»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
How do you define objective?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
How do you define objective? |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is less important than subjectivity to me but if people want to give me thoughts on this one, I'd also be interested. Here's the dictionary definition: ob¡¤jec¡¤tive (b-jktv) adj. Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected. Thanks again, Brad [This message has been edited by Brad (edited 07-04-2001).] |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
KwiatMan Junior Member
since 2001-05-19
Posts 17Florida |
Brad.. When I think of objectivity, I come up with the pat answer that, epistemologically, I will acquire knowledge of reality through reason and logic. Metaphysically speaking, reality exists as an absolute. But that is Ayn Rand preachings for an ideal world with an ideal philosophy. Thanks to my mother, I have my own personal philosophy of objectivity that I've fine-tuned since the mid-twenties. It has all of the warts and kinks that one would expect, but it's mine. In a nutshell, to answer your question, when I think of objectivity, I think of my moral code of ethics, my survivability, my freedom, my happiness, my family, my future and how it all co-exists within a world I never made. Jan... |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
an impossibility...heh  K |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It's interesting that an objective philosophy is one that you can call mine. Again, I don't want to debate what the word means so much as simply try to understand what it means to you. Kamla, Indeed, I agree it is impossible -- heh. Are you trying to sound like the singer by the way?  Brad |
||
|
KwiatMan Junior Member
since 2001-05-19
Posts 17Florida |
I've lost my taste for swaying grapes And must escape this fray. I'll break this curse, and Satan's wrath To post my final say. I planned this route with greatest care while tantalized by Yogi's fork. The string is cut, I'll take the dare or soon be labeled Dork.  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I dissent. Objective reality is possible. In theory. However, that's my opionion.  The tree that falls in the forrest still makes a helluva thud whether or not someone is there to hear it. All the acoustic vibrations exist. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It seems I've already opened my big mouth too far. Okay, for some people, objective reality is accessible, for others it is not. But what about Shakespeare is the greatest writer on the planet because he reaches the depths of the human soul. or Shakespeare is the greatest writers on the planet because he used more words than anyone else. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
both are still subjective Brad because even in the latter, even though the numbers are empirical, the criterion used to select the greatest writer was subjective |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Okay. I agree. How about Shakespeare used more words than any other writer? Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
that could be considered an objective statement.. or even; "Brad has said twice that Shakespeare is the greatest writer ever." is completely objective even though it is about Brad's subjective opinion.. it is a mere statement of fact containing nothing about or from the writer |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
........Brad.....hush....I'm trying to avoid all reference to a certain singer right now...lollol - what have you created??? Subjectively - I'm inclined to say I ain't feeling good right now heh heh... K |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think objectivity (or one aspect of it) might involve what I like to call "natural law" embodied in the laws of science and logic and mathematics. Things that won't bend, or if they do seem to, won't break. A simple example might be, "the word cat has three letters". This I assert to be an objective statement and it's truth unchangeable (or at least never proven to be changeable) regardless of discussions about all the contingencies involved in the statement, for the variables are stated and crystallized in the sentence. For example someone might say "This is not objective, because a person may hear the word cat in Spanish "gato" which has 4 letters, thus rendering the statement depedent upon a subjective experience". But the statement was obviously talking about the english word cat, holding the interpreter to the statement of the sentence which declared the word in question to be English. I've seen all kind of attempts to make objectively true statements not objectively true, and all in vain. I believe objectivity does exist (and in more realms and complexities than the ones I mentioned). Very intriguing discussion. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Intersting Stephen.. however.. consider this; The keys are on the table. It's entirely true, I'm looking at them, but, it wasn't always so and is quite changeable... there.. I just put them in my pocket. Still objective however |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Wouldn't the answer to your question depend on whether the "answerer" believes objectivity must be reached either deductively or inductively? If you are trying to prove a truth to be objective by forming a premise then seeking evidence to support the premise (a priori), it seems to me that the premise can almost always be called into question. On the other hand, if the "answerer" believes objectivity can be established inductively (a posteriori), the main question in my mind would be the consistency of the accounts of those who observed the particular phenomenon in question. Interesting post. Wish I had more time. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 07-11-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Can an objective statement be false? For example, "I wrote "Can an objective statement be false?" three times. Is that an objective statement? Brad |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I don't see how a false statement could be "objective", simply because someone could produce "objective" evidence to prove the statement wrong. I might produce the piece of paper, or the thread in which you wrote "Can an objective..." to demonstrate that you only wrote it once. Of course, you could argue that you wrote it elsewhere, but for this to be credible you would have to produce some evidence to back it up, or a convincing reason why you are unable to provide that evidence. So in the end your statement proves to be subjective because it's "truth" applies only to you. The event you are describing is a fantasy of your own because in reality it did not happen. And nothing is more subjective that a fantasy. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If you added the words 'I believe' to your statement Brad (assuming you did believe it) then your statement would be objective, since, you believe it. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
We may be getting into semantics here, but I think your statement is a claim to something (or three somethings) existing in reality. The claim in and of itself is not objective. I disagree that with Local Rebel that "I believe" added to the statement would make it objective. On the contrary, the addition of "I believe" would make the claim personal and, therefore, subjective. Belief is unverifiable ... actual written statements often are. A claim that something exists in reality is not the same thing as something having objective existence. If the truth of the claim can be tested, then I believe it is possible to determine whether the claim is true or not. Your example is interesting in another sense. It can be true now, but if you happen to write the same statement again, technically, the statement that may have once been true would no longer be true (i.e., you would have written the statement four times). Wouldn't you agree that it is not the statement in and of itself that establishes its objectivity, but rather its resistence to scrutiny? Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
What's wrong with getting into semantics? It would seem that objectivity is intimately connected to verifiability. An 'I believe' statement therefore is not objective because it can't be verified. Interestingly, LR realizes this point even if he doesn't realize it -- he has to assume that I do believe I've made that statement three times. I've made the statement three times. I believe I've made the statement three times. LR believes I believe I've made the statement three times. I believe LR believes I believe I've made the statement three times. LR believes I believe LR believes . . . Going down that path leads to an infinite regress because there is no way to verify belief. Okay, so objectivity has to be verifiable. What are the conditions for verifiability? Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
making a statement of one's belief is objective asserting it is 'correct' or 'the truth' without establishing empirical evidence would be subjective... for example a Christian who said; "I believe Jesus Christ was the son of God" is a totally objective statement because it does not speak to the condition of Jesus Christ but merely states the parameters of the speakers belief if the same person said; "Jesus Christ was the son of God" it then becomes subjective. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And if it's a lie? |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
If there can be no absolute truths, it then follows there can be no verifiabilty, thus no objectivity. Are you willing to allow any margin for probablility? There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Is "There are no absolute truths" an objective statement? It seems very subjective to me... and self contradictory may I add. It places the speaker in the pretense of at least some absolute knowledge... He has to at least know one thing absolutely (that there is no absolute truth) in order to say that seriously. A person who states this robs every other claim of validity except of course his own. And to top it off, if his assertion turns out to be absolutely true, he just destroyed it. Have we been here before? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah, we've done this before. But I was wondering if we're not confusing/conflating what is true with objectivity and what is false with subjectivity. Do we make a distinction between objectivity/subjectivity and true/false dichotomies? Jaime, I'm comfortable with probability. I think that's what we do given human limitations. Stephen, 'There are no absolute truths' is absolutely true is a contradiction. But if you follow it, 'absolutely true' simply drops out. It no longer means anything. We might say that the statement by definition is probably true. Maybe. Brad |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
Probability being acceptable - statements made which you would accept as being truthful would now be considered objective in my opinion. There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Huh? I don't understand that. Brad |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Objective: Anything I say that is modeled on reality rather than based on opinion. Subjective: Anything someone else says that I think is wrong. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Local Reb: "Jesus Christ rose from the dead" is an objective claim. "I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead" is a subjective statement about the objective claim. If Jesus' resurrection is verifiable, then my belief (or unbelief) is inconsequential. It still happened. Hopefully it is the verifiability of the claim that makes the claim objective, not my belief in it. Brad: I don't think most of us equate subjectivity with being wrong (in practice, at least) but, to the inquisitive mind, a subjective statement is immediately suspect. I think this can be a helpful thing, considering the power that superstitious behavior can have on us and on those we are in contact with. There are, however, many subjective feelings I have for my wife and children that require little or no objective verifiability in order for me to believe those feelings exist. And I'm fine with that. So I suppose the question is not whether objective is superior to subjective, but rather is when we ought to demand more than butterflies in our stomachs and burnings in our bosoms when making decisions that affect our lives. But that's just my opinion. Jim |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Jim it's perfectly understandable why you are interpreting the scenario that way -- here is the problem though; If a reporter says "The Republican candidate is a better choice than the Democrat" it is clearly a subjective statement... Objectively he can state researched facts about each candidate, outline each candidate's positions (which is an objective statement about the candidate's beliefs) and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Reporting on his own belief though remains objective if he classifies it as such adding 'I believe' or 'It is my opinion'. In that case it is mere statement of the fact of his viewpoint. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 07-24-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
"p" is true if and only if p is true. Okay, took a little time off, found a great book on this subject -- "Rorty and his Critics" -- the topic is still a lot more controversial than I had previously thought. In a way though, that makes sense, it's been around for thousands of years. It's been around for thousands of years. Why is that? Why does the question keep popping up over history? [Note: the following is not intended as an historical explanation of what happens but merely one possible path, a kind of trope if you will.] It seems to me that objectivity still contains a power over people's minds, an appeal to common sense: The table is there, the keys were on the table, the keys were on the table yesterday, at 4:45 PM and so on and so forth. Nobody really wants to debate these statements, they aren't interesting, even if they're wrong, the statements still revolve around an objectivist/sense certainty position. From this appeal to common sense, it's sheer obviousness leads one to conclude that objectivity is not arguable. Therefore, we have just about any and all positions that want to persuade you to believe in something that is arguable (racism in the negative sense; God in the positive one) taking positions that sound just like "The table is there." However, even before something like this happens, somebody looks at an objectivist list of objective statements and thinks, "something's missing." Feeling is missing. Thus, we have the reassertion of subjectivism, "I love my mother." Everybody looks up, thinks this is true, common sense and whatnot, and there aren't any problems. But then this is taken to the extreme: Nothing is objective. All sense certainty is the result of the subject, therefore everything subjective. I can believe what I want, anything goes and so on and so forth. The objectivist responds with something like, "Okay, walk through the table." The subjectivist responds by asking, "Is the table more important or is love?" The objectivist thinks the subjectitivist is an idiot and the subjectivist thinks the objectivist is unfeeling. And most people look at both sides and generally side with the objectivists publically ("Of course, there's a table there"), and subjectivist privately ("I have a right to an opinion. Who cares if you can't prove love?"). It's really only the extremists that have problems with this distinction. This makes sense, doesn't it? As long as we stay balanced, our lives should be a combination of both, right? Except common sense disappears very quickly when people actually talk. I'll be back, Brad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
"p" is true if and only if p is true. Thinking a bit more about Jamie's statement: "Probability being acceptable - statements made which you would accept as being truthful would now be considered objective in my opinion." This kind of threw me at first. But his orginal question was: "If there can be no absolute truths, it then follows there can be no verifiabilty, thus no objectivity. Are you willing to allow any margin for probablility?" Now, this isn't quite what I want to get across. If I arrange it slightly If [we can not know] absolute truths [being human], it then follows there can be no [certain]verifiabilty, thus no objectivity. This statement I agree with. "Are you willing to allow any margin for probability?" My answer was and is yes. I think that's what we do, we try to find what the world around us really is and some answers are better than others. But we can never be sure that the formulas we do have aren't describing the data in a way that is false to the way things 'really are'. This is so because the verification procedures are based on nothing other than that they do work. Other formulas do not. Comparing the two leaves us with some formulas that are probably true and some that are probably not true. A while back, I was reading an article about bringing back the 'ether' as a concept. I was unconvinced but you never know. At any rate, I think 'probably true' is a good tentative position to work from, to make decisions from. If you want to call that objectivity, I guess I can't really complain except that I'm not sure most people see it that way. Following that, perhaps I'm confusing a passionate intensity for a good guess with a certainty that is impossible. Perhaps I'm the one who has taken such a long time to figure this out because I was the one on a quest for certainty and I'm the one who eventually concluded it was impossible -- I was just late to the table. Everybody already knew that. Certainly, scientific procedures rule out the 100% option, don't they? On the other hand, I really do think that people make the jump from probability to certainty because it's intricately tied up with their own subjectivity (I exist). If objectivity goes, so does subjectivity. Solipsistic thinking is not the danger; it's the challenge to the unified self and the loss of any ground at all that really gets people heated about this stuff. That's the real problem. Brad |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, You made the statement... "If [we can not know] absolute truths [being human], it then follows there can be no [certain]verifiabilty, thus no objectivity." I believe humans with divine aid are capable of (and even responsible for) knowing certain absolute truths. So your statement is correct as long the "if" remains. The problem is that many end up dropping this "if" and asserting that we as humans cannot know absolute truths. But this is an a priori conclusion and begging the question. The question is "can humans know objectively?" Your answer might be "no, because humans cannot know absolute truth". But what you have ended up doing is defending and supporting your answer to the question with your answer. And one more inconsistency is noted... such a statement can only be right if at least one particular thing is known with certainty, namely that nothing can be known certainly. And if this is presumed to be absolute knowledge the position itself has collapsed. Regardless of what ideas we like to throw around, there is objectivity in the mind of God. And we are graciously given the ability and resposibility for knowing at least some of it's more important aspects. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ok Brad... well researched and thought out... but, aren't we now getting back to Heisenberg? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
LR, The Uncertainty Principle? That's as good a place to start as any. Quantum Physical theory defines it's success, not by the various descriptionist models presented (the math is always the same) but because it works. I'm suggesting that we concentrate on what works and simply not worry about the objective or theological value. I think most people would argue that that is simply not a philosophical statement (because philosophy deals with the unanswerable and therefore the irrelevant)but what I think it does do is refocus our thoughts on different questions. Questions that have consequences in the world we see now. Stephen, You know, when we did this before we both got muddled in the same problem -- a confusion among different types of thinking (or philsophical paradigms if you want to be trendy about it). Instead of two, I think it's clearer if we try to think of three different paradigms: 1. Theology: Good/Evil 2. Rational: Objective/Subjective 3. Pragmatic: Agreement/Disagreement None of these are pure of course, they intermix but it's based on which particular way of thinking, which particular questions we ask that determines which mode we use. "There is a pen on the table" would certainly be an objective statement in number 2 but probably wouldn't be an absolute truth in number one. In number one, "How does this relate to God?" In number two, "What are the factors for determining the objectivity of this?" In number three, "Why is it that we agree (or disagree) with this statement?" I agree that if your starting point is, "There is a God," there is proof everywhere to be seen, in everything around us, we can see the hand of God. What I don't see is how you can communicate with someone who doesn't believe in God or believes in a different god. The conversation just seems to go in circles. But communication does take place between people who believe in these incommensurable world views. I think it takes place because agreement occurs in other areas of thinking (we need food or clothing or whatnot). I concede your theological view and want to discuss what are these things we can discuss but I don't believe that 'because of God' becomes a particularly persuasive argument in this situation. On the other hand, I also think there can be nothing more obvious than think "There is a pen on the table" to be an objective statement. Yet, what is someone from a different culture sees this same object, not as a writing instrument, but as a weapon? The objectivity becomes suspect, doesn't it? At this point, objectivists move into a further description of the pen using mathematics but, to my way of thinking, this is simply a different way of describing the object. Why should we privilege it? It certainly has value for us, it's useful to see this 'pen' in mathematical terms but why is mathematics a more objective way of looking at the world? If you see it as a pen, why does it matter? If you see it as a weapon, why does it matter? If you want to make another pen, it certainly does matter. In the same way that 'because of God' loses it's persuasive force because people believe different things, 'because it's objective' also loses it's force because people are in different situations. As Habermas points out in the book I mentioned earlier, pragmatists concede the objective world as already there. I disagree slightly because I think pragmatists concede whatever metaphysical worldview you, the non-pragmatist, has. Earlier, I talked about the statement, "Shakespeare used more words than any other writer." I conceded that this was objective (provided it is indeed true of course) but why is that important? It's only important if we attach some subjective significance to it (always implicit in any statement for it to make sense). We think the number of words is important. Why is that? An objectivist doesn't ask this question because it's subjective and someone who claims subjectivity doesn't feel the need to explain it's importance because it's, well, subjective. But what does that mean and imply? More later, Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Actually I was hinting at the portion of the uncertainty principle that suggests the mere fact that we are observing an event has an influence upon the outcome. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Oh, okay. That's just as good. Actually, I was thinking a bit more. I don't want to be thought of as advocating a kind of Cutural Relativism. That philosophy, if you can call it that, seems to deter interaction between cultures and difference rather than more interaction, more conversation. And, in a way, seems much more of a prime candidate for Stephen's contradictions than Pragmatism. Cultural Relativism privileges those who are relativists as opposed to those who believe that their own culture is the best (just about everyone else on the planet). But then relativists can be considered a specific culture and community who privilege themselves at the expense of others. A contradiction, right? A relativist, at least the ones I've met, chastize others for not thinking as they do. A pragmatist, I think, wants to try to understand how others think, create a fusion of horizons (Gadamer), and make decisions from that point. Unless I'm completely misreading this stuff. Brad |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
