We may have an objective orientation in context to survival. Nourishment is valuable to human survival. That statement is objectively true.

I see the computer with my eyeballs. It's not inside of my eyeballs, or inherently eyeballish. — Pneumenon

Your eyeballs merely react to some photons. It's your mind that sees the computer. And, even according to 20th century physics, the computer isn't really a continuous object.

So long as you do not take this to mean that you cannot predict anything. — Banno

I don't :wink:

It depends on the goal. If the goal was accomplished, how can it be said that it wasn't accurate? — Harry Hindu

If there was a chance it'd go wrong, then the prediction wasn't completely accurate. A well designed plane can still crash.

Objective and subjective work well when we talk about regular stuff like it being an objective truth that this sentence was written by me but a subjective fact that I like vanilla.

Then the philosophers become involved... and off we go up the garden path.

That is, the perfectly reasonable notions of subjective and objective statements become increasingly incoherent when dragged out of their home context. You can see this starting to happen when folk start to talk as if it is worth drawing a distinction between subjective and objective truth, or objective and subjective reality. The terms are being stretched beyond their usefulness.

Your eyeballs merely react to some photons. It's your mind that sees the computer. And, even according to 20th century physics, the computer isn't really a continuous object. — Echarmion

see, Pneumenon, not only do you not see with your eyes, you don't actually have a computer.

So long as you do not take this to mean that you cannot predict anything.
— Banno

I don't :wink: — Echarmion

AH, but see, you do.

see, Pneumenon, not only do you not see with your eyes, you don't actauly have a computer — Banno

He doesn't? How does he write his replies then?

Well, presumably he doesn't - there are, after all, only perceptions-of-replies, subjective stuff, not objective at all.

I used to think that vagueness and subjectivity pervaded every statement to some small degree.

But, that's really a silly assumption. Is there any serious objection to my statement that I am currently using a computer? — Pneumenon

Yes, from the mereological nihilist. However, identity, to my apprehension, is not something that requires perfect physical continuity in order to be made intelligible or referable. The problem seems irresolvable until we abandon our Humean conception of identity and adopt a different ontology about what it means to be a computer; and that definition need not be restricted to some subset of particles assembled in some particular fashion.

Well, presumably he doesn't - there are, after all, only perceptions-of-replies, subjective stuff, not objective at all. — Banno

We're all subjects imagining other subjects doing subjective stuff. It's subjects all the way down.

But seriously, there is a difference between subjective, intersubjective, and objective. The objective part here is that we're somehow exchanging information. The intersubjective part is that we're using an Internetforum, computers, the English language etc. And then we each have a subjective interpretation of what is said and why, with a small model of what the person saying it might be like.

Unless you're specifically doing metaphysics or epistemology, there isn't any reason to differentiate between objective and whatever is intersubjective for all humans.

The funny thing is, any assertions we make are assertions of objectivity. So if we say we are subjective beings, then we're making an objective truth claim. So in order for us to say that we are subjective beings we have to assume there is objectivity that we can utilise in the first place.

Is there any serious objection to my statement that I am currently using a computer? — Pneumenon

First it's not that someone would object, necessarily to the facty thingie, it's all the interpreted experiences of 'you doing that' and what it means that will necessarily be subjective. Subjective does not mean wrong, it means that what you and we think when you make that statement and we read it likely differs for each of us (the image in our mind, coupled with a very distant feeling (since it is not a detailed, specific or unique bit of information)...iow the internal phenomenological experience we will all have will be idiosyncratic and subjective. None of this means we disagree or would then act in ways that others would think showed we were not connected well, objectively, to what is going on. Second, and I suppose overlapping, is that there a philosophical positions implicit in that simple statement. Again, they need not be wrong, but what is implicit in 'you are using' rather than 'the computer and I are interacting it causing me do things, me causing it to do things'. We likely have more or less folk theories of what it is happening. They may be right, partiall right, facets of 'what is happening', the view of a timebound homonid who thinks in absolute time and space and not the only way to think of it. None of this means that the image, should we think in images, of you sitting at a computer typing (probably?!) is wrong, but implicit ideas about reailty are built in that may or may not be right, or as objective as something else.

Now, if we are having a chat, none of that matters much. We get it and we don't get lost given that we live all the time in folk ontologies. Nor is it likely that we show up at your house to find you using the computer to smash watermelons. No, so that sentence isn't going to cause problems in most situations it will be used. But it contains subjective elements. Fortunately most of these are fairly universal, unless perhaps one is in a very, very different culture. But universal and objective are not the same. And in a philosophical context some of those folk ontologies are up for question.

There's no God's eye view of what you are describing: no view that is not bound in time, without a primates way of thinking of it. Not a view from all angles at that action. It is a selective, interpreted view. This too can be objective or partially objective. But it is suffused with subjectivity at the very least also.

If there was a chance it'd go wrong, then the prediction wasn't completely accurate. A well designed plane can still crash. — Echarmion

Right. So a crash wouldnt happen because of the design of the plane, but for some other reason that has nothing to do with the design of the plane.

We're all subjects imagining other subjects doing subjective stuff. It's subjects all the way down.

But seriously, there is a difference between subjective, intersubjective, and objective. The objective part here is that we're somehow exchanging information. The intersubjective part is that we're using an Internetforum, computers, the English language etc. And then we each have a subjective interpretation of what is said and why, with a small model of what the person saying it might be like.

Unless you're specifically doing metaphysics or epistemology, there isn't any reason to differentiate between objective and whatever is intersubjective for all humans. — Echarmion

You're making objective claims about how the world is for everyone, as if you have a view from everywhere.

The funny thing is, any assertions we make are assertions of objectivity. So if we say we are subjective beings, then we're making an objective truth claim. So in order for us to say that we are subjective beings we have to assume there is objectivity that we can utilise in the first place. — Cidat

Yes. At least some of you are getting it.

I'll say it again,

"Everything is subjective" is an objective statement as it is being asserted to be true for everyone. — Harry Hindu

Objective truth or objective reality may exist, that is, there may exist truths that are true regardless of perspective or bias, but is it possible for a perceiver to be provably objective about truth? It's one thing to try to be objective, but another to be provably so. Does perception require some assumption? — Cidat

Truths that are true regardless of perspective or bias exist in possibility - they may be perceived, or expressed as a perception. An understanding of objective truth may even be shared or reiterated by other perceivers, thereby increasing the potentiality of shared meaning. But any attempt to prove or define an objective truth is limited by the perspective or bias of this potentiality: including the language, values, logic and subjective experiences of contributors. So long as an alternative perspective exists that cannot be accounted for in shared meaning, the objectivity of a truth remains unproven. You cannot claim objectivity by ignoring, isolating or excluding information related to that truth which is illogical, irrational, improbable, immoral or even fictional.

The funny thing is, any assertions we make are assertions of objectivity. So if we say we are subjective beings, then we're making an objective truth claim. So in order for us to say that we are subjective beings we have to assume there is objectivity that we can utilise in the first place. — Cidat

The claim isn't necessarily "we are subjective beings". It could just be "we don't know whether or not our experiences are objective". They might be, but we cannot just assume they are.

Right. So a crash wouldnt happen because of the design of the plane, but for some other reason that has nothing to do with the design of the plane. — Harry Hindu

You should tell Boeing. Perhaps that'll convince the authorities to let their newest plane operate again.

You're making objective claims about how the world is for everyone. — Harry Hindu

No, I am not making claims about the world, but rather claims about our ability to know the world.

"Everything is subjective" is an objective statement as it is being asserted to be true for everyone. — Harry Hindu

Unless the person saying it uses it as a general statement of doubt, in the form of "everything is subjective, including this statement".

The claim isn't necessarily "we are subjective beings". It could just be "we don't know whether or not our experiences are objective". They might be, but we cannot just assume they are. — Echarmion

If this is an assertion about epistemology...iow something in the family 'given the fact that we perceive in this manner and...(other reasons). then we cannot know if our assertions are objective or subjective'
then that is still an objective statement. If we simply 'I don't know if my ideas are X' then it might not be since one is reporting on one's experience and not concluding something objective.

In order for someone to state something as an objective truth and for that statement to be accepted you have to assume that the person has an objective reference point in the first place and is going exclusively by that reference point. My understanding is that this is impossible to prove, even if you happen to have that. So the concept of objectivity requires some basic assumptions.

I would say instead of a reference point - not saying that's wrong, just noticed it wasn't how I thought - that their assertions meet some criteria. So, justification. And a particular time. And for many, this would all be open to revision, but it's useful, it seems, to take things as objective, even if some or even many of them turn out to be incorrect.

All assertions and the listening to and interpreting of assertions includes subjective elements. Our words do, and more.

I suppose I am a pragmatist. More focused on process than the ontology of a statement. It's truth with a big T or something, but more, what do we do and how does that work for us as far as we can tell. Rather than assertions getting timeless attributes, standing there beaming out their Truth.

I notice that that is how I seem to work.

To clarify what I'm saying: You have to assume you're being objective in the first place, in order to be able to claim certainty about anything.

""Everything is subjective" is an objective statement as it is being asserted to be true for everyone." is in my opinion the best argument in favor of the ultimate existence of objective truth.

No, I am not making claims about the world, but rather claims about our ability to know the world. — Echarmion

...which is part of the world. Your knowledge of the world, accurate or not, is part of the world.

Unless the person saying it uses it as a general statement of doubt, in the form of "everything is subjective, including this statement". — Echarmion

"everything is subjective, including this statement". — Echarmion

How is this statement useful? Subjectivity is essentially making category errors, of projecting mental properties, like color and taste, onto things that don't have mental properties.

Doubt is part of the world. Is it not an assertion of truth that you doubt? Is it not an assertion about the state of your mind? How do you go from making assertions about your state of mind to making assertions about others state of mind by using the term, "everything", which includes the world, minds and all?

You don't seem to understand that your mind's state is part of the world.

If this is an assertion about epistemology...iow something in the family 'given the fact that we perceive in this manner and...(other reasons). then we cannot know if our assertions are objective or subjective'
then that is still an objective statement. — Coben

What's the object being referred to? Epistemology is about my knowledge as a subject. Substituting "we" for "I" is based on the assumption that human minds are alike.

...which is part of the world. Your knowledge of the world, accurate or not, is part of the world. — Harry Hindu

That's like saying New York isn't part of America, but part of the universe. My ability to know things is a subjective ability. It might be objective to some other observer, but that's beside the point.

Doubt is part of the world.

You don't seem to understand that your mind's state is part of the world. — Harry Hindu

So according to you, literally every statement is objective, including statements about qualia and preferences?

I kinda sorta favor the groundwork you’re laying here.

assume that the person has an objective reference point in the first place and is going exclusively by that reference point. — Cidat

Objective reference point for statements with empirical predicates would be experience; objective reference point for statements with intuitional or conceptual predicates alone, would be pure reason.
——————-

So the concept of objectivity requires some basic assumptions. — Cidat

Beginning with a speculative epistemology predicated solely on the condition that all concepts in general are given from a logical ground, and from that assumption, it follows necessarily that objectivity as a concept is meaningless if not judged with respect to its complement.
———————

Everything is subjective" is an objective statement as it is being asserted to be true for everyone." is in my opinion the best argument in favor of the ultimate existence of objective truth. — Cidat

“Everything is subjective” doesn’t even need to be asserted as holding for everyone, to be an objective statement in itself. In at least one established theoretical human cognitive system, all cognitions are judgements, all judgements are objective, and all judgements are objective statements in form, when passed to an external observer.

Thing is.....”everything is subjective”, while being a valid objective statement, cannot be an objective truth, insofar as it is impossible that every thing is subjective. On the other hand, “any human knowledge of things is a subjective condition” would be an objective truth, iff that statement holds across the entire human domain without exception, which, theoretically, it does because its refutation is immediately self-contradictory under the same circumstances by which the statement was thought in the first place.

Anyway.....carry on.

What's the object being referred to? Epistemology is about my knowledge as a subject. Substituting "we" for "I" is based on the assumption that human minds are alike. — Echarmion

There you go, that would be another posited-as-objective facet.

"we don't know whether or not our experiences are objective". — Echarmion

I am not sure what you mean by the object being referred to. I was saying that what I just quoted, if it is saying that 'we don't (which might mean 'can't') know whether or not our experiences are objective' then it is making a claim about reality and an claim to objectivity. I actually think it might make more sense to replace 'experiences' in that sentence. I don't know what I would be saying if I said my experience was objective. My conclusion, my idea, my assertion, that seems more like something that could be objective when contrasted with subjective (ideas, conclusions...etc.) It's a bit like you don't have true or false things, but rather true or false statements.

I think this whole discussion centers around one point: You have to assume something in order to claim knowledge of anything. Otherwise the very concept of knowledge becomes subjective itself.

The objective part here is that we're somehow exchanging information. The intersubjective part is that we're using an Internetforum, computers, the English language etc. And then we each have a subjective interpretation of what is said and why, with a small model of what the person saying it might be like. — Echarmion

I'm sorry, but your use of intersubjective is incorrect.
An objective proposition corresponds to the external objects.
The proposition that depends on the subject is subjective
The proposition that is common to several subjects is intersubjective.

The term intersubjectivism was introduced by the Vienna Circle (Carnap) to overcome the metaphysical problem of objectivity and solipsism
See A. J. Ayer: Language, Truth and Logic. Alternative: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/inter-subjectivism.html

The proposal seems reasonable to me: since strict objectivism is impossible, we defend knowledge that is based on basic propositions, that is intersubjective. This does not mean that it is free of problems. Although it avoids metaphysical problems, it has some difficulties.

There you go, that would be another posited-as-objective facet. — Coben

I am not claiming it as objective, it's just a practical assumption. Not everything that refers to objectivity is automatically a claim.

I am not sure what you mean by the object being referred to. I was saying that what I just quoted, if it is saying that 'we don't (which might mean 'can't') know whether or not our experiences are objective' then it is making a claim about reality and an claim to objectivity. — Coben

Just linguistically, the object of that sentence is "our experience". So what I am making a claim about is experience. If you want to substitute "reality" for "experience" you're already presupposing realism.

Unless you mean something along the lines of "we are part of objective reality, so every claim about us is also a claim about objective reality". But in that case you're switching perspective to some theoretical "universal subject", and the notions of objectivity and subjectivity become meaningless.

I actually think it might make more sense to replace 'experiences' in that sentence. I don't know what I would be saying if I said my experience was objective. My conclusion, my idea, my assertion, that seems more like something that could be objective when contrasted with subjective (ideas, conclusions...etc.) It's a bit like you don't have true or false things, but rather true or false statements. — Coben

Yeah, I think you're right about that. It'd have to be something like our conclusions based on experience, since experience necessarily refers to a subject.

Essentially, what we want to know is "can we find truth that's independent of our own perspective", right?

I'm sorry, but your use of intersubjectivism is incorrect.
An objective proposition corresponds to the external objects.
The proposition that depends on the subject is subjective
The proposition that is common to several subjects is intersubjective. — David Mo

That's actually how I intended to use the term. Can you point out to me what I did wrong?

It is not exact. Many theories in the past were predictive and are considered false today.

@David Mo

This seems very simple, but it starts to get complicated when we go to less simple propositions and theories than that. Mainly, because in science we cannot test isolated propositions, but a complex of theories and facts. — David Mo

Then they are revised until complete accuracy is achieved. For example: the theory of magnetism implies the non-existence of magnetic monopoles, yet, if we are to follow subjectivity, it is possible that the contradictory existence of a magnetic monopole is at least possible, since we cannot predict with complete accuracy the nature of magnetism.

Obviously, all this disappoints the metaphysicist who is looking for absolute objectivity or certainty. A chimera. — David Mo

Metaphysical inquiry can lead to the theory of the undivided particle - the monad, which as we know from physics to be true, from observing elementary particles.

You cannot technically predict anything with complete accuracy. Emotional reactions should not, in principle, be different. — Echarmion

Predicting a person's emotional reaction is different because it adheres to psychological phenomenons which do not physically exists as we perceive them to. This is where we oppose perception and adhere to reason. I may perceive a certain kind of fruit to be repulsive but is that fruit objectively repulsive? It is relative to the animal's desire to survive. The objective truth to that fruit is its chemical composition, which we may or may not care about.

You and I both perceive this post; we perceive the very same post.Yet, according to the perception game, these are two distinct perceptions of the same post. — Banno

Of course there are 2 distinct perceptions. We are not an identical entity, we are disparate.

One philosophical games tries to play this out as showing that it is the perception that is pivotal, not the post. As if it is the perception-of-this-post that is real, not the post. We never have the post-in-itself; all we have is the perception-of-post. — Banno

I did not argue for idealism. So your gem argument has nothing to do with me. The term in the thread title is 'strict objectivity'. What I doubt, is that truth claims are either absolutely objective or absolutely subjective and it seems to me that framing the issue in either/or terms is an error. Since it seems that truth claims are always a mixture of subjectivity and objectivity. I doubt whether they can be so clearly delineated. This is why I have used expressions like 'partial-truth'.

That's like saying New York isn't part of America, but part of the universe. My ability to know things is a subjective ability. It might be objective to some other observer, but that's beside the point. — Echarmion

No. It's not. You keep making objective statements, seemingly without knowing it. Each sentence you just wrote is an objective statement about you, and you are part of the world.

So according to you, literally every statement is objective, including statements about qualia and preferences? — Echarmion

Are qualia and preferences part of the world? Do qualia and preferences establish causal relationships with the world? If not, then you aren't part of the world. You would be non-existent. Imaginings and delusions cause people to behave in certain ways. Imaginings and delusions are themselves caused by states-of-affairs in the world.

“Everything is subjective” doesn’t even need to be asserted as holding for everyone, to be an objective statement in itself. In at least one established theoretical human cognitive system, all cognitions are judgements, all judgements are objective, and all judgements are objective statements in form, when passed to an external observer.

Thing is.....”everything is subjective”, while being a valid objective statement, cannot be an objective truth, insofar as it is impossible that every thing is subjective. On the other hand, “any human knowledge of things is a subjective condition” would be an objective truth, iff that statement holds across the entire human domain without exception, which, theoretically, it does because its refutation is immediately self-contradictory under the same circumstances by which the statement was thought in the first place. — Mww

We don't know when statements are true until we can all establish some evidence or proof of the claim. The claim is still objective in the sense that it is about the world as if from a view from everywhere (God's-eye view). It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong. People are asserting things all the time, as if it were true, because they are making arguments for it, and to disagree would be wrong. When making an argument for some view, you are asserting truth while at the same time saying that anyone that disagrees is wrong.

If you thought that your assertion was actually subjective, then why say it at all? What use would it be for others?