I had thought, for awhile, that it was preferable to reject the distinction between what is objective and subjective. Now I'm tentatively of the opinion that as long as we set out what we mean then the terms can be used, while keeping an eye on the fact that they are ambiguous and often change meaning depending on the speaker. But aside from the fact that people use the words I don't know I'd go so far as to say there is some advantage to using them -- they are ambiguous and often seem to result in more misunderstanding than understanding.

Objective deals with knowledge.
Subjective deals with how I feel about knowledge.

I am particularly aware of this when dealing with my favorite subject, morality.

Objectively racism exists (going by definitions as Moliere points out.)
Racism being good, evil, whatever is subjective. It is based on what guiding principle a person wants to live by.

Choosing a guiding objective is subjective. Once chosen living by it is objective. If one starts making exceptions to the rule, then how do they justify, beyond their own feelings, that others' exceptions are invalid?

Looking at The New Dualism thread, I am reading it casually, as becoming well versed enough to argue in it is not a good use of my time, utterly subjective.

The reason why is I get tired of arguing around ideas that cannot be solved. Someone mentioned that the materialists have not won. But we are winning currently (Note: I am a recovering dualist.) Through our available evidence our consciousnesses is an emergent property from our physiology. There COULD be invisible forces affecting things, but you all COULD be a fevered dream of mine, so prove otherwise.

Now that was not meant to be a slight, it is just why I do not participate in a lot of arguments beyond trying to bring up some pragmatic point for discussion.

If you want to argue about such things in your free time, or if it happens to be your job - go for it.

In the medical field there is a term of SOAP notes on a patient. That acronym delineates the difference between objective and subjective this way. S stands for subjective reporting: that which the patient themselves are reporting. O stands for Objective reporting: that which the Doctor observed of the patient while in their presence. A stands for Assessment: the Doctors diagnosis and P stands for Plan of Action: what treatment is prescribed, for what diagnosis and the anticipated result from the treatment plan.

That seems to suggest to me, that there is a HUGE difference between objective and subjective reasoning. One assessment is from me and one from you. Which is subjective or objective changes situationally.

The reason why is I get tired of arguing around ideas that cannot be solved. Someone mentioned that the materialists have not won. — Kamikaze Butter

None of the most important philosophical issues can be "solved." Dualism vs. materialism, free will vs. determinism, or whatever, are not a matters of fact. They're matters of, what? Opinion? Choice? Different approaches can be more or less useful depending on the situation.

Fundamentally, it seems that the claim that one is being either objective or subjective is the Sorites paradox. — Posty McPostface

I think of "objective" as how someone completely outside the system, i.e. God, sees things. That's not a definition, but it helps me think about it. Although the concept of objectivity can be useful, I think it's hard to justify on a broader scale. Of course, that probably means that the concept of subjectivity also has a limited application.

I think of "objective" as how someone completely outside the system, i.e. God, sees things. That's not a definition, but it helps me think about it. — T Clark

I think that's a good way of putting it. And I would contrast the meaning of "subjective" (as I have most often seen it used) as how someone (you or me) completely INSIDE the system sees things.

We have shortcomings in every aspect of our perceptions; God is lucky enough to (somehow) perceive everything as it actually is. And yet, no matter how superior objective perception might seem, God's view is foreign to us, and our view is comfortable and familiar. It is the human view. For that reason, it's the view I am most interested in. If I was God, I'm sure the opposite would be the case. :wink:

An objective explanation is one that isn't dependent upon a particular perspective to be true. Subjective explanations are dependent upon a particular view.

Some people call an objective view the "view from nowhere". This means that the explanation is one in which there are no mentions, or implying of appearances. There is just an explanation of what that thing, or process, is or does.

On the other side of the coin, an objective explanation is an explanation that holds true no matter what perspective you have. This is why scientists test each others' theories, to see if they are applicable at all time, everywhere, for everyone. Objective explanations will be useful for everyone.

Subjective explanations are not useful for everyone. They do not apply in all cases. Objectivity is so difficult (if not impossible) to attain when you are a being in time and space and have your own sensory devices and a memory to store the information they receive. You have a view from somewhere, not from everywhere, which is why you rely on others to verify your interpretation of what you are experiencing. It's just that an objective view is impossible - paradoxical even. We can only attain a degree of it by using the scientific method.

You have a view from somewhere, not from everywhere, which is why you rely on others to verify your interpretation of what you are experiencing. It's just that an objective view is impossible - paradoxical even. We can only attain a degree of it by using the scientific method. — Harry Hindu

I don't think science is any closer to objectivity or truth than lots of other ways of seeing things. In fact, it's further away than some because it tries to give the illusion of objectivity where none exists.

That’s why they are philosophical issues. They are matters of speculation. — Kamikaze Butter

I wouldn't say "speculation," I'd say preference. My view is not a majority view.

Once a philosophical issue can be observed and measured, it becomes a science. — Kamikaze Butter

I don't see it that way. I think philosophical and scientific issues are different in kind.

Until that point, our actions in dealing with them are subjective. — Kamikaze Butter

I don't think scientific approaches are objective in any but the most limited way.

We say that homosexuals do not make a choice in being homosexual, so there is no moral issue with them being attracted to the same sex.

But do pediphiles choose their predilection? If not, how are they morally culpable for their urges? That is not to advocate child screwing, but to ask that if a peodophile admits they cannot control their urges does society not have an obligation to incarcerate or seclude them comfortably, as they had no choice in their desire? — Kamikaze Butter

This seems like a non sequitur. Anyway, to me, it's not the fact that homosexuality is not voluntary that makes it not a moral issue, it's because it's none of our damn business. As for pedophilia, we shouldn't prosecute people for thoughts or fantasies, but if they hurt a child, throw them in the slammer. For a long time.

I don't think science is any closer to objectivity or truth than lots of other ways of seeing things. In fact, it's further away than some because it tries to give the illusion of objectivity where none exists. — T Clark

How about providing one of those "ways" of seeing things that is more objective than science.

How about providing one of those "ways" of seeing things that is more objective than science. — Harry Hindu

I don't think an objective way of seeing things exists. The problem is that science pretends to be one.

I had thought, for awhile, that it was preferable to reject the distinction between what is objective and subjective. — Moliere

So, the issue seems to be, when does one know they are being objective, correct?

Now I'm tentatively of the opinion that as long as we set out what we mean then the terms can be used, while keeping an eye on the fact that they are ambiguous and often change meaning depending on the speaker. — Moliere

Yes, words are circular, they derive their meaning from other words. What do you think this says about the objective/subjective dichotomy? I'm trying to point at a third alternative.

That seems to suggest to me, that there is a HUGE difference between objective and subjective reasoning. One assessment is from me and one from you. Which is subjective or objective changes situationally. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Nicely put. So, you're talking about intersubjectivity?

I think of "objective" as how someone completely outside the system, i.e. God, sees things. That's not a definition, but it helps me think about it. Although the concept of objectivity can be useful, I think it's hard to justify on a broader scale. Of course, that probably means that the concept of subjectivity also has a limited application. — T Clark

That's irrelevant. We don't have to be omniscient to be objective about things.

I don't think science is any closer to objectivity or truth than lots of other ways of seeing things. In fact, it's further away than some because it tries to give the illusion of objectivity where none exists. — T Clark

How about providing one of those "ways" of seeing things that is more objective than science. — Harry Hindu

I don't think an objective way of seeing things exists. The problem is that science pretends to be one. — T Clark

So you can't provide just one way of seeing things that is more objective than science.

Science doesn't pretend anything. You do science anytime you use reason to explain your experiences and error-check to ensure that they are consistent with the rest of your experiences.

That's irrelevant. We don't have to be omniscient to be objective about things. — Posty McPostface

In my opinion, "objective" and "omniscient" are pretty much synonymous.

It's just that an objective view is impossible - paradoxical even. We can only attain a degree of it by using the scientific method. — Harry Hindu

I'm not sure about that. Many philosophers think otherwise; but, am not going to delve into that. Namely, in that through the analysis of the subject (self) relative to the object (the world), one can become more objective. Just a thought.

I don't think an objective way of seeing things exists. The problem is that science pretends to be one.
— T Clark

So you can't provide just one way of seeing things that is more objective than science. — Harry Hindu

I think my response to your comment answered that question.

Science doesn't pretend anything. You do science anytime you use reason to explain your experiences and error-check to ensure that they are consistent with the rest of your experiences. — Harry Hindu

Is that what objectivity means - experiences which are consistent with other experiences? If so, I would have no problem, but that's not how the term is generally used.

So, the issue seems to be, when does one know they are being objective, correct? — Posty McPostface

Well, for myself at least, I just began to think that the use of the terms added more confusion than clarity. But in not using them their importance seemed to drop out with them, and you could get on with thinking about the topic at hand.

Yes, words are circular, they derive their meaning from other words. What do you think this says about the objective/subjective dichotomy? I'm trying to point at a third alternative. — Posty McPostface

I'm open to a third way. I still don't think that the terms are terribly important, merely that they are tolerable as long as we remain clear about what we mean - hardly a passionate defense of an old dichotomy :D.

I am uncertain what the derivation of meaning from other words might say about objective/subjective. I'd have to have it spelled out for me more.

Do you think the doctor ceases to be 'objective' if s(he)'s plan of action is undertaking, since like a narrator s(he) now becomes part of the story?

I wouldn't say "speculation," I'd say preference. My view is not a majority view. — T Clark

I don't understand the point. The nature of metaphysical things like free will are simply speculation unless we can somehow observe them.

I don't see it that way. I think philosophical and scientific issues are different in kind. — T Clark

How so? I mean I noted they were different, so we do not need Democritus' philosophizing on atomic theory any longer, as we are smashing atoms together to study the subatomic level.

This seems like a non sequitur. Anyway, to me, it's not the fact that homosexuality is not voluntary that makes it not a moral issue, it's because it's none of our damn business. As for pedophilia, we shouldn't prosecute people for thoughts or fantasies, but if they hurt a child, throw them in the slammer. For a long time. — T Clark

It's more of an object lesson in subjectivity. Why exactly is anything other individuals do our business? What does "hurt" a child mean? Why are you characterizing pedophilia as a crime rather than a mental disease?

You do not have to answer those. The point is we can debate the answers, but the basis for and resulting belief will come down to "because I want it to be that way." Which is subjective.

An atom exists whether we want it to or not. Which is objective.

In the medical field there is a term of SOAP notes on a patient. That acronym delineates the difference between objective and subjective this way. S stands for subjective reporting: that which the patient themselves are reporting. O stands for Objective reporting: that which the Doctor observed of the patient while in their presence. A stands for Assessment: the Doctors diagnosis and P stands for Plan of Action: what treatment is prescribed, for what diagnosis and the anticipated result from the treatment plan. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I think Tiff gave a good response. I'll add a bit more. As Tiff pointed out, if I give you a report of what happening internally, it's clearly subjective, i.e., it originates with the subject. If I give a piece of knowledge that is dependent on me, then it's also subjective. For example, it's true that I like orange juice, and someone can claim that they know that I like orange juice, but this kind of knowledge is dependent on the subject (me). Objective knowledge is not dependent of the how I feel or think, it's independent of how I feel or think. Thus, the fact that the Earth has one moon is an objective fact, i.e., it's not dependent on how anyone feels or thinks. Objective facts can exist apart from minds, subjective facts cannot. This is not that difficult to comprehend. I love the way people want to throw out words that they find difficult, or that they cannot fit into their world view.

The idea that objective is synonymous with omniscience is just silly.

Also, words don't get their meaning from other words, words primarily get their meaning from how they're used.

Also, words don't get their meaning from other words, words primarily get their meaning from how they're used. — Sam26

Which is to say that how other words are used in combination with the word of interest, contextually speaking.

Which is to say that how other words are used in combination with the word of interest, contextually speaking. — Posty McPostface

To make my point further, if we create a simple language-game with only one word, say, "slab," and we use it to refer to one object, how is it dependent on other words? Sure we use words in conjunction with other words, but that doesn't mean that they get their meaning from those words. If I say, "Go get the chair!" - how is chair dependent, in terms of meaning, on go or get or the? It may be that to form a proper sentence, words are dependent on each other, but that's a far cry from saying words get their meaning from other words.

Well, to put it another way, the definitions of most non-rigid designators are circular and depends on other words to determine their meaning. So, that can limit the scope of all things that are not ostensibly defined to be categorized into the subjective category, which I suppose many philosophers agree with. But, then if we assume the implications of the private language argument, then doesn't that mean that the feeling of 'pain' and with it the word used is not in some sense also objective or rather intersubjective?

Also, nobody cared to address my point of determining objective knowledge via a certain criteria as plausible or not. I guess we can let that pass if nothing can be said about such a criteria?

Well, to put it another way, the definitions of most non-rigid designators (objective terms) are circular and depends on other words to determine their meaning. So, that can limit the scope of all things that are not ostensibly defined to be categorized into the subjective category, which I suppose many philosophers agree with. But, then if we assume the implications of the private language argument, then doesn't that mean that the feeling of 'pain' and with it the word used is not in some sense also objective? — Posty McPostface

I don't understand the point of bringing up circularity, as if it's a negative. We're not talking about arguments, which is the point of the fallacy of circularity. But maybe you're using circular in another way, I'm not sure.

Yes, the word pain does have an objectivity to it, as I said in the other thread. There is both the subjective experience of pain, but there is also the cries and moans of pain, which it the objective part. I'm not saying that there aren't difficult aspects to the objective/subjective discussion, but that's true of most subjects. If I look at you and you're moaning, it's objective for me that that's happening, but you're expressing a subjective feeling that can be seen by all. So in some cases there is both a subjective component and an objective component.

I don't understand the point of bringing up circularity, as if it's a negative. — Sam26

I just brought it up because I thought language was self-justifying/self-sealing, giving me the impression that it is neither subjective nor objective; but, a social construct. And, calling it a social construct doesn't necessarily mean it is subjective or objective; but, intersubjective. I don't know if you recall the old thread over at the old Philosophy Forums, where @Banno had a thread about this same issue or similar to some extent. The whole thread was something like 80 pages long, and people kept on going back and forth trying to justify their own understanding of what it means for something to either be subjective or objective.

Anyway, it's a negative because there is an implicit criteria being deployed when one is trying to evaluate objective knowledge from subjective knowledge, which I'm not even sure if it (the criteria) can be talked about. It almost seems like an endless task to justify said criteria with another set of criteria to ensure its scope and consistency. The circularity of definitions is a confounding factor to the ambiguity and vagueness of establishing said criteria to evaluate the objective from the subjective.

So, my whole point is that instead of talking about the futile task of what is the subjective from the objective we ought to talk about the criteria used in delineating the two.

I don't understand the point. The nature of metaphysical things like free will are simply speculation unless we can somehow observe them. — Kamikaze Butter

In my view, questions about metaphysical things such as free will are not matters of fact. They do not have yes or no answers. They, as R.G. Collingwood says, "....are not verifiable. This does not mean that we should like to verify them but are not able to; ·it means that the idea of verification is an idea which does not apply to them..." If thinking about such entities, discussing them, is speculation, then I'll grant your point.

How so? I mean I noted they were different, so we do not need Democritus' philosophizing on atomic theory any longer, as we are smashing atoms together to study the subatomic level. — Kamikaze Butter

Scientific questions, and other similar questions, have factual, yes or no, answers. Metaphysical questions do not.

It's more of an object lesson in subjectivity. Why exactly is anything other individuals do our business? What does "hurt" a child mean? Why are you characterizing pedophilia as a crime rather than a mental disease?

You do not have to answer those. The point is we can debate the answers, but the basis for and resulting belief will come down to "because I want it to be that way." Which is subjective. — Kamikaze Butter

Moral issues are subjective? Sure, but, in my view, there are no truly objective issues.

The idea that objective is synonymous with omniscience is just silly. — Sam26

The fact you call it "silly" doesn't make it wrong. You've provided nothing to show that it is.