• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Objectivism v Subjectivism

Soubrette

The Philosophy Spice Girl
S
Joined
Apr 3, 2002
Messages
671
Hey everyone :)

In a recent google fight objectivity severely routed subjectivity
fightclub

But can this be true - subjectivity has decisively lost the plot? This is what I would like to discuss with you today:)

For the purpose of this thread I'm going to use the following definitions filched from the New Collins Concise English Dictionary:p

objective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias

subjective: of, relating to, or emanating from a person's emotions, prejudices etc


Many of us who post regularly are proud of our objectivism and indeed strive to apply it as part of a critical thinking process to all areas of our lives.:)

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?

Likewise - what about being too subjective? Can we be overemotional about some things? Or is it actually appropriate sometimes? Is living in a subjective manner the salt and spice of life?


I'm often reminded of a quote that no doubt a greek bugger came up with first - a wise man is wise until he knows he is. Maybe that is also true of objectivity - an objective man is objective until he knows he is :)

Anecdotally I know several people who consider themselves highly objective - it's funny how they all come to different objective conclusions though:p

For myself I used to believe I was objective but now I know I merely strive for objectivity but am aware that I am often subjective -and worse - I have a tricky subconscious which often tricks me into believing my subjective is my objective - often only time or the input from a third party allows me to see this though:(

So what about you?

Sou

Disclaimer: This thread isn't moderated so you can post what the hell you want. However I reserve the right to whine, bitch, moan, abuse and suck up to people in an effort to keep this thread on topic and relatively abuse free
 
I think one can be too subjective, but to be too objective you have to be inhuman. People are naturally more subjective, we learn to be objective, not the other way around. I hope this made sense.
 
Sou,

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?
Click to expand...

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.

Likewise - what about being too subjective? Can we be overemotional about some things? Or is it actually appropriate sometimes? Is living in a subjective manner the salt and spice of life?
Click to expand...

How do you mean? Clearly our likes and dislikes play an important role in our lives. Being objective doesn't mean you have to pretend that you don't have any likes or dislikes, or that you have to ignore them.

I would say that being over-emotional is both dangerous and self-destructive. But the problem is not with having emotions, or even with paying attention to, and embracing those emotions. The problem is when you allow you emotions to cloud your judgement.

For myself I used to believe I was objective but now I know I merely strive for objectivity but am aware that I am often subjective -and worse - I have a tricky subconscious which often tricks me into believing my subjective is my objective - often only time or the input from a third party allows me to see this though

So what about you?
Click to expand...

I would agree that all any of us can do is strive for objectivity. It is a fact of human nature that our subjective biases will always be there. All we can do is be aware of them, and be ever watchful for them. As a scientist, this is something I have to deal with all the time. I must constantly question my judgement, and go to what most people would consider to be ridiculous measures, to make sure that I am not allowing myself to be misled by my emotions and intuition. I forget who it was that said it, but a large part of science is just trying not to fool yourself. I would say that this is also a large part of life in general.

Dr. Stupid
 
Being objective doesn't mean you have to be like Spock
Click to expand...
As Spock explained once, "It's not that I don't have emotions. It's that I don't allow them to control my actions."

Everybody should be like Spock. Sadly, that will never happen, but it would make the world a better place.

We will always have emotions. Emotions are like the body's way of communicating with the mind: hunger says, "apply your rational skills to finding food," and fear says, "apply your rational skills to getting us the heck out of here." Love says, "this is a good situtation - make sure we don't muck it up." And so on.

There is nothing mystical about emotions; they do not connect you to some higher plane, but rather, to a lower one. If a person ignored hunger until they died, we would consider that person a nut. However, if they stopped to eat lunch while driving someone to the hospital, we would also consider them a nut. It is necessary that we have emotions, to know what the body needs right now; but it is the role of our analytical minds is to figure out how to get that, or even to figure out that emotion is false or dangerous and should not be acted upon.

So living without emotion would be like living without touch, hunger, or pain. Short-lived. On the other hand, living without reason would equally dumb, since we don't have fur, claws, or fangs.

When a person is being "too objective," they are ignoring their emotional needs. They are like the guy who refuses to go to the hospital because it doesn't hurt that bad. So, under that definition, it is possible to be too objective, because it is possible to ignore the data you are recieving. But it is not possible to not have emotions, and forcing yourself to be rational as much as possible does not necessarily imply ignoring data.

Often people cite too much objectivity as an excuse to act irrationally, like giving in to cravings or desires they know they really shouldn't. Guilty pleasures. It is used as an excuse to avoid responsibility. Under this definition, it is not possible to be too objective.

You should never have guilty pleasures. You should have all the pleasure you can get, but it should never be guilty.
 
There is a world out there, but we all see it differently.

Subjectivity and objectivity have their uses, but it isn't really a "vs." situation I feel.
 
Maybe people are designed to work in groups.
In that case we should each play our assigned role and begin by considering our own point of view. Then, as we interact, we should be flexible enough to modify what we decided subjectively. In this way, every voice gets heard and the world is looked at from a multitude of viewpoints. If everybody tried to be objective, the group would perhaps be more likely to overlook things.

But perhaps I only say this because, like Sou, "I have a tricky subconscious which often tricks me into believing my subjective is my objective - often only time or the input from a third party allows me to see this though", and so I see the value of being a member of a group.

(Although I don't know why she said "third party".
Me, Myself and someone else?)
 
Hi Sou,:)

I'm passionate about my objectivity.;)

I think that I see improvements in my own life when I am objective. I am able to clearly see the facts, the evidence, or just some clues.

When I let my emotion and personal bias get in the way, I often reach the wrong conclusion. At the time I am reacting in this subjective mode to something, I *think* that I am right, regardless that the evidence to an outside viewer would suggest otherwise.

Personal bias is a tough coat to take off though. It is far easier to Archie Bunker through life than it is to realize that you don't have it all figured out, that you are bullheaded from time to time, and that our emotions can blind us from the truth.

Subjectivity does, however, make life interesting.;)

Take care,
Sort:)
 
Hey guys

I think fidiod, that subjectively I know what you mean;)

My dictionary states that objective means undistorted by emotion Stimpy, are you saying that the decision process should be objective but once decided then subjectivity can be allowed back in? After all passion is an emotion

So what if being objective about an emotive issue upsets people? Is that the price worth paying in some instances for that objectivity?

Actually being over emotional can engender quite a bit of sympathy from my observations. Tell a child off and having them burst into tears often makes people sympathetic to their plight, or at the least stops the telling off (it doesn't work for me though - it irritates me when my children try that on on me:p)

misled? I love that word - having spent 15 years or so of my life thinking there was a verb "to misle"

"false or dangerous emotions" Yahzi? I'm interested in the idea of false emotions :) But that is an issue for another thread:) So do you think you live up to your objective ideal? And this is a wider question for anyone really (although I see Stimpy has already answered it:p)

And Yahzi I didn't fully understand the last part of your post? Do you mean too much subjectivity as an excuse to indulge in guilty pleasures? If not then could you explain a little further?

Whodini - cough up some detail:p Tell me about a good balance for objectivity and subjectivity in your opinion!

I meant GP that often it's only someone else say "Come on, you're giving him excuses because you like him, why is his behaviour understandable but other people's behaviour (which is similar) not?" I'm not very good at getting the bottom of my tricky subconscious (I suppose it's the paradox of the thing for me:)) until I am less emotionally involved - or someone more dispassionate about the situation points some things out for me to think about:p

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:)

Hey Sort - always nice to see you :) How do you know when you're being totally objective?

Sou
(note there were many more smileys in here - damn limit - grrrrrr)
 
Sou,

My dictionary states that objective means undistorted by emotion Stimpy, are you saying that the decision process should be objective but once decided then subjectivity can be allowed back in? After all passion is an emotion
Click to expand...

The key word there is "undistorted". An objective decision should not be affected by subjective bias. That does not mean that subjectity should not be considered in the decision process at all. Ignoring the subjective would not be objective either, because our emotions are something which objectively exist.

So what if being objective about an emotive issue upsets people? Is that the price worth paying in some instances for that objectivity?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Actually being over emotional can engender quite a bit of sympathy from my observations. Tell a child off and having them burst into tears often makes people sympathetic to their plight, or at the least stops the telling off (it doesn't work for me though - it irritates me when my children try that on on me)
Click to expand...

That's because you are being objective, and the people who give in to the emotional outburst are not. :) Seriously though, this is a good example of what I am talking about. A person does not have to not feel any compassion for the child in order to act objectively. He simply needs to not allows that compassion to bias his decision making process in an irrational way.

For example, a common problem in court cases is that one of the people testifying my be very good at pushing people's emotional buttons, while another may not. The jury is then more likely to believe the more charasmatic person, but only if they allow their emotions to bias their reasoning.

Dr. Stupid
 
Be very careful though, when you talk about 'objectivism'. Objectivism with a capital 'O' - the philosophy founded by Ayn Rand- is, ironically, not objective at all, and is pretty much a cult.

regards,

Luke
 
No human being can be objective.

When we think we are, we are just following our own interpretation of objectivity. Which is, of course....subjective.

You can dress it up with logic and mathematics, but you are still part of the equation no matter how distanced you believe yourself to be.

I try and step outside of myself during any decision-making process, be it choosing a mortgage or naming a child. But it's a metaphorical step, not a literal one. Only by stepping outside of the Universe could you be truly objective.

Even then, your decision would be based on....what? Your ethics? Your morals? Some ultimate goal you are aiming for? And where does that come from?
 
Sou,


----
Whodini - cough up some detail:p Tell me about a good balance for objectivity and subjectivity in your opinion!
----


50-50.
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...

But it is impossible to separate your subjective prejudices when you have to be "objective" about something :eek:

Strictly speaking, we cannot be objective if we have to apply our criterion and mind to judge something.

That's why we need to apply technical or mathematical language to analyse and understand events around us
 
Soubrette said:


Hey Sort - always nice to see you :) How do you know when you're being totally objective?
Click to expand...

Hmm... totally objective... good question. I suppose that I personally am never totally objective. It is tough to check the bias at the door. I know that when I write down the pros and cons to something, I definitely am far more likely to throw out the subjective stuff since I see it in black and white rather than having it all mix around in my pea brain.

Take care,
Sort:)
 
just a quote

To renounce belief in one's ego, to deny one's own "reality" -- what a triumph! not merely over the senses, over appearance, but a much higher kind of triumph, a violation and cruelty against reason -- a voluptuous pleasure that reaches its height when the ascetic self-contempt and self-mockery of reason declares: "there is a realm of truth and being, but reason is excluded from it!"
But precisely because we seek knowledge, let us not be ungrateful to such resolute reversals of accustomed perspectives and valuations with which the spirit has, with apparent mischievousness and futility, raged against itself for so long: to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation for its future "objectivity" -- the latter understood not as "contemplation without interest" (which is a nonsensical absurdity), but as the ability to control one's Pro and Con and to dispose of them, so that one knows how to employ a variety of perspectives and affective interpretations in the service of knowledge.
Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a "pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject"; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as "pure reason," absolute spirituality," "knowledge in itself": these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this -- what would that mean but to castrate the intellect?

from Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals
 
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. :(
 
Star Of The Sea said:
Be very careful though, when you talk about 'objectivism'. Objectivism with a capital 'O' - the philosophy founded by Ayn Rand- is, ironically, not objective at all, and is pretty much a cult.
Click to expand...

I read "The Fountainhead" a few weeks back, and I can say that right after reading I was a lot more sympathetic to Rand's ideas, than I am now. There, you've got a good example of objectivity taking over subjectivity. She has some good ideas, but I think the problem with Objectivism (as Rand's philosophy) is that it's very black and white - there's no room for the middle, which I think any human society needs to function properly. And I can see how it could turn into a cult-like thing, that book was very preachy.
 
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".
 
Q-Source,

But it is impossible to separate your subjective prejudices when you have to be "objective" about something

Strictly speaking, we cannot be objective if we have to apply our criterion and mind to judge something.

That's why we need to apply technical or mathematical language to analyse and understand events around us
Click to expand...

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.


Hammegk,

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.
Click to expand...

Why?


Dr. Stupid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom