Zensunni
Raro recte, numquam incerte
That happens to me too sometimes.
-
OK, it's on.
Is objectivity subjective?
- Thread starter Jchazard
- Start date
CLOfriendOSE
Active Member
- Local time
- Today 12:40 AM
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 103
I saw the "Chair" example and had to respond.
Can one objectively see a chair?
I can not.
Why?
First ask:
What is a chair?
Are there not infinitely many possible chairs?
Are there not infinitely many possible ways to use a chair?
Is not, then, chair a simplification of concepts into a word.
Yet
One person can see chair, and another can see an object made of wood, fashioned together in the way it is, in that moment, adorned with a cushion of a certain fabric.
Would not, then, the second person be more objective about the chair.
And then that person who sees the chair as a living blueprint, when standing next to someone more knowledgeable who says "The chair is made of of these elements in this general struture" would not this be more objectively viewing the chair -
as if mentally generating an interactive blueprint which can zoom into an even more objective view of the existence of the chair?
Could this not go on forever? A philosopher of metaphysics could probably interfere now, to discuss the energy of the chair,
as matter is energy,
and the effects of the energy of the universe into bringing this chair into existence at this point
in relation to the energy of the owner of the chair,
in relation to the energy of the city, to the energy of the world,
to the energy of the star that governs this solar system's existence.
And would he not struggle with this infinitely complicated problem objectivity as presented him?
Could one, who has so scrutinized the chair, give an objective view of the chair?
If objectivity, the highest form of truth, proclaims that it is the "more real" answer, what does this mean?
What is less real?
Is this all simply a derivative of the concept of "realness"?
Realness, being a gradient of things "real" opposed to "unreal".
If everybody has their own perceptions, that are infinitely complicated, and the sum of all perceptions experienced by a person (qualia) generate the reality of their existence,
is it possible to have real and unreal as a category when dealing with truth?
Would it not be more akin to categories of "perceived" and "unknown"?
Can we ever know the unknown? Experience both sides of a coin? Be both light and dark?
To me, the matter becomes theological at this point.
No human can be objective or claim to know truth
since no human can ever claim to have an infinite understanding of our so-called reality.
TLDR:
In my opinion, the idea of a "true knowledge" does not fall into a realm of existence. The real is infinite, and the unreal is infinite, so objectivity is the same as subjectivity.
Can one objectively see a chair?
I can not.
Why?
First ask:
What is a chair?
Are there not infinitely many possible chairs?
Are there not infinitely many possible ways to use a chair?
Is not, then, chair a simplification of concepts into a word.
Yet
One person can see chair, and another can see an object made of wood, fashioned together in the way it is, in that moment, adorned with a cushion of a certain fabric.
Would not, then, the second person be more objective about the chair.
And then that person who sees the chair as a living blueprint, when standing next to someone more knowledgeable who says "The chair is made of of these elements in this general struture" would not this be more objectively viewing the chair -
as if mentally generating an interactive blueprint which can zoom into an even more objective view of the existence of the chair?
Could this not go on forever? A philosopher of metaphysics could probably interfere now, to discuss the energy of the chair,
as matter is energy,
and the effects of the energy of the universe into bringing this chair into existence at this point
in relation to the energy of the owner of the chair,
in relation to the energy of the city, to the energy of the world,
to the energy of the star that governs this solar system's existence.
And would he not struggle with this infinitely complicated problem objectivity as presented him?
Could one, who has so scrutinized the chair, give an objective view of the chair?
If objectivity, the highest form of truth, proclaims that it is the "more real" answer, what does this mean?
What is less real?
Is this all simply a derivative of the concept of "realness"?
Realness, being a gradient of things "real" opposed to "unreal".
If everybody has their own perceptions, that are infinitely complicated, and the sum of all perceptions experienced by a person (qualia) generate the reality of their existence,
is it possible to have real and unreal as a category when dealing with truth?
Would it not be more akin to categories of "perceived" and "unknown"?
Can we ever know the unknown? Experience both sides of a coin? Be both light and dark?
To me, the matter becomes theological at this point.
No human can be objective or claim to know truth
since no human can ever claim to have an infinite understanding of our so-called reality.
TLDR:
In my opinion, the idea of a "true knowledge" does not fall into a realm of existence. The real is infinite, and the unreal is infinite, so objectivity is the same as subjectivity.
Jordan~
Prolific Member
Can one objectively experience that which is called a chair?
I would make a distinction between sensation - the experience of the thing called the chair - and perception - the interpretation of that experience that leads us to call its origin a chair.
I don't know, however, that the former is objective, as it may be the case that it's subject to influence by perception. We know, for example, that we experience the same taste differently depending on factors irrelevant to the chemical composition of the thing being tasted - the same thing branded differently will taste different to us. Or perhaps it doesn't actually taste different, but we interpret the same taste as being different because that's what we expect - the difference is in perception rather than in sensation.
I would make a distinction between sensation - the experience of the thing called the chair - and perception - the interpretation of that experience that leads us to call its origin a chair.
I don't know, however, that the former is objective, as it may be the case that it's subject to influence by perception. We know, for example, that we experience the same taste differently depending on factors irrelevant to the chemical composition of the thing being tasted - the same thing branded differently will taste different to us. Or perhaps it doesn't actually taste different, but we interpret the same taste as being different because that's what we expect - the difference is in perception rather than in sensation.
Octavian Starr
Member
- Local time
- Yesterday 9:40 PM
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 30
Can we decide objectively that something fits a given definition?
If someone gives me a definition for a square that states that a square is
only two-dimensional, I can state that a given three-dimensional object is not a square completely objectively.
If someone gives me a definition for a square that states that a square is
only two-dimensional, I can state that a given three-dimensional object is not a square completely objectively.
rattymat
Active Member
I would define Extroversion and Introversion in this manner:
Extroversion: Greater involvement in the reality outside the mind.
Introversion: Greater involvement in the reality within the mind.
Let it be understood that in both introversion and extroversion, one cannot escape the reality of the mind; extroversion simply attaches its mind more so to the reality external to it.
Objectivity and subjectivity seem irrelevant to introversion and extroversion. A human is by definition a subject, and all of its experiences are thus subjective, including its experience of the objects outside of it self. Sure, an accumulative database of objects enables more information to be processed; but that process is done through a subject.
Perhaps the answer is this: the more limited the perspective is, the more unjust the perspective is. Limitation does not make it more subjective, but because the perspective accounts for less data; it is less justified (more inaccurate).
Extroversion: Greater involvement in the reality outside the mind.
Introversion: Greater involvement in the reality within the mind.
Let it be understood that in both introversion and extroversion, one cannot escape the reality of the mind; extroversion simply attaches its mind more so to the reality external to it.
Objectivity and subjectivity seem irrelevant to introversion and extroversion. A human is by definition a subject, and all of its experiences are thus subjective, including its experience of the objects outside of it self. Sure, an accumulative database of objects enables more information to be processed; but that process is done through a subject.
Perhaps the answer is this: the more limited the perspective is, the more unjust the perspective is. Limitation does not make it more subjective, but because the perspective accounts for less data; it is less justified (more inaccurate).