I’m sure someone will set me straight on this being done before (it seems I never have an original idea!):
I started to reply to other threads using this term, and I figured I should put it up as its own thread.
The idea is that our subjectivity has an objective existence. I refer to this as the “objective-subjective”. The reason I thought it was useful was in the answering of questions such as “does evil objectively exist?”.
Using objective-subjective, the argument can be made that while “evil” as a magic force that influences the universe does not exist objectively, that the argument can be made that there is however an objective reality to what people do that is in accordance with what we would describe as “evil”.
If “evil” is lying, we can argue that lying exists objectively. That whatever the physical, psychological, and social components are, they do exist in some fashion.
But the objective-subjective can be applied to all things considered subjective: morality, sport scores, concepts, pain, you name it.
OK, so fill me in, which philosopher thought of this first?
I dont know who thought of it first maybe it was you, but i think i see what your pointing at. The objective-subjective seems to me to be the result of someones perception of an idea/thought/action ? They then act upon this and the result is the objective-subjective ? Is that right or have I completely missed the point?
Yep exactly. It goes a little beyond just the individual to include the society at large and all the objects that the individual and society interacts with.
But basically, yeah!
And the benefit of this concept I saw when answering the “does evil exist?” question. To differentiate between an objective evil that exists outside of humans, and simply humans doing things that meet the definition of “evil”: that this kind of evil does have an objective existence, although it is attached to subjective human activity.
Karma may not exist as a (objective) magical force, but may exist as a (objective-subjective) pycho-sociological force. That if you do good things, society will reward you; bad, and bad things might happen to you.
I think the same thing about astrology. That some people act like their signs because society can mold you that way.
Nowadays, given the flourishing of empirical sciences and their technological offspring, the philosophic issue becomes can subjectivity and objectivity be considered as separate, unrelated phenomena or as interlocked, interdependent phenomena?
Well I can’t be sure of ‘existence’ per se, because if we start talking about it as some sort of physical ‘THING’ we end up doing what alot of philosophers do, debating about the EXISTENCE rather than what it’s practical explanation/application is all about.
Does someone want to give a brief definition of what Subjective/Objective is?
Here’s mine ok:
A rugby or soccer match (whatever floats your boat)
The players on the field are the SUBJECTS. They participate in the game.
The spectators are the OBJECTS. They watch the game and comment on what is happening.
That’s about the closest i can get to simplifying it.
“Can our subjectivity have an objective existence?”
Well I would say yes. Based on those premises I gave before, it’s possible to give an objective evaluation of anything you are not a subject of.
Take for example, your teacher.
To her, her teaching is subjective. She is a subject to her own teachings, and so too are the students.
Whereas you, the spectator, can look at her objectively and pass a certain amount of judgement, ‘objective’. Take for example, ERO (Educational Review Office)
Objectivity is something anthropologists strove to uphold in their quests on islands in the pacific. The trouble with Objectivity though is that it does little to affect what actually happens, and we are stuck with a view devoid from the normal thought patterns you would get if you happened to be a subject.
Now, onto the whole ‘evil objectivity’ thing.
You asking if things can be objectively evil? I think that objectivity is neutral, that’s just what i think, because what you’re effectively saying is ‘subject to the object being evil, this therefore, is objectively evil’.
Same applies to good. I don’t know if you can get evil (or good!)objectivity, unless the object is subjectively evil (or good!)
The definition of “objective” where one goes “I am being objective” we are trying to avoid. A person should be considered to always be 100% subjective (by definition).
BUT… the thing I was trying to communicate was that there was an objective existence to the “subjective perspective”.
I should wait for a reply before I go much further since there might be some confusion already.
Anyway, it’s been a week-and-a-half and there has been only one vote “yes” (my own). Interesting.
I mean, if someone accepts that there exists an objective reality, why is it hard to accept that subjective reality has an objective reality associated with it?
Is the existence of subjectivity not a real existence? If it’s not, then what is it?
Frankly, this is why I feel a little bit disappointed: because folks seem much more interested in restating cherished beliefs and less in breaking new ground. That’s what I am most interested in: the new stuff.
I think the assumption that there is nothing new to found is part of the problem. A quick dismissal. I’ve been unable to find a correlation with previous thought from the sources you provided. If it is not new, it seems relatively unknown.
The name I suggested was “objective-subjective”. Is there another name delineating a previous proposal? The absence of a term suggests the absence of the concept.
