I guess subjective isn't quite an opposite to objective. So I guess I mean objective that doesn't have emotional connotation or anything that isn't pure information, and a version of objective that refers to objects and objective ideas, but allows emotions and other non pure data to leak in. And have there be a spectrum between them?

Bias isn't limited to, isn't just, emotions. Plus, emotions have their own role to play in our experience of the world.

That's clear as mud.

I guess I am the odd one out on this topic. I think we have good reasons to believe that matter thinks, so there isn't a mind-body problem. At best we have an experience-matter problem, namely how can matter think? Echoing Locke, Priestley and Russell, I say, we don't understand how, only that it does so.

This need not necessarily enter into the subjective/objective debate. Considering other things though, makes the issue more apparent. So, take mathematics, that 2+2=4 is an objective fact, it is not affected by temporal considerations, nor differences in perspective.

When entering into present moment affairs, it is more complicated. We need to take into account several factors in order to call something "objective", including personal point of view, descriptions, the passage of time and crucially, that we are human beings, not some other species who may interpret the world differently.

I think we have good reasons to believe that matter thinks, so there isn't a mind-body problem. — Manuel

:up:

Ervin Laszlo's theory of "biperspectivism" is the most intuitive solution to the mind-body antinomy that I have read.

I think we have good reasons to believe that matter thinks, so there isn't a mind-body problem. — Manuel

Yes! :gasp:

For me, it's Spinoza's dissolution of the MBP with property dualism.

I will have to look him up. Thanks for the reference.

Edit: Which book or article of his did you have in mind?

@180 Proof Haven't seen you say "woo" in a while. :wink:

@180 Proof Haven't seen you say "woo" in a while. :wink: — Manuel

I'm saving up my woo-woos for this
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746676 :smirk:

I was skimming that. Maybe I skimmed too quickly but, I don't see what arguments are given.

Should be fun to see. :lol:

I guess subjective isn't quite an opposite to objective. So I guess I mean objective that doesn't have emotional connotation or anything that isn't pure information, and a version of objective that refers to objects and objective ideas, but allows emotions and other non pure data to leak in. And have there be a spectrum between them? — TiredThinker

I think anything that is "objective" has a subjective component due to the fact that it is the subject deciding why the object is important in the first place. So, even the most data-laden scientific concept or the most purified theoretical scientific problem has to have humans that "cared" about an answer and a result. They had to focus their intention on it and attention on it. That, to me, is all subjective.

Why did Galileo, Newton, and Einstein discover the "objective" world of nature and science? Because they cared about it.

But isn't subjectiveness basically the filtering of an objective reality? — TiredThinker

There is no objective reality. It there were, who would be able to tell? It would be their own view (reality), wouldn't it?
There's nothing out there, outside us, that we can call "reality". Reality is created. We create our own reality, our own view of the world.

Isn't the difference between objective and subjective just how well we can know anything absolutely? — TiredThinker

There's no absolute knowledge. "Objectiveness" means not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice. It means based on facts, unbiased. That is what we can do at best: try not to be influenced by those factors. But still, our knowledge is based on our reality, which is subjective, as I described above. We can't do better than that. So, what we call "objective" is actually subjective! :smile:

↪Pantagruel For me, it's Spinoza's dissolution of the MBP with property dualism. — 180 Proof

:up:
Yes, I have been preparing to revisit Spinoza with a more mature understanding than a simple undergrad. I just bought Deleuze's book as a bit of a reintroduction.

Deleuze wrote two on him: Spinoza: Practical Philosophy and Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza. Which one are you referring to? (Btw, youll get more out of either book if you have read Spinoza's Ethics first.)

Ok. Consider this. We can look at a beautiful painting and give it a particular meaning. It can evoke emotions and even trigger memories. Imagine if we had the intellect to know and hold the position and type of atoms of the entire painting in our mind as that that is all we can see of it? The latter doesn't have the purpose and meaning behind it and it basically matter of fact, and the former is immediately compared and connected to other ideas. Kind of woven in. These are the two versions if objective I mean.

(Subject)ivity vs. (Object)ivity. The meanings of these two concepts are evident when you study their etymology, oui mon ami? The former is of the subject viz. you, me, us and the latter is of the object viz. the thing that's under examination. — Agent Smith

More like a ven diagram than a spectrum

More like a ven diagram than a spectrum — Merkwurdichliebe

Why, may I ask?

Practical Philosophy. I read The Ethics in Uni, I'll reread more after Deleuze's short book.

Why, may I ask? — Agent Smith

Things are either subjective, objective, or both objrctive/subjective. There are not degrees of objectivity/subjectivity that would lend to some kind of steadily ordered gradation between the less and more objective/subjective.

Indeed, that's one way to look at it, but running with a diagrammatic approach I can also see a spectrum with 100% objectivity at one end and 100% subjectivity at the other and a continuum in between. Agree/disagree?

Indeed, that's one way to look at it, but running with a diagrammatic approach I can also see a spectrum with 100% objectivity at one end and 100% subjectivity at the other and a continuum in between. Agree/disagree? — Agent Smith

The continuum suggests degrees of each, whereas I see each as absolute. In my humble opinion, when the objective and subjective coincide, whatever is subjective continues to be subjective, and viceversa. But I am a philosopher, so I am hoping to have my mind changed by a wiser Philosopher. Let's begin dialectically by discerning the most obvious middle ground. What is an example of something that is 50% objective and 50% subjective? Perhaps its the human being. Whatever the case, only then will we better be able to visualize a potential continuum between the objective-subjective. Or we could becom some of those monist suckers if we so wish to sound very stupid.

If direct realism were true then objectivity would simply be a matter of narrating our very experiences. However the indirect nature of our perceptions creates a challenge for objectivity. If there is a objective-subjective spectrum, the spectrum would be a realism spectrum moving from truth inherent in object at one extreme to truth inherent in interpretation at the other. Most thinking done on the spectrum is in the middle, but certain modes of thought such as material science would be more towards the 'inherent in object' extreme but literary analysis would be more towards 'inherent in interpretation' but not all the way because there would still be reference made to true things about the object. Something that would be extremely "inherent in interpretation" would be if I one-offed a comment much like this without knowing anything about the objects of philosophy.

The Mona Lisa is just a painting of a girl.