Subject and object

[Jobar]

I want to start a discussion on the meaning of objectivity, and how we may profitably use the concept when we discuss the world and our relationships to it.

My own view is that objectivity is one of those things we can only approach very closely but never reach, as a hyperbolic function approaches its asymptote. Absolute objectivity is unreachable, and though it may be useful as a philosophical concept, we should always keep it clearly in mind that we can't really describe anything in a totally objective way.

A closely related concept is intersubjectivity; mutual agreement, among a limited number of people, on the meaning or correctness of a particular statement or outlook. If 2 or more people agree on the truth of a proposition, then it is intersubjectively true for that group.

It seems to me that intersubjectivity among a sufficiently large group might be said to be the closest practical approach to objectivity. But even in this case, intersubjective truth is not necessarily equivalent to objective truth; humans (and, I think, any possible consciousness) are fallible even en masse.

[DMB]

humans (and, I think, any possible consciousness) are fallible even en masse.

I would say, in some cases, more likely to be fallible en masse than individually. Think of all those millions of Germans giving Hitler salutes.

[The Barefoot Bum]

To determine whether we can approach "objectivity" asymptotically or otherwise, it's important to precisely and unambiguously address the meaning of the term.

The usual meanings are:
1) Concerning the existence and properties of entities or elements outside the mind
2) Without cognitive or other a priori bias or prejudice
3) Without emotion
4) Unambiguously determinable (such as mathematical theorems)

(Of course these terms require more precise definition as well.)

[Izmir Stinger]

My own view is that objectivity is one of those things we can only approach very closely but never reach, as a hyperbolic function approaches its asymptote. Absolute objectivity is unreachable, and though it may be useful as a philosophical concept, we should always keep it clearly in mind that we can't really describe anything in a totally objective way.

Your mathematical analogy is ironic because an important exception to the unacceptability of objectivity IS mathematics. Numbers may be abstract concepts but the way's they interact can (and must) be described objectively by everyone, everywhere. Pi is the same in the Andromeda galaxy as it is here. If somebody describes Pi (in decimal expression) to an accuracy of hundredths as 3.12, they are objectively WRONG.

[The Barefoot Bum]

If somebody describes Pi (in decimal expression) to an accuracy of hundredths as 3.12, they are objectively WRONG.

They are definitely wrong. Without a definition of "objectively", it is impossible to determine if they are objectively wrong.

I don't see the irony of definition (4). If "objectively" means unambiguously determinable, then the value of pi as 3.14159... is a theorem unambiguously determinable from a finite set of axiom and derivation rules. In such a case by definition (4), a person who used (or said they used) the same axioms and derivation rules and found the value of pi to be 3.12 would be objectively wrong. On close examination, we would find them to have added, removed or misapplied an axiom or derivation rule; were they to use the rules in the same way, they would get the same answer.

[The Barefoot Bum]

A note on grammar: "such as" introduces an example, not a simile or analogy.

Also note the use of existentialist language: "the value of pi is..." Just because we use existentialist language, we are not necessarily committed to an existentialist ontology.

[Danhalen]

My own view is that objectivity is one of those things we can only approach very closely but never reach, as a hyperbolic function approaches its asymptote. Absolute objectivity is unreachable, and though it may be useful as a philosophical concept, we should always keep it clearly in mind that we can't really describe anything in a totally objective way.Even if we cannot describe a thing in a completely objective fashion, is it possible to experience anything objectively (I'm thinking phenomenology)? I think it is telling that we tend to think of objectivity in terms of describing. Is description a necessary component of objectivity?

A closely related concept is intersubjectivity; mutual agreement, among a limited number of people, on the meaning or correctness of a particular statement or outlook. If 2 or more people agree on the truth of a proposition, then it is inter-subjectively true for that group.I'm not sure truth value is a necessary component. We can inter-subjectively agree on things of normative value as well (are moral values true or false?).

It seems to me that intersubjectivity among a sufficiently large group might be said to be the closest practical approach to objectivity. But even in this case, intersubjective truth is not necessarily equivalent to objective truth; humans (and, I think, any possible consciousness) are fallible even en masse.The emphasis I added points to what I think we ought to settle for: pragmatism's conception of truth. Again, I am still not sure truth is a necessary component of objectivity beyond factual statements concerning reality.

[Jobar]

Although I sometimes get rawther ticked at gamera, I sort of wish he was here for this discussion. His postmodernist viewpoint would be relevant to this topic; indeed I think that what relevance po-mo philosophy has, is to be found here.

The aspect of objectivity I want to focus on is the first definition listed by BB- how do we know what objects, in the physical sense, are, and how we are to determine that there is a real, objective world 'outside' of our subjective experience. (The thread may even turn into yet another attack on solipsism, though that isn't my central aim.)

At the quantum level, the 'fuzziness' of objects is a well known fact. Although there are mathematical abstractions which we can determine objectively, to an arbitrary precision, we can't measure physical objects to an arbitrary precision. Heisenberg forbids. So, while we can calculate the value of pi to however many figures we like, we can't measure that value beyond a certain number of decimal places. And all those calculated billions of decimal places are practically useless; we can neither verify them physically, nor use them to increase the accuracy of any physical system.

Even if we cannot describe a thing in a completely objective fashion, is it possible to experience anything objectively (I'm thinking phenomenology)? I think it is telling that we tend to think of objectivity in terms of describing. Is description a necessary component of objectivity?

Excellent point. We can experience reality objectively, wordlessly; but as soon as we try to communicate that reality, we have to filter it through our own subjective POV. I would say that experience is objective, but description requires a subject to do the describing.

[The Barefoot Bum]

Lenin made a substantial contribution to this subject in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/index.htm). My small contribution to the subject can be found in my own essay Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2008/12/materialism-and-empirio-criticism.html) as well as my series on The Scientific Method (http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/search/label/Scientific%20Method).

[Jobar]

Interesting essay, BB. I agree that the possibility of surprise is the number one monkey wrench in the gears of solipsism.

Have you read Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? He has much to say on this subject (;)) also. I'll get out my copy and see if I can find a short quotation which will explain his viewpoint.

[The Barefoot Bum]

Have you read Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? He has much to say on this subject (;)) also.

It was the first philosophy book I ever read. Today, though, I think he's mostly full of shit.

[BWE]

It was the first philosophy book I ever read. Today, though, I think he's mostly full of shit.

I'm pretty sure he was spot on. Why do you think it's full of shit?

[BWE]

Interesting essay, BB. I agree that the possibility of surprise is the number one monkey wrench in the gears of solipsism.

Have you read Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? He has much to say on this subject (;)) also. I'll get out my copy and see if I can find a short quotation which will explain his viewpoint.

I have my copy on my desk. What quote are you looking for?

[The Barefoot Bum]

I'm pretty sure he was spot on. Why do you think it's full of shit?

I'm no longer interested in extended controversy, so I'll be brief, and I won't defend my position. I think his position is too linear and deductivist. He elevates a psychological phenomenon (the appreciation of "quality") to a universal metaphysical principle.

[Jobar]

I've been looking for my copy- as it happens, it was also the text for the first philosophy class *I* ever took. But apparently I have loaned it out to one of my many friends and relatives who aren't so hot on returning borrowed books, dammit. But since you're familiar with it, I won't need it.

I must say I agree with BWE; Pirsig was speaking of Quality in both the sense of Excellence, and in the sense of Attribute. Excellence is subjective; Attribute is objective. Thus the word 'quality' spans the subject-object divide. His identification of Quality with Tao was a very powerful, and very accurate, realization.

Cutting to the chase- as a pantheist and a monist, my position is that subject and object are both aspects of a singular reality. Thus neither realism nor solipsism is 'right', and the opposition between them is only apparent.

[BWE]

I'm no longer interested in extended controversy, so I'll be brief, and I won't defend my position. I think his position is too linear and deductivist. He elevates a psychological phenomenon (the appreciation of "quality") to a universal metaphysical principle.

I'm thinking that he's tough to understand. I've read it several times (10?) and my take on it is that all the talk about quality up until the end, or near the end, is his examination of his false starts, what it isn't but rather what it's effects are. It's a weird word to use and powerful when viewed as he finally concludes: the present moment. Interacting directly with the now. That is his quality in a nutshell. Gumption traps move you out of the now. Almost everything does. Quality is his welder who charged him a dollar to weld his chainguard with a torch and it came out perfect. The train of mythos informing his interaction with the now.

[BWE]

I don't think there is a real distinction between subjective and objective. Each can have the same 'objective' truth value. The reason is in the objection.

Let's say, I think brunettes are hotter than blonds.

Objection: That truth only holds for me. We don't both necessarily think that. But yes we do. Unless you think I'm lying. It's the same question as, "Is that color 'red'?"

Once a subject is specified, it becomes objective. Just because you can't see what I'm thinking doesn't mean it's somehow less factual, just less verifiable to independent observers. A subjective statement without a subject is not a complete statement and is meaningless until a subject is assigned.


Are blonds hotter than brunettes?

As soon as you get an answer you have an objective statement.

[BWE]

I'm thinking that he's tough to understand. I've read it several times (10?) and my take on it is that all the talk about quality up until the end, or near the end, is his examination of his false starts, what it isn't but rather what it's effects are. It's a weird word to use and powerful when viewed as he finally concludes: the present moment. Interacting directly with the now. That is his quality in a nutshell. Gumption traps move you out of the now. Almost everything does. Quality is his welder who charged him a dollar to weld his chainguard with a torch and it came out perfect. The train of mythos informing his interaction with the now.

I just re-read this post and I can't judge the tone I used. To clarify: I have no idea if it's tough for you to understand. I meant it was a lot for me to absorb. And I also didn't mean to imply any special expertise other than having read it several times. The above is my take on it alone. Maybe you can get something out of it. I don't know.

I hadn't noticed that you didn't want to discuss it further. I enjoy discussing it because I think about it alot. That's just my take on it. YMMV

[The Barefoot Bum]

The book does have some worthwhile psychological ideas, yes.

I've become extremely burned out on discussing any topic of controversy.

[BWE]

The book does have some worthwhile psychological ideas, yes.

I've become extremely burned out on discussing any topic of controversy.

Well then, I'm your guy for this one. I don't know any answers, I just like to look at the questions. :) IOW, there's no controversy with me. I'm just interested in other people's take on the subject. It stuck a chord with me. But, curiously, it wasn't the first read that did it. I needed to bring a lot of other material in to make something worthwhile for me.

[BWE]

I want to start a discussion on the meaning of objectivity, and how we may profitably use the concept when we discuss the world and our relationships to it.
I think the word is a category error. We interpret all our sense data in some fashion. There is only really truth value and the classical distinction breaks down when you try to pinpoint it. All declarative statements are capable of holding truth value or correctness on the same scale:

nonsense, wrong, mostly wrong, not right, kinda right, correct.

That kind of thing.

There isn't a meaningful distinction between subjective and objective. Any statement can be evaluated equally by any 2 people given the relevant facts.

My own view is that objectivity is one of those things we can only approach very closely but never reach, as a hyperbolic function approaches its asymptote. Absolute objectivity is unreachable, and though it may be useful as a philosophical concept, we should always keep it clearly in mind that we can't really describe anything in a totally objective way.
I'm out on a limb with this but I think it's just called, 'getting your facts straight. '
How could you measure anything without a priori? You'd have hume's empirical paradox wouldn't you?

There is only one way we know of to sense things, through our senses, whether we are sensing instruments or a breeze off a lake. No?

[BWE]

nothing eh? Hmmm. I thought it was pretty good.

[BWE]

My own view is that objectivity is one of those things we can only approach very closely but never reach, as a hyperbolic function approaches its asymptote.
What would divide use from what we sense so thoroughly as to let us get very close but ultimately throw up a barrier? What would the barrier be?

Absolute objectivity is unreachable, and though it may be useful as a philosophical concept, we should always keep it clearly in mind that we can't really describe anything in a totally objective way.

This is an interesting analogy.

[BWE]

do you think that there is a difference?

[Jobar]

Sorry I haven't replied here, BWE. I've been a busy boy these last several days!

I've used that hyperbolic-function analogy several times in the past, when talking about absolutes and ultimates. If you're interested, go to FR and do a search under my name for the word 'hyperbolic'.

"A difference"- what do you mean by that? There are several ways to interpret your question, and I want to make sure I answer usefully.

[BWE]

Sorry I haven't replied here, BWE. I've been a busy boy these last several days!

I've used that hyperbolic-function analogy several times in the past, when talking about absolutes and ultimates. If you're interested, go to FR and do a search under my name for the word 'hyperbolic'.

"A difference"- what do you mean by that? There are several ways to interpret your question, and I want to make sure I answer usefully.
I don't think there is a real distinction between subjective and objective. Each can have the same 'objective' truth value. The reason is in the objection.

Let's say, I think brunettes are hotter than blonds.

Objection: That truth only holds for me. We don't both necessarily think that. But yes we do. Unless you think I'm lying. It's the same question as, "Is that color 'red'?"

Once a subject is specified, it becomes objective. Just because you can't see what I'm thinking doesn't mean it's somehow less factual, just less verifiable to independent observers. A subjective statement without a subject is not a complete statement and is meaningless until a subject is assigned.


Are blonds hotter than brunettes?

As soon as you get an answer you have an objective statement.

I think the word is a category error. We interpret all our sense data in some fashion. There is only really truth value and the classical distinction breaks down when you try to pinpoint it. All declarative statements are capable of holding truth value or correctness on the same scale:

nonsense, wrong, mostly wrong, not right, kinda right, correct.

That kind of thing.

There isn't a meaningful distinction between subjective and objective. Any statement can be evaluated equally by any 2 people given the relevant facts.

:)

[Jobar]

There are areas of thought and discourse where the two ideas blur together, yes. And even at the extremes, each contains the seed of the other.

http://imgtn4.ask.com/ts?t=15419996310583523718&pid=23296&ppid=7

[BWE]

I don't think there is any situation you could find that would be able to differentiate.

[Preno]

I don't think I've yet seen a definition of the dichotomy which doesn't collapse into a triviality, so tbh I find the concept rather useless.

[BWE]

I don't think I've yet seen a definition of the dichotomy which doesn't collapse into a triviality, so tbh I find the concept rather useless.

^^Starts out sounding like rap from MIT.