IS half full. It is as it is.

But why bother to put a vs. between the two words? As humans, we do put meaning, personal meaning to things. We have our own perspectives as others have theirs. Is there a right or wrong in this? Subjective thinking is not necessarily truth or untruth.

Looking at things “objectively” as facts, can still be either truth or untruth (depending on what we have discovered.
All I’m saying is that these two words can be in harmony - like the day and the night.

Subjectivists define ‘Is’ as a matter of opinion, as-if existence were decided democratically and by vote.

Objectivists define ‘Is’ as beyond opinion and human capability. Humans cannot “vote” on existence. Therefore, objectively, existence is greater than humanity. But for subjectivists, they define humanity as greater than existence.

Do not confuse subjectivism with pessimism
A pessimist will see the glass as half empty

A subjectivist will see the glass as either half empty or half full
An objectivist will see the glass as both half empty and half full

A clever distinction. :smiley:

That is trivial. It depends on the degree. A subjectivist is not the one who is not capable of being objective, and an objectivist is not the one who is not capable of being subjective.

Subjectivity is the epitome of what belongs to a subject. More extremely said: Subjectivity means that everything depends on the subject. Subjectivism teaches the universal subjectivity of the intellectual truth as well as the moral and aesthetic values and denies the absolute validity.

Objectivity is just the opposite of subjectivity. More extremely said: Objectivity means the lack of a subject. Objectivism teaches the universal objectivity as well as the neutrality, the practicality, also the capability of observing or/and representing objectively.

So, for example, if someone denies the absolute validity, then it does not mean that this one is not capable of observing or/and representing objectively. But it means that this one does not believe in an objective world in the sense that the objective world determines everything, even all subjects. A subjectivist believes in the theory that the subject determines the objects, even the whole world.

Subjectivity and objectivity are theoretical, spiritual, intellectual attitudes towards the determination of the world and the hotly favored answer to the question of the determination of the world.

The extreme form of subjectivism leads to solipsism in a logical sense, to egoism in an ethical sense.

Science itself is supposed to be objective, but, yes, many of today’s scientists are very subjective, especially the ones who try to sell books.
Their audience consists of far-left, militant atheists - die hard evolution freaks.
Anything that could be construed as upsetting the Leftist narrative is a no-no.

Science, ironically, has become dogmatic.

It’s funny, because they (Left-wing atheists) are all for teaching evolution in school, but any mention of
evolutionary psychology makes them go ape-shit, something that is concomitant of evolution theory.

They want to have their cake and…

Objectivism is the philosophy of authoritarians concerning all political stripes.

They facilitate the ideals, ambitions, and needs to control, regulate, command, or dictate the lives of all people.

If, the people could understand their motivation, and its connections to their aims, objectivity would undo all the intervening control mechanisms which make the above a near certainty. However, the prevailing misinterpretations and their obvious consequences need not derail ideas which, perhaps long term, are beneficial to society.

Such easy dismissal is objectionable intrinsically.


I can understand how you took it that way. I was not confusing the two but I was having difficulty at that time expressing the thought which I wanted to get across.
Now, even as an amateur or apprentice philosopher, I cannot say that subjectivism IS pessimism, even as i cannot say that an apple is an orange. BUT in a sense they, S & P, CAN still flow in the same waters, don’t you think?

Subjective thinking is based on one’s own life experiences, emotions/moods, how one views the world and on one’s own thought processes, et cetera. One simply cannot get away from that. Truth for them comes from that.

Ergo, subjectivism can lead to pessimism because one is seeing the world in his own unique way, not as it actually is…but with bias and how he needs to view it…negatively, for whatever reason.

The objectivist, on the other hand, has a way of putting as many pieces to the puzzle regarding the things of the world together, in order to see the truth as it is and not how he chooses it to be.

Perhaps the true objectivist doesn’t even have to try. It’s just the organized rational mind which he has with no blind spots and no gaps to fill in. At the same time, being human, doesn’t he at times see things through his own human eyes?
As someone in here said - the objectivist sees the cup as being half full and half empty at the same time…

I think we should consider the difference between subjectivity/objetivity on the one hand and subjectivism/objectivism on the other and relate more to cognition/knowledge than to sociologic/psychologic issues. My thread is meant as one of philosophical/scientifical issues. This is why I opened my thread in the philosophy subforum of a philosophy forum (if it is one). And I have chosen the title “Subjectivity versus Objectivity” also in order to avoid isms.

If, in the end, it turns out that we live in a wholly determined universe, then it would seem that everything [including this exchange] is only as it ever could have been. And it is hard to imagine something more objective than that.

But if human consciousness [mindful matter] is able to assess all of this with some measure of actual autonomy, then things get real tricky, real fast.

Then what is left to do is to determine where precisely to draw the line between that which is true objectively for all of us and that which we think is true “in our head” subjectively, but may or may not be able to demonstrate as in fact true for everyone.

And you know where I draw that particular line “here and now”.

Reality is hierarchical.
At every level of reality, it is dualistic, i.e. it can either be subjective or objective.
However at the ultimate level of reality, there is only subjectivity, i.e. subject-centric reality.

At the various levels of reality, objectivity is merely intersubjectivity, i.e. shared-subjectivity. In this case, objectivity is merely there is consensus of subjective cognitions within a group of people, e.g. scientists and their Scientific theories as agreed by consensus within their peers based on the defined Scientific Method.

The different levels of the hierarchy of objectivity, i.e. inter-subjectivity, is represented by different degrees of objectivity.
The various degrees of objectivity is conditioned by and correlate to the confidence levels generated by the degrees of testability, repeatability, and other verification processes.
Thus for example Scientific theories generate a high degree of objectivity and confidence levels because its theories can be tested and results repeated using the Scientific Method by all and anyone who wish to do that.

Theological doctrines are not sufficiently objective because they cannot be tested and results repeated by all and anyone.

There are all sorts of so-called knowledge out there, e.g. legal, social, political, etc. but they are only so-claimed to be objective “subjected” to their defined framework. Since they are ‘subjected’ they are ultimately inter-subjective at best.

Objectivity is always inter-subjectivity.
There is no such thing as an absolute independent objectivity that can stand on its own without being subjected to some framework of cognitions by subjects.

I initially voted in as an objectionist, because there are no independent subjects, per se, they just think so, and their thoughts are learned, and as such extended indefinitely as objects of learning. However I did not think of one thing when I voted, and that is the ontological assumption that the above is based on is not what really moves the world, rather, it is the assumption that it is THEMOVER, the solitary ONE on the top of the heap WHO matters.

The epistomology and consequentially the mass psychology is what matters. Therefore, in order to be able to make sense, in the way Wittgenstein used that term, is what is only relevant. Metaphysics is like Proust would have it, mere remembrance, of style, method, class, ideals, morals, and society.

Therefore I tried to change my vote from objective to subjective, but the way this forum is set up, it is not possible.

Is there a way You can change this to accommodate people like me, who have reversed because of indecision?

If you claim that it is all subjective, you have just declared that it is all objectively so.

True, but there is no sense in doing so, because nowadays it’s appearances that count. The effects justify the means, and how the derivation of both, the meaning and its effects cease to be seen as entirely connected.

It has become a pseudo paradoxical argument, where for most people, it’s far easier to dispose of an unnecessary and inconvenient complexity. What difference is there became somewhat of a conflict between the need to understand in a way which establishes a dialectical relationship between the mind as self and others, whereas, such is not derivable on that level in any case. The complexity suffers an abrigement the same way as history has shorn of the relationship between redundancy and entropy. A formal derivation leaves a substantial portion of the basis of the argument behind, and looses all causal connections with it except the emergent idea that there is no need for such a demonstration in the first place.

The crux of this his chain is that yes, you have to be a subject to realize that learning is learning of objective facts, and such objectivity is no longer based on d as as such; implemented on paradigms models. Then if not, the whole structure of this deal have shifted their meaning into an epistemological sink hole, and thing start making less sense.

So as to avoid this, ideas have become fixed, as Valery suggested, as a way to stop this kind of regression. However such fixing eventually stops the meaning’s diminishing significance, and still people stick to them, almost memorialize them.

At this juncture a split occurs, and the metaphors get ever more complex, as their meaning becomes more opaque. To make sense nowadays become a function of proof, of intervening direct experience of repetition of fine tuning further and further clarification, within demonstrations of differing contexts.

As such, the need to be objective releases it from the exact, on the spot indication of exact meaning, for objectivity releases its hold on the need to show casual relationships with its various subjective interpretations, with the assimptive claim that all subjective criteria have an objective basis.

Though such demonstration is fairly a sensibly unremarkable task, in reality, such sense does not pertain or conclusively lead to its sensibility, thus appearing more a paradoxical and futile search into the theory of meaning then need to be.

If it makes little difference to do so, then reversely, it is equally futile to objectify a scenario where, it would objectify an entirely subjective world.

The subjectivity is basically a useful tool nowadays to appease an uneducated public into the ways of usage, and how it interferes with logical consistency.

The positivist school was only a way to deal with effects of how such simple notions become incredibly complex in the mind of man, and become seen as undefinable, glance impractical and senseless.

Would you agree, if someone obejectively said that you were a subjectivist?