Objective/Subjective

[WAB]

Hi there!

Can you give me your general thoughts on the difference between objective and subjective?

You don't have to get too detailed, or much in depth. Just give me your thoughts. Stray if you like - be as discursive as you please. But you don't have to.

I thought this article might serve as a reference. Don't read it unless you feel like it. This discussion is NOT about the article linked to.

https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

Again, ignore the article if you please. This discussion is NOT about the article linked to.

 

[Wiploc]

These terms don't come up much except when theists make the moral argument for the existence of gods.

The moral argument is based on equivocation. The proponent of the argument has to define "objective" in two different and incompatible ways, and then she has to dance back and forth between those contrary definitions -- without us catching her -- in order for the argument to even seem to work.

So, my position on objective/subjective is that it wouldn't be helpful for me to have my own definition. What I need to do is notice what definitions the person I'm talking to is using, and nail those down.

There is no single definition of "objective" for which the moral argument will work. My job is to notice the equivocation, and stop it.

If the theist is prevented from equivocating, the result is always the same:

- If god-based morality is objective, then godless morality is, by the same definition, also objective.
- If atheist morality is subjective, then theist morality is, by the same definition, also subjective.
- Atheist morality is therefore exactly as subjective as theist morality.

 

[fromderinside]

Ah, but are the objectives and the subjectives, those elements within objective and subjective, of theists and atheists the same.

Looking for the proper size of brush with which to smear. Detail or paint gun.

 

[southernhybrid]

It's simple. Objective is about things that are real, based on fact.

Subjective is based on opinions, feelings and may contain prejudice.

I'm not being philosophical, but I'm pretty sure you could apply those two terms to philosophy, which imo, is similar to religion, as it's subjective and not based on evidence, unlike science which is usually objective if the evidence is strong.

 

[bilby]

Objective is synonymous with observer independence; Subjective with observer dependence.

Whether a rock falls down when dropped is an objective question; Every honest observer of the event will agree on the outcome. The rock either did or did not fall; It cannot have fallen for some observers but not for others. If there's a difference between the reports by those who observed the rock, then some of those observers are simply wrong.

Whether a joke is funny is a subjective question; Different observers can honestly and correctly disagree on the outcome. The joke can be funny to some, while not being funny to others; It need not be only one or the other. If there's a difference between the reports by those who heard the joke, that doesn't imply that any of them are wrong.

It's the difference between fact and opinion.

 

[untermensche]

Objective is when two or more subjects agree about an experience.

They both experience the brick as weighing eight pounds, they see the number 8 on the scale, then it objectively weighs 8 pounds.

Subjective is a mind experiencing.

 

[Politesse]

They are conflicting fantasies of a solely personal versus a wholly depersonalized observer.

People like to say "intersubjective" when they're looking for middle ground.

 

[DBT]

Flying effortlessly through the sky while dreaming/ subjective. Trying to fly by flapping your arms while awake/objective.

 

[Tigers!]

Objective tells me something about the object under discussion
Subjective tells me something about you talking about the object

 

[Politesse]

Objective tells me something about the object under discussion
Subjective tells me something about you talking about the object

Who is this "objective" to whom you refer, who tells people things without themselves being a people?

 

[fromderinside]

Objective is removing oneself from the process being measured by inserting measurable material operations in ones place. rat-tat-bumpf.

 

[untermensche]

We create devices so we can experience the results they get.

We are never removed.

We design devices like televisions as experience creation machines.

 

[fromderinside]

I pointed out that man is still involved in setting standards because at the limits of our knowledge we still haven't verified time is constant. Saying that says man isn't totally removed from involvement in determining operations. It leaves open individual man can believe he is not involved in setting standards.

Removing limits eliminates experience from being a factor in one's objectivism. Experience is a cosmetic thrown up to suggest individuals must have subjective auras because they are derived from a higher being. That idea was blown out of the water after man found he could actually set rules governing how phenomena are found and treated. Experience is not needed for one to observe much of reality. It is only demanded where man cannot possibly observe without presumptions, in other words where one cannot observe directly which, as you know, is subjective space.

That rule is now only applicable to matter of belief in subjective space or how man thinks he is in charge. For instance, she uses hidden talk, sub-vocalization, as rationale for inventing an intervening variable, experience.

 

[Tigers!]

Objective tells me something about the object under discussion
Subjective tells me something about you talking about the object

Who is this "objective" to whom you refer, who tells people things without themselves being a people?

Just following the OP's title.
Though nased upon your answers you are well aware what objective/subjective we (posters in thread) are referring too.

 

[Politesse]

Objective tells me something about the object under discussion
Subjective tells me something about you talking about the object

Who is this "objective" to whom you refer, who tells people things without themselves being a people?

Just following the OP's title.
Though nased upon your answers you are well aware what objective/subjective we (posters in thread) are referring too.

I find it very strange, however, to describe the definitively impersonal as though it had agency. If objectivity is a real property, it cannot "tell" you anything. That task falls to its interpreters, and they are subjects.

 

[bilby]

Just following the OP's title.
Though nased upon your answers you are well aware what objective/subjective we (posters in thread) are referring too.

I find it very strange, however, to describe the definitively impersonal as though it had agency. If objectivity is a real property, it cannot "tell" you anything. That task falls to its interpreters, and they are subjects.

It's so commonplace as to be completely unremarkable. Humans are naturally animists, and ascribe agency as the default, and this is built into the English language (and presumably into other languages too), such that most dialects of English antropomorphise inanimate objects without the speaker or writer even noticing.

English wants to assign agency to things, and it's not strange at all to say that a word tells you something. It's quite possibly erroneous, and it may well be confusing, but it assuredly isn't strange to most English speakers, and I doubt very much that it's strange to you either.

 

[Politesse]

Just following the OP's title.
Though nased upon your answers you are well aware what objective/subjective we (posters in thread) are referring too.

I find it very strange, however, to describe the definitively impersonal as though it had agency. If objectivity is a real property, it cannot "tell" you anything. That task falls to its interpreters, and they are subjects.

It's so commonplace as to be completely unremarkable. Humans are naturally animists, and ascribe agency as the default, and this is built into the English language (and presumably into other languages too), such that most dialects of English antropomorphise inanimate objects without the speaker or writer even noticing.

English wants to assign agency to things, and it's not strange at all to say that a word tells you something. It's quite possibly erroneous, and it may well be confusing, but it assuredly isn't strange to most English speakers, and I doubt very much that it's strange to you either.

Unless what you're doing is trying to (ostensibly) hold a serious conversation about philosophy. I'm not confused when people talk to their cars on their way to work in the morning, but I am rhetorically surprised when a hard believer in objectivity talks about objectivity very subjectively in the context of defining it.

 

[untermensche]

I pointed out that man is still involved in setting standards because at the limits of our knowledge we still haven't verified time is constant. Saying that says man isn't totally removed from involvement in determining operations. It leaves open individual man can believe he is not involved in setting standards.

Removing limits eliminates experience from being a factor in one's objectivism. Experience is a cosmetic thrown up to suggest individuals must have subjective auras because they are derived from a higher being. That idea was blown out of the water after man found he could actually set rules governing how phenomena are found and treated. Experience is not needed for one to observe much of reality. It is only demanded where man cannot possibly observe without presumptions, in other words where one cannot observe directly which, as you know, is subjective space.

That rule is now only applicable to matter of belief in subjective space or how man thinks he is in charge. For instance, she uses hidden talk, sub-vocalization, as rationale for inventing an intervening variable, experience.

Humans are doing everything they do based entirely on what and how they experience.

Nothing is removed from human experience.

If it is outside the ability of humans to experience then it is empty speculation that can't be tested.

 

[fromderinside]

Humans are doing everything they do based entirely on what and how they experience.

Nothing is removed from human experience.

If it is outside the ability of humans to experience then it is empty speculation that can't be tested.

Above are exactly the declarations that require material evidence, evidence only possible if one forgets about the cannister experience and points to what is going on in the brain..

 

[untermensche]

Humans are doing everything they do based entirely on what and how they experience.

Nothing is removed from human experience.

If it is outside the ability of humans to experience then it is empty speculation that can't be tested.

Above are exactly the declarations that require material evidence, evidence only possible if one forgets about the cannister experience and points to what is going on in the brain..

If all we have are experiences and nothing else, which is clearly the case, no proof needed for creatures that exist by experiencing, then nothing more I could say would convince you.

Show me something you know about that was not something you experienced.

Your mother? Your first car? The little dials you experienced as you did research? The thoughts in your head?

You only have to show one thing to prove me wrong.