Come on Clark, they're two different words with different meanings. I'm loathe to use the term "self-evident," but if there ever was a case that was self-evident, this is one. — Sam26
"Objective" is a kind of narrative, usually in third person. — frank
one is being objective or subjective. — Posty McPostface
subjective reporting: that which the patient themselves are reporting. O stands for Objective reporting: that which the Doctor observed of the patient — ArguingWAristotleTiff
An objective explanation — Harry Hindu
an objective view is impossible — Harry Hindu
Objective knowledge is... — Sam26
there are no truly objective issues. — T Clark
On the other hand, it seems clear to me there is no true objectivity without omniscience. You can add to that the fact that neither exists. The idea that there is no objective reality is not an exotic one. I'm not the first one to think of it. It's been discussed here on the forum a number of times in the year I've been here. I remember discussing it on the old forum too. — T Clark
What's an issue? I'm inclined to agree with you to the extent that an issue has to be an issue for some subject that they are not indifferent to. But beware the 'truly' formation it invites complaints of 'no true scotsman' fallacy. — unenlightened
You deserve a better quote, Sam-I-am; it makes sense to divide knowledge into knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the object, and yet this is not what people have been wanting to refer to. So I will play hard-ball with you for a moment. Whatever is knowledge is true, and therefore objective.I can only know from what you tell me that you like orange juice, but if you are honest, I know the same thing that you know. — unenlightened
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. — Sam26
Also, words don't get their meaning from other words, words primarily get their meaning from how they're used. — Sam26
"I like oranges," the truth of the statement is dependent on me, i.e., my likes and dislikes for example, and this is what makes it subjective. — Sam26
we could all cease to exist and the Earth would still have one moon. But if we all ceased to exist all subjective truths would simply be non-existent. — Sam26
But using the words objective and subjective does not always play out so smoothly, nor is it clear what domain is under consideration even. — Moliere
If earths and moons ceased to exist, truths about earths and moons would cease to exist. If Sam did not exist, he would not have likes - what's the difference? — unenlightened
Why the quantifier true in front of objectivity? Something is either objective or it is not. — Sam26
Why do I need to postulate omniscience in order to say that it's objective that the Earth has one moon? I don't see the connection, nor the need for omniscience. — Sam26
Moreover, many things get discussed in these forums, but that doesn't mean that they have significance, or that they're true, or that the discussion is worthwhile.
Sure many people make the claim that there is no objective reality, but that belies what the words mean and how they're used. — Sam26
Finally, this was started with the claim that the word objective is somehow synonymous with omniscience. You still have given no evidence that this is the case. The burden of proof is on you, because most people would say what I've said, viz., that they're two different words with different meanings. To be synonymous - you have to have different words with the same meanings, or nearly the same meanings. — Sam26
Yes, "objective" and "omniscient" are different words with different definitions, which is trivial, which may be what you are saying. — T Clark
Then, is that not an objective fact unto itself? — Posty McPostface
If earths and moons ceased to exist, truths about earths and moons would cease to exist. If Sam did not exist, he would not have likes - what's the difference? — unenlightened
Not true. The term is used in at least two different ways. 1) well supported by unbiased evidence, e.g. the reporter was objective or 2) absolute congruence with reality independent of mind, e.g. the way things would be if no consciousness existed. — T Clark
Earth has a number of things in orbit around it. We've chosen to call one of them "the moon." We've defined it as one of a kind. Just like Pluto used to be a planet but now it's not. That distinction makes a lot of sense.
We've observed the behavior of matter and energy. Based on those observations, we've concluded that, at the smallest scales, matter is made up of particles which are acted on by specific types of forces. Those distinctions make a lot of sense also, but they don't explain how the world works except in the most simplistic way. That is not predictable from reductionist, so-called objective "facts." — T Clark
My point was that a denial of objective reality is a well-established, well-supported philosophical position. And, no, it's not just a matter of language and words. If you want to say that position is self-evidently insignificant and not worth discussing, that's your choice. — T Clark
I'll go further, if Sam and the rest of us did not exist, earths and moons would also cease to exist. — T Clark
How would you parse Tiff's example, in that case? OR do you mean just to restrict yourself to discussions of objective knowledge only? — Moliere
Subjective truths are dependent on minds, objective truths are not, — Sam26
But there is no evidence for this contention Clark. Unless you want to cite quantum mechanical theories, but even there, there is disagreement about what it means to say that something obtains because we're looking at it. — Sam26
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.