Objectivism v Subjectivism

[Interesting Ian]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I've been thinking about this due to events recently on the boards regarding moderation and things in my own life.

Is it actually possible to be too objective? Does being objective rob us of a certain amount of our humanity? Of our ability to actually live life rather than just observe it? Of the ability to affect our own lives rather than just let things happen to us? Or is dispassionate assessment of our lives what leads us to change things for the better?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Good question. I would say no. Being objective does not mean being dispassionate. It just means not allowing you subjective biases and prejudices to affect your judgement. Being objective doesn't mean you have to be like Spock, or like a robot.

True enough, it means being stupid. Only the subjective is truly real.

 

[Darat]

Sou,

I think that the 'balance' is strongly influenced by the context. For example, I think it's fine to be highly subjective about a sporting team - I don't want to end up saying "On further analysis, 'my' team has only an 11% chance of victory today, therefore I shall not be attending the game". On the other hand, I also don't want to bet the house on my team winning just because I ahve a "good feeling about today's game".

I wonder mind you.... (And some vague ramblings.)

Perhaps we are “subjective” because it allows humans be happier?

For instance I've never been interested in team sports and events and I've never "supported" a team but I never thought in those terms of it being objective or not. But I suppose it is - I often tease friends and ask them with fake bemusement "But if you team isn’t winning why not swap to another team?”.

If we assume that humans like “pleasure” then a team supporter may say they get the greatest pleasure when their team “wins”; however that isn’t the whole picture, I suspect that the “winning” pleasure is magnified if their team hasn’t been doing well for awhile.

So although “objectively” it would look as if the greater pleasure should comes from swapping teams to match performance the most pleasure is obtained by “subjectivity”. So a subjective bias could actually be beneficial for humans, i.e. can increase their pleasure more then an “objective” assessment of the situation would.


Personally I strive to be objective because I want to be as truthful as possible at all times and I associate being "subjective" to introducing bias into your reasoning with is introducing "falsehood". However I agree with several posters pushing it too far may not be for the best overall.

 

[hammegk]

[B

Hammegk,

Why?

Dr. Stupid [/B]

Just because!




Oh, ok. Remembering that *I* is what thinks, and *me* is the bag-o-bones my *I* perceives, and *me* then provides for *I* more subjective perceptions of "reality".

You feel perception IS reality; I don't hold that wordview; whether *I* think without using the bag-o-bones *me* is an unanswerable, yet imo valid question.

Solipsism is less certain, although some hold the view that *I* contain "all that is"; if *I* is more similar to an infinitesmal part of some larger "all that is", solipsism is not the correct answer.

 

[Franko]

Stimpson: (Consciousness = Objective)
Ummm... I would say that the application of mathematics and logic are how we separate our subjective prejudices, so that we can be objective. Once you break a problem down into formal logic, you can solve it objectively.

Mr. Hand: (Consciousness = Subjective)
I categorically deny any possibility of human (the *I* plus the *me*) objectivity.

I suggest solipsism would be the only outcome of *I* being objective.

Mr. Quick: (Consciousness = Subjective)
True enough, it means being stupid. Only the subjective is truly real.


Darat: (Consciousness = Subjective)
Perhaps we are “subjective” because it allows humans be happier?

Darat: (Consciousness = “Objectively Subjective”?)
Personally I strive to be objective because I want to be as truthful as possible at all times and I associate being "subjective" to introducing bias into your reasoning with is introducing "falsehood". However I agree with several posters pushing it too far may not be for the best overall.

I have to side with Stimpson on this one. It is the things which you comprehend in your mind that you are “conscious” of. 4-sided triangles and the like may dance around when the individual bits collide, but how can your own consciousness be a logical inconsistency? That is essentially a confession that you are potentially insane.

… And Hand, there is a logical, objective proof that Solipsism cannot be True. It’s really rather simple … all you have to do, is prove that You are Not God. If you aren’t, God, then someone else must be Her, and then Solipsism can’t be True.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

Oh, ok. Remembering that *I* is what thinks, and *me* is the bag-o-bones my *I* perceives, and *me* then provides for *I* more subjective perceptions of "reality".

Yeah, so? By the above, you have just rejected solipsism. That doesn't imply that it is impossible to be objective, though. In order to establish that, you would have to show that it is not possible to control for subjective bias. I would say that the success of science clearly indicates that this is not the case.

You feel perception IS reality;

No I don't. That would be insane. In fact, that would be solipsism.

I don't hold that wordview; whether *I* think without using the bag-o-bones *me* is an unanswerable, yet imo valid question.

I don't think it is unanswerable. On the contrary, I think the answer is pretty clear. Of course, you have to get over the naive notion of "absolute proof" first. There is certainly substantial relaible evidence that your meat brain does your thinking for you.

Solipsism is less certain, although some hold the view that *I* contain "all that is"; if *I* is more similar to an infinitesmal part of some larger "all that is", solipsism is not the correct answer.

Obviously.

Dr. Stupid

 

[hammegk]

… And Hand, there is a logical, objective proof that Solipsism cannot be True. It’s really rather simple … all you have to do, is prove that You are Not God. If you aren’t, God, then someone else must be Her, and then Solipsism can’t be True.

I agree. I mispoke. Should have said:

I suggest solipsism could be an outcome of *I* being objective.

No I don't. That would be insane. In fact, that would be solipsism.

Also agreed. How about, you believe an objective world exists, and that perception is your access to it.

 

[Franko]

Mr. Hand:

I suggest solipsism could be an outcome of *I* being objective.

Do You know what I love about you Brother Hand? I know you are smart, but often I get the impression you are playing dumber than you are.

Tha Hand:
Also agreed. How about, you believe an objective world exists, and that perception is your access to it.

I’m with you there … and if that is your concept of Dualism, then I would agree with you that this form of Dualism is True. Dual Perception creates the subjective sensation. You are an Individual, your POV is Relative to You, and uniquely (subjectively) You alone. But this does not change the ultimate fact of reality that the POV itself is the result of an entirely logical and objective process (system).

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

No I don't. That would be insane. In fact, that would be solipsism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also agreed. How about, you believe an objective world exists, and that perception is your access to it.

That I would agree to. That belief isn't specific to materialism, though. Idealism makes the same claim. The only real alternatives would be either solipsism (no objective world), or the belief that our perceptions do not relate to the objective world, which calls into question why you would believe such an objective world exists at all.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Franko]

Stimpson:
That I would agree to. That belief isn't specific to materialism, though. Idealism makes the same claim. The only real alternatives would be either solipsism (no objective world), or the belief that our perceptions do not relate to the objective world, which calls into question why you would believe such an objective world exists at all.

But as the Hand correctly pointed out, Solipsism is entirely possible under an objective system. In fact, according to what you believe, I still don’t see how one could possibly draw ANY other conclusion? How is it more likely that an entire universe and complex set of physical laws appeared unexplainably out of no where, over believing that YOU simply appeared unexplainably out of no where and then imagined everything else? How is the former more likely than the latter? I have never understood that from your POV – I don’t see how you can possibly reach that conclusion? … but then again, this is likely attributable to the fact that I do not really exist …

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Sou

I feel your definitions were a bit, less then accurate on the issue.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objectivism

ob·jec·tiv·ism [Audio pronunciation of objectivism] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jkt-vzm)
n.

1. Philosophy. One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.
2. An emphasis on objects rather than feelings or thoughts in literature or art.

Basically being an objectivist does not mean you are without bias or prejudice but that you believe there is an external reality and a reliable way to learn about it.

 

[Franko]

Objective = that which can be experienced directly.

Subjective: = that which can be experienced only indirectly.

Mystical = that which cannot be experienced at all (same as Magical, Supernatural, Illogical, or Random)

 

[Yahzi]

Do you mean too much subjectivity as an excuse to indulge in guilty pleasures?

Ya, as an excuse to do what you want even though you know it's wrong.

I think I live up to my objective ideal. I think the people around me agree that I do. I think it annoys many of them a great deal, too.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Franko,

But as the Hand correctly pointed out, Solipsism is entirely possible under an objective system. In fact, according to what you believe, I still don’t see how one could possibly draw ANY other conclusion? How is it more likely that an entire universe and complex set of physical laws appeared unexplainably out of no where, over believing that YOU simply appeared unexplainably out of no where and then imagined everything else? How is the former more likely than the latter?

First of all, I have never claimed to know that the Universe and physical laws "appeared out of no where". I do not claim to know either way. But then, I have told you that many many times before. Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent my position?

Second, neither of the scenarios you presented above is more parsimonious than the other. The overall complexity of the universe is the same, regardless of whether it is something which objectively exists, or something that exists only in my mind.

I have never understood that from your POV – I don’t see how you can possibly reach that conclusion? … but then again, this is likely attributable to the fact that I do not really exist …

I cannot think of any coherent definition of the word "existence" by which the fact that you exist is not trivial. Even if you are a figment of my imagination, you exist (as a figment of my imagination). If you are suggesting that I am God, and that therefore you do not objectively exist, but are instead just a figment of my imagination, then I suppose that is no sillier than any other form of theism.

Needless to say, I do not share that irrational belief.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Franko]

Stimpson:
First of all, I have never claimed to know that the Universe and physical laws "appeared out of no where". I do not claim to know either way. But then, I have told you that many many times before. Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent my position?

Wait, a minute … you told me that You were an A-Theist, and you told me that regardless of what you knew or didn’t know you were fairly certain that “God didn’t do it”.

What is your evidence that ‘God didn’t do it”, and if you are not making this claim, then why would you choose to label yourself as an ATHEIST instead of an AGNOSTIC?

1) Theism/Deism: God Exist = TRUE
2) Atheism = God Exist = FALSE
3) Agnosticism = God Exist = UNKNOWN (not enough information)

These definitions are entirely consistent with the generally accepted usages of these terms found in ANY modern Dictionary.

When a person hears “Atheist” they immediately think A person who doesn’t believe in God.

So if you aren’t certain, then why do you pretend to be certain? In your opinion can someone who calls themselves a “Scientist” afford this kind of subjectivity and obvious bias?

Second, neither of the scenarios you presented above is more parsimonious than the other. The overall complexity of the universe is the same, regardless of whether it is something which objectively exists, or something that exists only in my mind.

How so? It is far less complex if it is in your own mind, because if it is in your own mind, then only the portion which YOU PERCEIVE actually exist; whereas, if Solipsism were False then the Entire Universe and Everyone Else in it would have to be real. In other words, Solipsism requires less energy (more parsimonious), Solipsism would also explain QM, the double slit and so fourth.

Stimpson:
I cannot think of any coherent definition of the word "existence" by which the fact that you exist is not trivial.

“me” or YOU trivial?

Even if you are a figment of my imagination, you exist (as a figment of my imagination). If you are suggesting that I am God, and that therefore you do not objectively exist, but are instead just a figment of my imagination, then I suppose that is no sillier than any other form of theism.

It sounds like you are conceding that Materialism is no sillier than any other form of Theism. Perhaps you should switch to Agnosticism or Logical Deism?

Needless to say, I do not share that irrational belief.

… And you still haven’t explain why Solipsism is less true then Materialism? Like I said, every observation under Materialism is STILL valid under Solipsism, except you don’t have that messy problem with the Entire Universe and TLOP mysteriously and magically appearing out of no where. You have existed for all Eternity as a living manifestation of Time, and you simply imagined it all.

A-Theism … the religion of One. What do you think you have been trying to tell yourself?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Franko,

First of all, I have never claimed to know that the Universe and physical laws "appeared out of no where". I do not claim to know either way. But then, I have told you that many many times before. Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent my position?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait, a minute … you told me that You were an A-Theist, and you told me that regardless of what you knew or didn’t know you were fairly certain that “God didn’t do it”.

Once again, that is a blatant lie. I told you that I was an agnostic atheist, and at that time, I explained to you exactly what I meant by it, and clarified that I do not mean the same thing by the term "atheist" that you do. As for God, the only time I made any statements like that about God, was in regards to specific conceptions of God. Unless, of course, your are misrepresenting when I said that I have no reason to believe that God did it, which is true.

What is your evidence that ‘God didn’t do it”, and if you are not making this claim, then why would you choose to label yourself as an ATHEIST instead of an AGNOSTIC?

1) Theism/Deism: God Exist = TRUE
2) Atheism = God Exist = FALSE
3) Agnosticism = God Exist = UNKNOWN (not enough information)

These definitions are entirely consistent with the generally accepted usages of these terms found in ANY modern Dictionary.

When a person hears “Atheist” they immediately think A person who doesn’t believe in God.

So if you aren’t certain, then why do you pretend to be certain? In your opinion can someone who calls themselves a “Scientist” afford this kind of subjectivity and obvious bias?

I have already answered those questions. I am not going to explain myself to you again. Your dishonesty here is disgusting. Who do you think you are fooling with this garbage, anyway? Why don't you just crawl back under your bridge, and quit bothering people?

You are a liar, and everybody here knows it.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Franko]

How am I lying Stimp?

Franko:
Wait, a minute … you told me that You were an A-Theist, and you told me that regardless of what you knew or didn’t know you were fairly certain that “God didn’t do it”.

What is your evidence that ‘God didn’t do it”, and if you are not making this claim, then why would you choose to label yourself as an ATHEIST instead of an AGNOSTIC?

Stimpson:
Once again, that is a blatant lie.

How so specifically?

Stimpson:
I told you that I was an agnostic ATHEIST, and at that time, I explained to you exactly what I meant by it, and clarified that I do not mean the same thing by the term "atheist" that you do.

So you are the kind of “Atheist” that believes God might exist?

Once again, I ask you, are these types of semantic word games what one should expect from someone who calls themselves a “Scientist”? Why do you mince words and twist the definitions to mean things that they obviously do not mean?

Why you “Explained” this to me before, I wiped you ass all around on the floor, you NEVER clearly explained your position (you contradicted yourself more times then I could count) and then you ran off and you have refused to talk to me since. Is that what you call an honest open scientific expose of your views?

Stimpson:
As for God, the only time I made any statements like that about God, was in regards to specific conceptions of God. Unless, of course, your are misrepresenting when I said that I have no reason to believe that God did it, which is true.

What is your reason for believing that GOD DIDN’T DO IT?

Or do coins always land TAILs up because there is no evidence for HEADs?

Stimpson:
I have already answered those questions.

No you didn’t.

And the fact that you are running from them now only proves it.

I am not going to explain myself to you again. Your dishonesty here is disgusting. Who do you think you are fooling with this garbage, anyway? Why don't you just crawl back under your bridge, and quit bothering people?

Why are you insulting me because YOU believe that tossed coins ALWAYS land TAILS up based on no evidence? You are a pathetic coward Necromancer. A cruel Fate awaits you.

You are a liar, and everybody here knows it.

Whatever you say Unas.

 

[BillyTK]

[snip]I have a tricky subconscious

But you don't, you see... you only think you do!

Freud's model of individual psychology is just a model, for to paraphrase Wittgenstein very badly, there is no reason to think there is this chaotic mass of thoughts going on in my head that I am unaware of (although I do find myself on occassion thinking, "Whereinhell did that come from?!!"), however Freud's model has been massively influential in the way people think about what they are. Do we have subconsciouses because we think we do? Have we always had them, or only since Freud "discovered" it?

Which is one of the problems with dealing with this slippery weasel called society. We might be able to make some concrete claims about the nature of physical reality (or not, depending on your position, but I'll leave that to the materialists and dualists to thrash out), however, as far as social reality goes, objectivity is way more problematic; constructs create their own reality, but that is all social reality is made of. The only way to be objective is to acknowledge the subjectivity which effects your understanding, but the paradox is (or is it a dichotomy? I forget now...) without that subjectivity there would be no possibility of understanding.

 

[FireGarden]

(I've fallen a little behind here)

Sou

I like the idea that subjectivity is useful for working in groups. Intuitively I would have said the opposite. Subjectivity causes people to react emotionally to things, people moan, whine and flounce. I would have thought objectivity would be the thing but being objective about something someone feels very personal about can lead to them feeling attacked even if that is not the intention, so maybe a mix is a good idea? I'm going to consider that some more

I suppose that I should have paid more attention to the definitions that you gave of "subjective" and "objective". But I went by my own understanding of the terms!!

What I meant was more along the lines of defender/prosecutor in a court of law. Each approaches the case with a "prejudice" that they have to support. Neither side expects the other to help them out (which is probably a flaw in the arrangement), but instead each expects the other to "fight their own corner".

Personally, the only way that I can try to be objective on my own is to take on opposing roles and talk to myself. Of course, no matter how hard I try, there will always be some "blind spot" that I cannot see.

I don't understand how the Zen method where (to quote Star of the Sea from a different thread) being objective is: "accepting everything that enters the senses with complete openess, and not applying a filter of conscious thought to it".

I try to achieve objectivity by applying, in turn, as many filters as I can.


(PS: you can increase your smiley count by using multiple posts. But I think you should go for quality not quantity!)

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Franko,

I am not going to get back into this stupid circular argument of yours again. There is simply no point. You and I both know that you don't believe any of this nonsense anyway. Please stop crapping on this thread. If you have something relevant to say, then say it. If you are going to just repeat the same stuff you have already said hundreds of times, then don't bother.

Why do you insist on trying to ruin this board at every opportunity? What the Hell is wrong with you?

Dr. Stupid

 

[Franko]

Stimpson:
I am not going to get back into this stupid circular argument of yours again. There is simply no point. You and I both know that you don't believe any of this nonsense anyway. Please stop crapping on this thread. If you have something relevant to say, then say it. If you are going to just repeat the same stuff you have already said hundreds of times, then don't bother.

Why do you insist on trying to ruin this board at every opportunity? What the Hell is wrong with you?

My apologies for asking you questions about your own beliefs, which you are unable to answer “Scientist”.