Objective/subjective

@mister kitten,

mister kitten;108616 wrote:

I would like a more concrete understanding of the two terms (especially since I'm reading The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand in philosophy).

According to what I've gathered:

Objective-true in nature.
Subjective-what one holds to be true

Yes, no, maybe?

Sort of:

Objective. What is true no matter what anyone believes.
Subjective: What is believed to be true.

@mister kitten,

This is a hornet's nest.

"Objective truth" means roughly truth that is mind-independent. To be objective means to aim toward this kind of truth. And the word truth is strongly associated with objectivity.

But humans never actually experience mind-independent truth. All truth is experienced subjectively. But what we experience in common we tend to think of as "mind-independent." We create a mental-model (within our subjectivity) of that which exists apart from our subjectivity. And this was a great leap for science.

But if one considers it carefully, there is only the overlapping of subjectivity that allows us to create the incredibly useful concept of objectivity. Solipsism is the zany position that there is no world outside the self. It's silly but it's good mental exercise. What is objectivity made of? For the most part: consensus. If a person tells a roomful of atheist he has seen a ghost, he will be told he is crazy. If an atheist tells a room full of Pentecostals there is no God, he will be told he is crazy. On the other hand, most will agree that the ocean appears blue, that bees sting, the bullets are dangerous.

Ayn Rand is great when she describes man "as a heroic being". But I think she was wrong when she continued "reason as his only absolute". She was stubbornly old-school about epistemology. She was blinded (my opinion) by her fanaticism.

@mister kitten,

I think of it as...

Objective: something we necessarily all agree on; something that if I point at and say 'this is ...' you can all come, look at and agree 'yes that is indeed ...'

Subjective: The opposite, something we will not necessarily agree on. I may point and say 'that is x' and you say 'no it's y'

Objective is an external object... unchanging in itself.
Subjective is an internal opinion... changing from subject to subject.

However this is just my opinion and it is subjective because some people (subjects) may think I'm right and some may think I'm wrong; it is subject to opinion. However, I am using words to express this opinion and that is an objective fact. You can all see the words (objects) and none of you can object to that >_<

Regards,
Dan.

@mister kitten,

10 people are in room. Suddenly 5 of them say they see a ghost. Is this ghost objective or subjective?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108633 wrote:

This is a hornet's nest.

"Objective truth" means roughly truth that is mind-independent. To be objective means to aim toward this kind of truth. And the word truth is strongly associated with objectivity.

But humans never actually experience mind-independent truth. All truth is experienced subjectively.

It is fallacious to argue that because our experience is subjective, that what we experience must also be subjective. It is like arguing that because we kick with our feet, what we kick must also be our feet. It is a variant of, the worst argument in the world. http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.pdf

@mister kitten,

I didn't deny practical objectivity. How many times have I explained this?

I'm saying the objectivity is the overlapping of subjectivities. No one is arguing about kicking rocks here. I'm saying that the concept of the objective world is something we build from sense-data and consensus, both of which are experienced subjectively.

Tim and Tom are out in the country alone one night. Tim sees a UFO and points at it. "Do you see that UFO," he says. Tom says no, for Tom does not see it.

What is the objective truth of this situation? Should Tom think that he is crazy? That Tim is blind?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108761 wrote:

I didn't deny practical objectivity. How many times have I explained this?

I'm saying the objectivity is the overlapping of subjectivities. No one is arguing about kicking rocks here. I'm saying that the concept of the objective world is something we build from sense-data and consensus, both of which are experienced subjectively.

Tim and Tom are out in the country alone one night. Tim sees a UFO and points at it. "Do you see that UFO," he says. Tom says no, for Tom does not see it.

What is the objective truth of this situation? Should Tom think that he is crazy? That Tim is blind?

We don't know the objective truth of the situation. That does not mean that there is none. And, again, the argument that because experience is subjective, what is experienced is subjective is clearly fallacious.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108746 wrote:

10 people are in room. Suddenly 5 of them say they see a ghost. Is this ghost objective or subjective?

You can't use the definition in this manner. There is missing information, such as why did the other five not see the ghost? Were they doing the same thing the five who did see or were they occupied or distracted? This is crucial to know because it changes the definition.

@Krumple,

Descartes' considered objective and subjective truth in his skeptical meditations.

Descartes couldn't be sure if any of what he experienced was objectively true until he got down to "Cogito ergo sum". "I think therefore I am"

Wait a second. Does the existence of "thinking" necessitate some "thing" doing that thinking? Can thinking exist without the "I"? Descartes said "no". Thinking exists therefore there must be an "I". But maybe this is just a trick of language structures molding our thoughts and perceptions. Is it objectively true that a predicate cannot exist without a subject? Perhaps there are only experiences and no experiencer.

O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; No more of that.

Rather I will join Descartes and believe that my experience of some thing thinking implies some I amming.

Thus Descartes believed the "I am" is both subjectively and objectively true.
"I am" is at the crossroads of objective and subjective truth.

@mister kitten,

I think you folks are failing to grasp my point, "refuting" a straw-man. What is the difference between subjective and objective? How does the subjective get promoted to the objective in the first place?

The objectivity-subjectivity dichotomy is a mental-model. All experience is real. Surely you know a little about Kant. We get our thing-in-itself quite processed. And yes I do believe in an objective world. Realize that, please. The point is theoretical. The point is the foundation of truth. Objectivity as we imperfect mortals experience it is an imperfect mental model. We may well be brains in a vat. Justified belief is what we have instead of certainty.

What is it that convinces us that one of our subjective experiences is objective? My answer: consensus and persuasion in relation to sense-data.

Please, be sure that you grasp my point. Your straw man keeps looking at me with hatred in his eyes. He's tired of being my scapegoat.

10 identical twins in a room are all staring at the same wall when an image of that only five of them see appears. That is all that information we have. Real life doesn't give us perfect information. It's not formal logic where P is assigned a binary truth value. Real life demands decision in the fog of imperfect knowledge.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108761 wrote:

I'm saying the objectivity is the overlapping of subjectivities. No one is arguing about kicking rocks here. I'm saying that the concept of the objective world is something we build from sense-data and consensus, both of which are experienced subjectively.

Reconstructo;108944 wrote:

What is it that convinces us that one of our subjective experiences is objective? My answer: consensus and persuasion in relation to sense-data.

The overlapping of subjectivities or consensus truth (if not thought itself) is mediated by signs. Is this important to our definitions of subjective and objective truth?

Is consensus truth different from both objective and subjective truth?

The 5 non-UFO-seeing identical twins communicate with the 5 UFO-seeing identical twins using some kind of language whether it be English, French, sign language etc. Or perhaps the non-UFO-seeing twins just cast an incredulous look to answer the pointing, gasping and waving of the UFO-seeing twins.

Does this play a part in your thought experiment?

(Unrelated Side note:

Reconstructo;108944 wrote:

Your straw man keeps looking at me with hatred in his eyes. He's tired of being my scapegoat.

Imagine a scene with Straw Man saying: "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.... No it's happening!... Get out of here!... Run!... ROOOOAAR! STRAWMAN CRUSH! STRAW MAN NO LIKE BEING SCAPEGOAT!!!
)

@mister kitten,

Well, we could elaborate endlessly. I suggest an impossibility of closure on themes like this. As long as humans can inventively redescribe the descriptions of others, the show will go on.

Yes, consensus is mediated by signs. I find linguistic philosophy to be as close to first philosophy as one can get. Philosophy is made of signs. And one must study both the nature of these signs and the nature of the psyche that uses them. I contend that abstract words are born as metaphors. Etymology is persuasive on this. But metaphors as they are repeated become literal ("literal "is one such dead metaphor).

I contend that "objective reality" is a human mental model. In a practical sense, there is something out there that all of us live meet on. But we live in concepts applied to sense-data, and sense-data is surely different from the "thing-in-itself." We hear sounds, see colors. Our scientific instruments and concepts suggest sound waves and electromagnetic waves. But science is no less metaphorical than the descriptions we use for sense data. "Force" is our creation. So is "velocity" and "matter" and "energy."

Yes, force and energy correspond in a significant way with the "thing-in-itself" but quantum physics makes it quite obvious that our mammalian brains are hardly finished perfecting this conceptual-mathematical mediation with "reality prime."

@mister kitten,

mister kitten;108616 wrote:

I would like a more concrete understanding of the two terms (especially since I'm reading The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand in philosophy).

According to what I've gathered:

Objective-true in nature.
Subjective-what one holds to be true

Yes, no, maybe?

No, not according to Ayn Rand, the person you are trying to understand (I assume). She held that one can objectively look at reality, and establish truths (in one's context of knowledge, not absolute truths, because by definition, they do not exist-but that's off the subject).

It is a shame that some in this board are looking to confuse you (Reconstructo), by answering in a way that directly contradicts Ayn Rand, without placing their answers in the context of belonging to a school of philosophy Ayn Rand rejected (and argumented her decision to reject it). Instead of addressing any of those arguments, or even acknowledging what Ayn Rand really said about objective truth, he just attacked her personally, by calling her a fanatic. I hope you can recognize the mindset behind that argument (and the fallacy of such an ad hominem, not to mention his constant appeal to authority: "Kant or some other philosopher said it, so surely you can't contradict it"), and differentiate between it and an honest counter-argument, focused on the issue at hand.

Here's what Ayn Rand wrote about what she means by the word objective (not Objectivism, the name she chose for her philosophy, just the word itself ):

"Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver's (man's) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge-that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers-and that there can be no such thing as a final "authority" in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically-one's own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question "Who decides what is right or wrong?" is wrong. Nobody "decides." Nature does not decide-it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality." (The Objectivist Newsletter)

@mister kitten,

Man, I used to love Ayn Rand. Her concept of man as a heroic being remains a cornerstone of my own philosophy. But Hegel has already tackled the objective-subjective thing brilliantly.

Yes, there is an "objective reality." But this objective reality is perceived differently by everyone. Your concept of objectivity is strongly influenced by what she said. And these sentences of hers were created.

I think you are neglecting to see to what degree our concepts shape this supposedly objective reality. Without consciousness objective reality does not exist. An individual human being lives the collision of subjective consciousness and an otherwise unknowable "thing-in-itself" or "mind independent reality."

Even the concept of objectivity is a human creation. True, there is a world out there. But it requires a language that was created to say so.

And the species man presumably had to invent his abstract words. Etymology is persuasive on this. Philosophical abstractions are born as metaphors.

Language is something like a filter between us and objective reality.

Look at your own intellectual development and think about how differently reality appeared to you upon the reading of every new great thinker.

To a large degree, truth is made and not found. But this is not a denial of some not-directly-knowable ground of objectivity.

From Terry Pinkards biography of Hegel-------As Hegel explained it, "dogmatic idealism posits the subjective as the real ground of the objective, dogmatic realism the objective as the real ground of the subjective.............The opposition between realism and idealism is in consciousness, and the reality of the objective, just as much as that of the subjective, is founded in consciousness."

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109288 wrote:

Man, I used to love Ayn Rand. Her concept of man as a heroic being remains a cornerstone of my own philosophy. But Hegel has already tackled the objective-subjective thing brilliantly.

Yes, there is an "objective reality." But this objective reality is perceived differently by everyone. Your concept of objectivity is strongly influenced by what she said. And these sentences of hers were created.

I think you are neglecting to see to what degree our concepts shape this supposedly objective reality. Without consciousness objective reality does not exist. An individual human being lives the collision of subjective consciousness and an otherwise unknowable "thing-in-itself" or "mind independent reality."

Even the concept of objectivity is a human creation. True, there is a world out there. But it requires a language that was created to say so.

And the species man presumably had to invent his abstract words. Etymology is persuasive on this. Philosophical abstractions are born as metaphors.

Language is something like a filter between us and objective reality.

Look at your own intellectual development and think about how differently reality appeared to you upon the reading of every new great thinker.

To a large degree, truth is made and not found. But this is not a denial of some not-directly-knowable ground of objectivity.

Almost every sentence in your post, denying the existence of truth, is a claim about some absolute truth, presented as if it supercedes all the paradigms, created realities, concept influenced world views you speak of. Your truth, that there is no truth, is presented as absolute, certain, and above all impossible to question (since no one else can transcend the phenomenal plane), and have this super-perspective you have of all the little people and their paradigms.

So I ask you again, just like I asked you in my first post on this forum, but received no answer: If there is no truth, how is that statement true?

By the way, you can repeat how you grew out of Ayn Rand all you want, without actually identifying any errors in her philosophy, no one will take your arrogance seriously. You are posing, you're not saying anything intelligent or substantive about Objectivist Epistemology. If you actually understood it and rejected it on rational grounds, you'd be all over the details of why you did that.
[QUOTE=Reconstructo;109288]
But Hegel has already tackled the objective-subjective thing brilliantly.
[/QUOTE]

What objective-subjective thing? There's no objective-subjective thing in Rand's epistemology. There's an objective thing you are yet to address in any substance.

Reconstructo;109288 wrote:

Look at your own intellectual development and think about how differently reality appeared to you upon the reading of every new great thinker.

Sorry, but schizophrenia is a mental illness, not evidence that there is no knowable reality. Plus, I don't have it.

My knowledge of reality expanded, but never changed. As I discovered new ideas, I dismissed or accepted the them, depending on whether they were substantiated with evidence, and whether they contradicted my view of the World or not. When I made mistakes, I identified the contradictions it created in my thinking, and corrected them.

@mister kitten,

Rand called her movement "Objectivism." But her mixture of heroic individualism and reason as absolute is an unstable brew.

Her ethics are great. Her epistemology is obsolete, primitive. Her aesthetics I like. Her politics are noble but naive.

I don't define my views as true in the sense to correspondence to objective reality. I simply think that descriptions of reality are preferable to yours. The representational theory of truth is extremely useful, and I interpret Rand to be a strong adherent of this theory. But this theory of truth is not the only theory of truth, and has its limitations. Rand's epistemology is largely one of common sense, and this gives it the allure of immediate relevance.

But common sense assumes the Earth is flat. Common sense assumes that matter is not mostly empty space.

An individual human being perceives the world by means of sense-data and interpretative concepts, feelings, etc. So if a person's interpretation changes, for them the entire world changes.

You did not address the language issue. If truth is found and not made, then why are you forced to argue this point with words that are obviously human creations? And science itself is a human creation. And the concept of objectivity is a human creation. I feel like you are what Hegel would call a dogmatic realist. I think you fail to address to what degree Reality is interpreted by the individual human. It's as if you assume some God's eye view, forgetting that such a view is just an invention of the human imagination.

@Stansfield,

Stansfield;109254 wrote:

"Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver's (man's) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge-that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers-and that there can be no such thing as a final "authority" in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically-one's own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question "Who decides what is right or wrong?" is wrong. Nobody "decides." Nature does not decide-it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality." (The Objectivist Newsletter)

Well this is a hornet's nest indeed and could probably justify a book. But here are some observations.

In this statement, to talk of the relationship of consciousness to existence already presumes that we are in a position to identify both. In other words, if we say this, we must say it from a position where it is clear what 'consciousness' and 'existence' are, and how they differ or correspond. But I would suggest that at this point, the proposal has already assumed what it sets out to prove. It presumes that existence is a given to which we are required to conform. But I say that existence is something that we are also responsible for creating.

The statement is seeking to find certainty in the 'concrete facts' of existence, to which consciousness is required to conform, by way of reason and logic. Already the choice has been made to subordinate reason and logic to perception in this proposal. This is signified by the assertion 'only one answer is true'. Doesn't this mean that in any situation, the outcome is already determined, and all we can do is either discern it, by reason and logic, or fail to do so? What this fails to take into account is that nature is often ambiguous or indeterminate. There may be many possible outcomes in any situation. What we do and what happens are determined by a whole range of factors, including chance and chaos. Certainly in any situation, an outcome will emerge, but there is nothing to say that the outcome was predetermined, or the only possible outcome. In a sense, if this was true, nothing would ever happen, because the result would already be pre-determined by the cause, so how could anything new occur?

Furthermore our grasp of the situation is in no way dependent only on our perception of it. We are unable even to perceive it without reason and logic already operating. We bring to the situation, to life itself, our cognitive mechanisms, intepretive ability, expectations, expertise, any number of factors. This is why confronted with the same situation, one man will do one thing, and one another. Some will see an opportunity in chaos, others will create chaos, given the opportunity. And nothing is fixed in advance. Reality itself is indeterminate.

This philosophy does lead to fascism. It dicates that there is 'one right view' in any situation. Knowing what little I do of Ayn Rand, the corollary is that there are a particular types individuals who are most able to ascertain the 'one right view' - and the rest of us had either better listen, or get out of the way. That was how it went, wasn't it?

As for 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity', these have no ultimate meaning except for in matters which are completely jejune, like the measurement of weights, the lobbing of shells, the building of structures. There are no 'ultimate objects' nor 'eternal subjects' and so there is no ultimacy in either of these concepts. They are basically what materialists have to make do with in the absence of any real philosophy.

Thankyou.

@mister kitten,

To posit one true objective reality is just a substitute for God. We replace the priest with the expert. I'm sure the Russian communists thought that only their dialectical materialism has access to Reality. (Note the capital R. Reality functions for many as an idol, as a religion. The same sense of power, security, and righteousness is obtained thereby.)

And yet how obvious it is that even scientists disagree.....let alone philosophers and men of "common sense."

@mister kitten,

Any examples of something objective (if there are any, I guess)?

Philosophy Forum

Objective/subjective

Quick Links

My Account

able2know