Isn´t the problem of subjectivity, only a problem because questions that contain in them ideas that are thought to be "subjective", don't actually contain in them, or in the context that they are put in, the necessary information for objective valuation, thus making the question unanswerable? — Perdidi Corpus

I think you should expand on your comment/question. Why is subjectivity a problem? I don't think you can have objectivity without it. Can you give an example of a question such as you describe?

There is more than one problem with subjectivity, and one of them is the one you refer to. It depends on what conception of subjectivity you aim with your question. Related to consciousness, for example, the problem of subjectivity extends up to the Hard Problem. Another, related to truth and epistemology, is what potential value objectivity could be attributed to first-person account of third-persons observations, and vice-versa. One one hand, it is almost a trope nowadays to state that one's account of one's mental life is not to be taken to be a proper representation of one's mental life. On the other hand, even if we did have a workable mind-scanner, would you trust it more than the subject who state that he is experiencing x, when the scanner is telling you he is experiencing y?

Subjectivity is a minefield, there isn't one single problem.

It is a problem if you are trying to have a discussion with someone and they keep throwing the word or the idea of "subjectivity" as a way to keep the discussion indiscussible - if one is to get to any conclusion (even if such a conclusion has if´s and but's.). I believe that the idea of subjectivity is at the heart of the reason why philosophy is regarded as a waste of time.

How can´t you have objectivity without subjectivity?

Abstraction is necessary to tackle all different concrete problems at once. Examples give us a "maybe it won´t work on others?", pile of doubt.

It is a problem if you are trying to have a discussion with someone and they keep throwing the word or the idea of "subjectivity" as a way to keep the discussion indiscussible — Perdidi Corpus

Subjectivity just means that you, the subject, are experiencing the world from your singular perspective, and your singular experience is how you then apprehend the abstract concepts of subjective and objective. So subjectivity as such is always primary because all abstract concepts (the stuff of objectivity) only obtain within the subjectivity of your experience. So subjectivity is primary, objectivity is secondary, but only within experience, which is the only mode by which we can measure the concepts. From there, we can only use our imaginations and imagine that objectivity could possibly be primary, but we can't use logic to deduce that.

It is a problem if you are trying to have a discussion with someone and they keep throwing the word or the idea of "subjectivity" as a way to keep the discussion indiscussible — Perdidi Corpus

Isn't "indiscussibility" the very definition of subjectivity?

On the other hand, what isn't ultimately discussible?

For one to claim that another person's uttered judgement is subjective seems to me to express one's incomprehension of their utterance, and is this lack of comprehension of their utterance that is the reason why their utterance cannot be further discussed.

If an utterance is understood, either it is comprehended to be a valid judgement even if it is considered to be a wrong judgement, else it is comprehended to be a context-triggered verbal expression that cannot be interpreted to be a truth-apt judgement, in spite of appearances.

What question? What problem?

Isn´t the problem of subjectivity, only a problem because questions that contain in them ideas that are thought to be "subjective", don't actually contain in them, or in the context that they are put in, the necessary information for objective valuation, thus making the question unanswerable?

A certain amount of circularity is involved. I must sense the object in order to know that it is an object outside me. The experience of a tree is never just of a tree, we experience a tree in a setting, at a particular time and we are at a distance from it.

All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.

What is objective is the experience of the tree. It is only by deconstruction of our experience that the tree can be conceptualized as part of that experience...as part of the scene. The tree assumes an objective role, a presence, because it is at a distance from us, it is not part of us. Good theater.

It is a problem if you are trying to have a discussion with someone and they keep throwing the word or the idea of "subjectivity" as a way to keep the discussion indiscussible - if one is to get to any conclusion (even if such a conclusion has if´s and but's.). I believe that the idea of subjectivity is at the heart of the reason why philosophy is regarded as a waste of time. — Perdidi Corpus

@Aurora, @Michael Ossipoff, and I were having a discussion on another thread about opinion vs. fact. It seems to me this is the same issue. Every statement made by a person is a subjective opinion. Alternatively, in my subjective opinion, every statement made by a person is a subjective opinion. In my opinion, those statements are equivalent.

Practically, a statement, fact, becomes objective when enough people agree and not too many people disagree with the opinion. In reality, it could only be objective from a perspective outside the world, i.e. in the eyes of God. Fish don't know they're under water. I wonder if flying fish do.

I were having a discussion on another thread about opinion vs. fact. It seems to me this is the same issue. Every statement made by a person is a subjective opinion. Alternatively, in my subjective opinion, every statement made by a person is a subjective opinion. In my opinion, those statements are equivalent. — T Clark

But that would appear to assume that the target of the person's opinion has been identified correctly.

Suppose for example that you meet a stranger who insists that the world will end tomorrow. If his ramblings are literally interpreted as his words suggest, we might be inclined to refer to his beliefs as subjective. Yet on some biological level his utterance is merely a stimulus-response to his current environment relative to his current mental state. Once the underlying set of circumstances that provoked his verbal response is identified, then couldn't it be said that his opinion when reinterpreted as referencing this underlying set of circumstances is in fact objective?

If we had a perfect understanding of each other's utterances, wouldn't we be only talking about stimulus-responses?

If we had a perfect understanding of each other's utterances, wouldn't we be only talking about stimulus-responses? — sime

Are you saying that everything I say, fact or opinion, is the result of underlying biological and neurological factors? We can discuss that, but I don't see how it relates to the discussion in this thread.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Thank you for expressing words which were basically in my mouth a few years ago. I am trying to get back on the philosophy horse, as my world picture has been shattered by years of neglect :(. But you are right, I believe. Predictions about the beliefs or "subjectivity" of others, should be able to be made accordingly, if one had access to all information.
Not fact or opinion, just opinion, and it has immense relevance for this discussion.

Words take their meaning by distinguishing - by carving the world into this and that. So this attempt to universalise ...

Every statement made by a person is a subjective opinion. — T Clark

... has the effect of making the terms meaningless.

But we know that loving or hating marmite is subjective, whereas that it is made from the waste product of the brewing industry is objective. That there are blurred boundaries, hard cases, need not oblige philosophers to claim that 'all is one', which is a vacuous and secure position.

It's just your opinion that this is just my opinion, but this only even means anything if some things are not just opinions.

Perdidi Corpus said:

It is a problem if you are trying to have a discussion with someone and they keep throwing the word or the idea of "subjectivity" as a way to keep the discussion indiscussible - if one is to get to any conclusion (even if such a conclusion has if´s and but's.). I believe that the idea of subjectivity is at the heart of the reason why philosophy is regarded as a waste of time." — Perdidi Corpus

Probably so.

In metaphysics, in academic philosophy, and here too, probably due to academic influence, there seems to be a notion of relativism, indeterminability, indeterminacy, unknowability and inconclusiveness. ...even about metaphysics. One person's guess is as good as the next person's guess.

Sure, there is such a thing as unknowability. I don't believe that all of Reality is discussable and describable.

But I'm sorry, but there are facts that aren't in question. There are inevitable abstract facts. And there are metaphysicses, such as the one that I propose, that are entirely based on those inevitable abstract facts. Metaphysics isn't indeterminable or inconclusive.
.

T. Clark said:

@Aurora, Michael Ossipoff, and I were having a discussion on another thread about opinion vs. fact. It seems to me this is the same issue.

It may very well be.

Every statement made by a person is a subjective opinion.

How can you say that? Do you think that no one lies?

Alternatively, in my subjective opinion, every statement made by a person is a subjective opinion. In my opinion, those statements are equivalent.

They most certainly are not.

Sure, when you state a fact, your statement might be false.

If the fact that you're stating isn't already obvious to the rest of us, then, from our point of view, maybe it isn't a fact, and your statement is false..

Can we even say that it's your opinion? No. You might be lying. Not only might your statement be false;. It might not even be your opinion.

If you state an opinion about a fact, instead of a fact, then you're acknowledging that it might not be a fact, but you're claiming (truly or falsely) that it's your opinion.

Stating a fact, and stating your opinion about a fact are entirely different statements..

What you seem to be saying is that, if the rest of us, at least so far, don't have other information other than your say-so, then your statement of a fact can only be regarded as an opinion, not a fact.

You're partly right: Your statement about a fact might be false, because, though your opinion is that it's a fact, you're mistaken. But, as I said, it might not even be your opinion, if you're lying.

So, if we don't yet have other information on the matter about which you make a statement, all that can be said with certainty is that your statement is a statement.

But the reliability, or lack of reliability, of what you say is a whole other matter, different from the matter of whether you're stating a fact or stating an opinion.

"Stating a fact" doesn't mean making a true statement about a fact. That's where your main error is.

When you state a fact, you might be stating a genuine fact, and you might not. Whether your alleged "fact" is genuine or not, it, either way, might or might not be your opinion that it's a fact.

The truth of your statement, and the matter of whether it really expresses your opinion, are two separate matters. The former is undecidable if we don't have other, reliable, information about the matter. The latter remains undecidable anyway.

But stating a fact, and stating an opinion about a fact, are two entirely different statements. ...even though both statements give us equally little information. You're confusing the statement with the information that it gives us.

What you're really saying is that people's statements aren't reliable (maybe mistaken, maybe lying). No argument there.
--------------------------------
Of course you (and the person you quoted) might really be discussing the larger Realism vs Anti-Realism issue.

I've discussed that, and stated my position on it, a number of times.

Very briefly:

Anti-Realism makes sense for a metaphysics, because, as we'd all agree, our experience is from our own point of view, and all that we know about the physical world is from our experience. ...and the system of abstract logical facts consisting of our individual life-experience possibility-story is as valid, in its own context, as any other system of abstract facts.

That's why my metaphysics is an Anti-Realism.

But that Anti-Realism mustn't be taken too far. The abstract logical facts that make-up your life-experience possibility-story aren't really different from any other abstract logical facts. ....for objectivity and generality, which philosophy is supposed to have,

We can say that what's relevant and valid is only what an experiencing being (us) experiences...where "relevant and valid" means relevant and valid to an experiencing being. That sounds animal-chauvinistic. If we want to speak generally and objectively, then absolute Anti-Realism is out.

Michael Ossipoff

"If we want to speak generally and objectively, then absolute Anti-Realism is out." I though you were on the right track there with your 'relevant and valid' criterion for the individual experiencing subject. But I was hoping you would extend it to what is referred to as third person objectivity.
In other words, scientific fact as culturally contingent pragmatic truth.

Sorry about this reply being in the afternoon instead of the morning. I've just finished spending the entire morning straightening-out some aggressive Materialist Atheists at another forum. ...and debating about the Parker Solar Probe.

I should have checked here first, because discussion here is more serious and conscientious.

"If we want to speak generally and objectively, then absolute Anti-Realism is out."--Michael Ossipoff

I thought you were on the right track there with your 'relevant and valid' criterion for the individual experiencing subject. But I was hoping you would extend it to what is referred to as third person objectivity.
In other words, scientific fact as culturally contingent pragmatic truth. — Joshs

Pragmatically, there's something cultural about scientific fact, but, what it really comes down to is individual experience.

What the physicists find, what they have a consensus on, comes into your experience when you read about their findings or consensus. In your life-experience possibility-story, what happens is that it comes into your experience.

Because all we know about the physical world is via our experience, that's why I suggest that it's more meaningful for a metaphysics to be about our individual life-experience possibility-stories.

The system of abstract facts making up that life-experience story are as valid, in their own context, as any other abstract facts or system of them.

But then I emphasize that I don't take that all the way to absolute Anti-Realism. ...because, just as the system of abstract facts consisting of our life-experience possibility-stories are just as valid as any other...It's also true that all the other abstract facts are just as valid as, and not different from, those in our life-experience possibility stories, and can't be ignored, for a completely general and objective account of what metaphysically (discussably, describably) is.

...even though I feel that the inividual-experience point-of-view makes the most sense for a metaphysics about our lives.

So I think it can be regarded either way (Realist or Anti-Realist), depending on what it's about--Our lives, or completely generally and objectively.

If I've misunderstood what you said, let me know. I always want to answer objections, differences and I'm always willing to better clarify what I mean.

Michael Ossipoff

How can you say that? Do you think that no one lies?

Alternatively, in my subjective opinion, every statement made by a person is a subjective opinion. In my opinion, those statements are equivalent.

They most certainly are not. — Michael Ossipoff

If you say "T Clark is an idiot" or if you say "In my opinion, T Clark is an idiot," you've said the same thing. If you remember, the context in which this came up in an earlier post is that you and Aurora contended that adding "in my opinion" before a statement got you off the hook for the consequences of that statement. It doesn't. In my opinion, the world is flat. In my opinion, gay people should be put in jail.

I'm not talking about a philosophical position here, I'm talking about taking responsibility for what I say.

But we know that loving or hating marmite is subjective, whereas that it is made from the waste product of the brewing industry is objective. That there are blurred boundaries, hard cases, need not oblige philosophers to claim that 'all is one', which is a vacuous and secure position. — unenlightened

I hate marmite, they destroy my garden every year. Oh, wait, that's marmots. You only responded to part of my argument. I also said:

Practically, a statement, fact, becomes objective when enough people agree and not too many people disagree with the opinion. In reality, it could only be objective from a perspective outside the world, i.e. in the eyes of God. Fish don't know they're under water. I wonder if flying fish do. — T Clark

That is the most important part of what I wrote.

That is the most important part of what I wrote. — T Clark

It also seems the most tortured. If enough people agree that the earth is flat, then they are all mistaken.

In so far as 'objective' means anything at all useful, it means irrespective of what anyone or everyone thinks about it.

If you say "T Clark is an idiot" or if you say "In my opinion, T Clark is an idiot," you've said the same thing. — T Clark

If I may interject, not exactly! In my opinion, 'in my opinion' is often added to stress that one is well aware that others may disagree. I suggest that it's about tone. Along the same lines, 'in my view' suggests an openness to other views. Whereas bluntly stated opinions may suggest a certain combativeness or contempt for disagreement. But I know what you mean, otherwise. Of course it's just some forum-goers opinion, especially when we indulge in metaphysical niceties and talk about talk about talk....(in my opinion).

If I may interject, not exactly! In my opinion, 'in my opinion' is often added to stress that one is well aware that others may disagree. I suggest that it's about tone. Along the same lines, 'in my view' suggests an openness to other views. Whereas bluntly stated opinions may suggest a certain combativeness or contempt for disagreement. — ff0

I use statements like that all the time for exactly the reason you give, It's an acknowledgement that others disagree and, more importantly, that I take responsibility for the things I say. So now I'll think about whether I was mistaken to make the statement I made..... (Will you be surprised if it turns out I don't think I was mistaken?)

Ok. A question. I think you and I will agree "T Clark is an idiot" is an insult, an ad hominem attack. Ok? Now, what about "In my opinion T Clark is an idiot?" Is that an insult, an ad hominem attack?

How about this - "Gay people should all be locked up. They're disgusting" vs. "In my opinion, gay people should all be locked up. I think they're disgusting." Are those different statements in any significant way? In those cases, and in the case of my post you were responding to, the writers were using "in my opinion" to avoid taking responsibility for their words. In my opinion, that is.

Ok. A question. I think you and I will agree "T Clark is an idiot" is an insult, an ad hominem attack. Ok? Now, what about "In my opinion T Clark is an idiot?" Is that an insult, an ad hominem attack?

How about this - "Gay people should all be locked up. They're disgusting" vs. "In my opinion, gay people should all be locked up. I think they're disgusting." Are those different statements in any significant way? In those cases, and in the case of my post you were responding to, the writers were using "in my opinion" to avoid taking responsibility for their words. In my opinion, that is. — T Clark

I agree with you on that point. There's no escape from responsibility in 'in my opinion.' You're right that I was taking you out of context. That was jerky of me.

That was jerky of me. — ff0

No. You were polite and thoughtful. You made me go back and think through what I said, never a bad thing.

Thanks for the kind response. Rereading my post, I see that I liked the opportunity of stressing the tonal, interpersonal element of conversation. That's part of my pet theme of the medium/message relationship. When I was younger and more 'theological,' I ignored this. I forced experience to conform to the System, not the System to conform (as well it could manage) to experience in its fullness.

It also seems the most tortured. If enough people agree that the earth is flat, then they are all mistaken. — unenlightened

In which case, everyone is mistaken about the shape of the Earth, since the Earth does not have a shape. The best we can do is to approximately describe it with error. Everything is constantly changing so any description will always necessarily be in error. Some more so than others depending on the prevailing wind.

Dude I think even flat-earthers know it's a bit lumpy. What's your point - that no one can ever say anything that completely captures the nature of things? Sure, but so what? That doesn't prevent us from talking about things or from being correct or mistaken. Of course the Earth has a shape, and we can be more or less precise in our descriptions or we can be completely wrong, and there is a difference, which does not depend on who agrees or disagree, but on the shape of the Earth.

Dude I think even flat-earthers know it's a bit lumpy. What's your point — unenlightened

The point is that however anyone describes the Earth shape is in error. Anyone. It is an entirely subjective point of view whatever description is used.

however anyone describes the Earth shape is in error. Anyone. It is an entirely subjective point of view whatever description is used. — Rich

If it's entirely subjective, it cannot be an error. To me it is bagel shaped, and you are in no position to even disagree, but merely to report what shape it is to you - or not.

Bah!

Call it what you wish, it is if no matter to me. Anytime anyone claims they know the shape of the Earth, I shrug. Every subject has subjective elements.

Can we get some kind of definition on what objectivity actually is?

Isn´t the problem of subjectivity, only a problem because questions that contain in them ideas that are thought to be "subjective", don't actually contain in them, or in the context that they are put in, the necessary information for objective valuation, thus making the question unanswerable? — Perdidi Corpus

In my view (pun intended) the "problem" of subjectivity isn't just limited to this.

You see, sometimes in order to make an objective model of reality, the model itself or the one making the model effects what is tried to be modelled in the first place. Hence subjectivity isn't just something that is thought to be "subjective", it can have true consequences and be unavoidable.

You have this inherent problem for example in physics when a measurement effects what is going to be measured or lets say in social sciences an economic model (or theory) itself has an effect on how people make economic decisions ...which the model should describe in the first place.

Now for many people this isn't a big problem. You just assume something... assume a game-theoretic outcome, some sort of maximization procedure or dynamic model. Or use probabilities. Yet the logical limitation that subjectivity forces on objective modelling is quite real:

Just try to write a sentence in English that you will never write.

Obviously there exists sentences in English that one never will write (even those nobody will write).

Can you write them? No, they would then be part of those sentences that you do write in your lifetime.

This becomes really problematic when the correct answer of some model would be exactly like this.



Hence the "problem" with subjectivity is logical and unavoidable in certain cases.