Do explain further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crippli
I consider subjectivity valid as introversion. Objectivity as extroversion.
Do explain further.
Perhaps the word, "objective" is a semantic convenience to name an ideal. Our view of the object is always via some perspective. But accumulate enough of perspectives and from enough people and we merge all the perspectives. We call this "objective" but we still can be wrong ... as wrong as the scientific method can be wrong.
Z. Not sure I get what you're after. If I stand in only one position in front of a three-dimensional object, for example a photograph of a sculpture, I can't tell what it is. I see only one side. Someone who walks all-around is going to be better informed.
I reread my post. I don't know if this example will help. Let's say a five year old goes out at night and for the first time looks up and stares at the moon. His reaction is wonder or fear and has no idea as to what he's seeing. He has only one perspective and we call that one subjective.
Z. Somewhere I saw the statement, "The smaller the difference, the more contentious the debate." ... Wait. Let me look around ...
You are saying there is a difference and here is an example of objectivity. I'll go with that.
Let's try this: There is an observer, the observed and thirdly their relation. The relation here is either objectiveness or subjectiveness. (Do you dispute this?) That is to be decided. Let's start with something simple with only one variable making the relation linear. Two buckets of paint. One absolutely black and one absolutely white. No matter who is the judge, we define those buckets to be objectively black or white respectively. All observers are committed to call those buckets objectively those colors even if the white bucket is in the dark. Now we take one drop of white and place it in the black bucket. What color is the bucket now? Answer: depends on our measuring instruments, who made them and who is reading them. That reading can be erroneous, but we take our answer from that reading. If the reading says "totally black" we define our judgment to be objective.
What environment, what system are we working with? In the case of the buckets, the paintings or this post it may matter or it may not matter. Another example: Is this airplane objectively safe to fly? Answer: yes. But what if one loose bolt out of thousands causes the wing to fall off? Is the plane a commercial passenger plane or to be flown by a test pilot? Is the plane objectively safe to fly? Answer: depends.
I find it interesting that the arguer gets to be objective while the contender appears to be wrong. You say "only one is correct." Are you denying that a painting-sculpture is scaled? I propose (I'm objective?) they are scaled. That is, every painting-sculpture candidate is somewhere along the scale of paintings/ sculptures. Some are pure paintings, some are pure sculptures, and all the rest are in between.
I could say whenever the situation is not pure/ is not perfectly defined, that right and wrong are relative.
In an absolute sense, you are right. They are different. In a broad sense, he called them the same. Why? You'd have to ask him.
yup I agree.
In the United States there was a Civil War between roughly what can be called the North and the South (the West was involved too). There are those from the south today who still put the north into disfavor. Their view is subjective. Then there are professors of history who try to present the story from both sides and maybe as other countries would see it. They stand back and come up with better explanations that take into account all concerned. They are said to be more objective. If they are teaching they can deliberately try to be this way. We call that objective. If they privately wish to express favoritism they are being subjective. Nevertheless a new professor can come along with a new book on the Civil War pointing out some bias of the supposedly "objective" original professor. Now the original professor's view has become subject where it was not said to be before.
We can always keep looking at the same thing and come up with new angles.
When operating outside the swaths there must be something that occasions the transition both from inside the swath to outside and from outside to inside.
For me entering the emotional state slowly creeps up until a threshold is reached followed by an explosion. Then follows a very slow dissipation until it recedes below the level of awareness ... unless I deliberately subject myself to an outside force, such as music.