What are "non-objective criteria of truth"

I am thinking along the lines that in pre-modern times, 'The Truth' was by definition 'the Gospel' - as in 'Gospel truth'. So now that standard is no longer applicable in secular society. If you cast about for what might constitute a similar moral compass, it is quite difficult to find. People often use the term 'objective' to indicate 'what is really there'. Of course, in one sense, it is quite true that 'what is really there' is objective, but there are also all of the questions of judgement, about missing pieces of information, interpretation, and so on. Life is usually considerably more complicated than what is simply there in an objective sense.

I suppose philosophy is or should be concerned with this question however with many of the modern schools, there is really not much emphasis on criteria other than via propositional analysis. Perhaps one of the virtues of continental philosophy is to show how most notions of 'objectivity' are really quite subjective in important respects. Maybe that is the most we can hope for.

Perhaps the legal system could provide some examples. There are many cases where complex judgements are required on the basis of disputed facts, conflicting testimony, and so on. In many ways, that is much closer to life than the idea of 'objectivity.'

But I have more questions than answers in this subject. 'Objectivity' seems to me pretty weak, not least because it must be conditional, being one half of a pair of opposites. I would like to think there is a transcendent truth which is neither objective nor subjective, but even if there were, it would belong in a different 'universe of discourse' to that of Western modernism.

But perhaps you will admit that objectivity is an ideal. And an impersonal perspective is only a personal perspective that does its best to negate the idiosyncratic.

As much as we would sometimes like to, we do not escape the distorting lens of our own personality. Or perhaps we do, but this is difficult to prove and a matter of interpretation/ persuasion.

But the Bible offers objective criteria of the truth. If the Bible says so, then it is true. So the Sun stood still. I just don't think that is a good criterion of truth. But I am not sure about what you are saying.

Fair enough - I am not sure either, so no wonder it doesn't come across. It is just the difficulty I am having with the word 'objective'.

I think the most trustworthy basis for judgement of an aesthetic, cultural, or philosophical issue is by someone who is learned, critical but disinsterested. 'Disinterested' is almost the same as 'objective' in that, someone who is 'disinterested' by definition is not 'subjective'. Other words might be 'detached' or 'impartial'.

So I suppose that if a highly-respected critic of, say, classical music, about which I have limited knowledge, were to tell me that Mozart was superior to Brahms, and gave reasons for it on technical grounds, then I would say I would value that opinion and would thereafter be inclined to favour that view.

So in a sense, I am arguing for the affirmative - I think there is an objective measure in regards to art, (in some respects anyway - it is very difficult with modern art and popular culture) but I am not convinced that the term 'objective' is the best one to convey the meaning being sought.

Sorry for the circumlocution.

I think in many ways the response to this is "yes, I do not like it".
A piece of art that has to be objectively analyzed to be appreciated is like a joke that has to be explained, it does not work.

Art is not truth by correspondence to some set of objective criteria.
Art is more truth by consensus, intuitive appeal, the "collective unconsciousness". Great art speaks to some common aspect or truth of human subjective experience.
Now, things that are perceived of as beautiful generally have some objectively measurable features such as symmetry, proportion, etc. but in general the perception is instant and intuitive not the result of objective analysis or measurement. "Blink".

The wider the aesthetic appeal the greater the work. The less objective analysis required for appreciation the greater the work. The value of a work of art is not linked to its objective features in the way that measurement is linked to science. Science is all about objective reality. Art is all about aesthetic appeal, beauty, and subjective experience.

The wider the aesthetic appeal the greater the work. The less objective analysis required for appreciation the greater the work. The value of a work of art is not linked to its objective features in the way that measurement is linked to science. Science is all about objective reality. Art is all about aesthetic appeal, beauty, and subjective experience.

Is it possible to make objective judgments of art? No.
Is it possible to make objective judgments of judgments of art? Yes.



.

I am making a statement about what makes a good work of art a good work of art.
And I really like contrasting this with what makes a good scientific experiment a good scientific experiment.

Works of art are all about playing on prejudice and biases and different levels of understanding. That is in their nature. That is what they do. It is not the job of a work of art to create the same subjective experience in every viewer but quite the opposite.

Works of art do result in objective facts (or better yet empirical evidence), namely the many different responses to the work of art. And what is so peculiar about these many responses is that they are all often, if not always, quite unique and different from each other.

I am using books about Hamlet instead of thoughts about Hamlet to emphasize the objective concrete reality of the instances of subjective judgment found in these books. They happened. Somebody had them. They were written down. Detailed brain scans of people watching Hamlet or Looking at a Van Gogh painting would work the same way.

The main reason I want to jump through these hoops is so I can make a comparison between the work of art and the scientific experiment.

Multiple "experiments" of different people viewing the same work of art result in multiple unique, objectively real instances of subjective experience (as evidenced by the many different books of criticism)... or at least that's what makes a good work of art.

In contrast:
Multiple scientific experiments result in the same objectively real instances of subjective experience each time (as evidenced by the results that the scientists record) ... or at least that's makes a good scientific experiment.


(But this is just one definition of what makes a good work of art. There are many. I just happen to like this one. It's a subjective judgment I guess.)

Discussion about art is certainly not science. It doesn't have the safeguards science has against biased judgments. But that need not mean that art criticism is intrinsically subjective, and that anything goes. There are intelligent judgments and insights, and the opposite. A wonderful discussion of this is:

It appears to me that refusing to believe any one can be objective is proclaiming ones own weaknesses. Can a contract killer kill without feelings for his victim? Can a musician play a piece of music without judging it personally.

"Objective" is a functional word. I agree with you there. But perfect objectivity is about as common in the real world as an ideal triangle.