Does objectivity exist?

[Ratzor]

Greetings, fellow forum members. I present to you a question of some delicate nature: Does objectivity exist?

I myself has come to the conclusion that any person is incapable of pure objectivity, and that the whole concept of objectivity is flawed at best. Is it not something established through subjective means? I.E we can understand the concept of an objective argument, but the tenants we have choosen to call "objective" is selected through subjective means, and thus we are unable to produce an argument that is "truly objective" if you will.

What do you think?

[Helm]

We would both call a table a table and if anyone called it an elelphant they wouldn't be sane.

[Ratzor]

We would both call a table a table and if anyone called it an elelphant they wouldn't be sane.

True, but that's only because we have learned to associate those words with those particular objects.

[Helm]

True, but that's only because we have learned to associate those words with those particular objects.

Someone from Japan would use a different word but they would mean the same thing.

[Ratzor]

Someone from Japan would use a different word but they would mean the same thing.

Yea we could agree about the basic function, but does that mean that the function is objective, or subjective to our species?

Edit: This is the point I'm trying to make, we can understand objectivity, but we are unable to create anything that is objective.

[Gordon Freynman]

True objectivity is impossible. There will always be minor personal biases that influence our worldview that we're probably not even aware of. Still a rational mind should always strive to be as objective as possible.

[Helm]

A robot can figure out the essential difference between a table and a chair so its probably just a universal application of logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9ByGQGiVMg

[Ratzor]

A robot can figure out the essential difference between a table and a chair so its probably just a universal application of logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9ByGQGiVMg

And logic is not subjective? Is it not your conclusion that the robots action is sufficient to prove objectivity?

[Time Commander Bob]

I think that everything we know of is subjective logically since we filter all information received through our consciousness, so we cannot either have a truly objective perspective or know of any objective reality. It is impossible for any being capable of knowing to know that true objectivity exists since to know is to be aware and to be aware is to be subjective.

However, sometimes subjective experiences from different sources can agree, which sometimes is what objectivity can refer to. For example, if all people agreed that grass is green, the statement "grass is green" could be called objective as it is true for all subjective viewpoints (obviously this would be almost or impossible to prove). However, it is important to note that this is a different definition of objective to the one above, so they are two separate concepts.

[Helm]

It is impossible for any being capable of knowing to know that true objectivity exists since to know is to be aware and to be aware is to be subjective.

The robot in the video I posted wasn't aware its just a computer.

[Ratzor]

The robot in the video I posted wasn't aware its just a computer.

The problem I have with this particular video is that they are just teaching the robot to learn like we do, we are translating our subjectivity to it.

Edit: I enjoyed the video very much though (:

[Time Commander Bob]

The robot in the video I posted wasn't aware its just a computer.

And therefore it cannot know, but only measure, just as a calculator isn't knowledgeable despite providing correct answers (if you take knowledge as justified true belief then a computer cannot believe or justify and therefore cannot know). I guess you could define knowledge differently, but then we would argue over definitions rather than concepts which I find a little pointless.

[Playfishpaste]

K is subjective if and only if K is mind dependent.

Logical consequence is not mind dependent, so it's not subjective.

The idea of subjectivism is a very old one in philosophy, of course. It's most recent, most interesting variant was kantianism, which denied that we could have any knowledge of the noumenon (the world apart from our experience) as it would always be laden with phenomena (the world as we experience it).

Most people find kantianism noobish these days, and are realists about the external world and believe there are mind independent objects (chairs, triangles etc). It's important to distinguish however the meaning of words, like chair, with the referents in the external world (we mean a lot more by chair than an actual object, and this fact is something that most of contemporary philosophy focuses on these days. Language and meaning.)

This skepticism about real objectivity also comes from another famous figure, Hume. Humeanism is a lot more popular than kantianism these days, and exists as contemporary analytic empiricism. It's most popular advocate today is Bas Van Fraassen at Princeton University.

[Claudius Gothicus]

No, end of story.

As subjects with a certain perspective we can't truly reach complete objective thinking.

[Playfishpaste]

Sure we can.

If k then p, and k, then p. does the truth of this statement depend on any minds? Well, if we all died it would certainly still be so that if k then p, and k, then p, so clearly it doesn't depend on minds. If it doesn't depend on minds, and something is subjective if and only if it depends on minds, then it appears this statement is objective by the law of excluded middle.

[Ratzor]

Playfishpaste, I'm interested in what you say, but can't fully grasp what you are trying to get across, could you rephrase perhaps?

[Playfishpaste]

Well take this much simpler example:

A rock is a rock. I do not need to know what a rock is in order to know it is a rock. Hence the truth of this proposition is not contingent on the meaning of the word rock, or indeed any word. The truth of this sentence is contingent on a relation between objects that is necessary. It is a relation that holds regardless of whether or not any minds or subjects exist. It's truth is independent of subjects, it is objective. We call this relation the identity relation

I am not sure if you meant I should clarify my brief summary of the history of subjectivism. For that I think a better thing would be a long, good summation and explanation of how subjectivism as a system of beliefs developed throughout history. This site provides that I think: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/index.htm .

Start at Aristotle, then skip the other stuff that doesn't have to do with knowledge. Maybe up to Descartes, and then try reading more of them, as the subject progressively gets more talked about when you go up to Kant.

[hellas1]

@O.P. ,

Objectivity exists but in a "dimensional" & "subjective" sense.

Dimensional example:
Quantum physics says that things are one way, while botany says things are another.

Subjective example:
I like this type of food, while Jethro enjoys this type of food.

You have Ultimate reality & Relative reality, both are objective insofar as someONE is there to experience them.

Any discussion beyond this gets into the realm of spirituality & metaphysics, which ARE also objective!

hellas1.5

[Claudius Gothicus]

Sure we can.

If k then p, and k, then p. does the truth of this statement depend on any minds? Well, if we all died it would certainly still be so that if k then p, and k, then p, so clearly it doesn't depend on minds. If it doesn't depend on minds, and something is subjective if and only if it depends on minds, then it appears this statement is objective by the law of excluded middle.

Mathematics and Logic still depend on our particular construction of them. And no, a rock is not a rock a rock can be an old god, a petrified individual, a granite piece that got separated from tectonic plates or anything else for that matter.

[Gaidin]

Mathematics and Logic still depend on our particular construction.

You mean the axioms. Those can be said to be subjective, however they are also chosen based on what you are interested in. Anything derived from them is objective, though limited to that system.