To the objectivites

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

To the objectivites

Postby Guide » Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:10 pm

Expressionistic sketch on the most commonplace uses of the word objectivity as a stimulus for further comments

If you start from what we all, roughly, agree on in daily life, there is a kind of realm of facts (opinions about phenomena). Aristotle calls that, so far as I know he is the first to consciously raise the issue, endoxa or "common sense" (not to be confused with the term used in the context of his doctrine of sense data), the Catholics call this "the general opinion of mankind". From this region, one can build up with the repeatable experiment idea, e.g., the Royal Society and Boyle. In this way, scientific results get the name "objective" (ergo, scientific "facts").

On the other hand, when one considers the slight differences of perception from human to human, one comes soon to the idea of subjectivity in another sense. Then one comes to think of all humans in comparison to some other creature. At length, to the Kantian problem: the conditions of any being having experience.

Ergo, there is here, an extra problem of the way "objectivity" is being used. As over and against reliability for a community (because history, in contrast to "science", deals in unique events that can not be repeated, but often of great significance, either legally or culturally) . And, then, as over and against different direct uptakes of the reliable thing.
Guide
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: To the objectivites

Postby surreptitious75 » Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:27 am

Objectivity ultimately reduces to subjectivity but it is called objectivity in order to emphasise a very specific distinction
Namely that when inter subjective consensus is combined with the rigour of the scientific method it becomes objective
This is to separate it from any other applications of subjective all of which are significantly less rigorous by comparison
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: To the objectivites

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:16 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Objectivity ultimately reduces to subjectivity but it is called objectivity in order to emphasise a very specific distinction
Namely that when inter subjective consensus is combined with the rigour of the scientific method it becomes objective
This is to separate it from any other applications of subjective all of which are significantly less rigorous by comparison

The above are relative objectivity but they comes in degrees.

I don't think there is disagreement scientific theories has the highest degree of objectivity, say 90/100 due to the system and rigor applied.
On the other extreme we can rate the objectivity of a beauty contest as say 30/100.
A court ruling may have an objectivity of say 70/100 depending on which court in from which country.
An objective test score may be rated at 70/100.
Artistic sports winners scores are objective but could be rated with a 50/100 reliability.

All the above is reducible to subjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus.

Theists will claim 100% pure objectivity for their God but the fact is such a proposition is an impossibility. As such, this 100% pure objectivity as claimed by theists is rubbish since it is not supported by empirical evidence, not a possibility and irrational.
Nonetheless the idea of a 100% pure objective God is very useful and effective for psychological needs.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: To the objectivites

Postby Guide » Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:31 pm

“Objectivity ultimately reduces to subjectivity but it is called objectivity in order to emphasise a very specific distinction Namely that when inter subjective consensus is combined with the rigour of the scientific method it becomes objective This is to separate it from any other applications of subjective all of which are significantly less rigorous by comparison”


What are we supposed to think when we hear of “the scientific method”? Of what natural historians do? E.g., observing a bird in the wild? Or, is it what physicists do? E.g., imagining things and trying to get math to fit their imaginings, such as the key concept of modern mathematical physics, the normative notion of inertial reference frames (which refers one to a non-existent idealized vacuum space). Or, is it applying schema or systems of taxonomic distinction to things observed, that is, doing biology (so-called "life science"), talking about life? And then, under various assumed theoretical assumptions such as the bizarre notion that kinds of things are not real, but rather, as Weber calls them “ideal types”, informing us as to what the thing is meant to be (by "telos", as what is posited, as working method, for the sake of the science's operations, but, to be sure, nothing objective.).

Or, is all this “subjective”, ergo, is the essence of the human being subjectivity, which, perhaps, means ‘anthroprmicism’?

Is the distinction between “intersubjectivity” and something else, human (brought forth by humans)? Are humans human (one animal alongside others, with the mysterious power of "reason", whatever that may be)? Is subjectivity a name for being human? Do “intersubjective” phenomena exist in the “object”? Is the object a name for God? Such that one explains something unclear, the existing life of “subjects” which we all experience daily, with something less clear, god or the “object”?

Do we here, have a specific understanding of what the senses are? Of how we see specific things, substances, a tree, the sky, a murder, rather than a supposed region of heterogeneous “matter” or mass? Are the senses supposed to be non-human? And so forth… (for other questions worthy of our attention then follow and palpitate before our quivering minds).

It seems to me, I fear, that only by recourse to an exploiting of the desire for simple formulas which avoid thinking through the difficulties does the state compulsory education succeed in bringing these views to vehement belief in the ordinary citizen (a "dogmatic slumber" in new sense). As it stands for the thinking part of the community, we are in the midst of the labyrinth of the morning door of thought.
Last edited by Guide on Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guide
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: To the objectivites

Postby Meno_ » Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:54 pm

Not necessarily is reduction the lazy man's way to dealing with complexity.
A more relevant factor is signification. against the threat of loss of memory.
History is very general object to signal and contain the most relevant channels of recovery of specific contents , whereupon a current recovery of channels become reactivated.
This is, per example the reason why, reactionaries pull in the most reasonable approach, lest they irreparably forget the reason d'etre for the existence of God.
Too many people have been blinded by the now mythos' signification of a nihilistic god, who is beyond evaluation. The god particle will never ever be found , for that matter.

Such re-interpretation may have the most pull, reasonable or not.
In my opinion, unreasonable assumptions lead not necessarily the various interpretations between sense and non sense, between sense as data Inn the sense Kant prefigured common sense, because more than anything , he tried to complete a nexus between phenomenon as objective Preception and it's nouminal emergence.

But again , it's a matter of interpretation.
Last edited by Meno_ on Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: To the objectivites

Postby Guide » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:04 pm

Yes, but Meno. Firstly, I did not speak of the "lazy", this is no matter of lack of vigor and commitment or even decades of study and comprehensive erudition. The goggling brain must also have minute powers, essential powers, to grasp the simple as a questioning step. Ergo, not history, not to remember some history of cities, empires, some wars, some political tricks and Hobbseian cruelty, Jacob Bukhardt's peasants and commoners, their lives hidden yet! Rather, to remember (that "remembrance" which is "rather preferred"), what it means, is to grasp the simple, the αιτία ("cause"/"reason")= the eidos, which is here now, the morning window itself. To trawl fiercely amidst what is most telling and the worthy promise for thought.
Guide
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: To the objectivites

Postby Meno_ » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:11 pm

Guide wrote:Yes, but Meno. Firstly, I did not speak of the "lazy", this is no matter of lack of vigor and commitment or even decades of study and comprehensive erudition. The goggling brain must also have minute powers, essential powers, to grasp the simple as a questioning step. Ergo, not history, not to remember some history of cities, empires, some wars, some political tricks and Hobbseian cruelty, Jacob Bukhardt's peasants and commoners, their lives hidden yet! Rather, to remember (that "remembrance" which is "rather preferred"), what it means, is to grasp the simple, the αιτία ("cause"/"reason")= the eidos, which is here now, the morning window itself. To trawl fiercely amidst what is most telling and the worthy promise for thought.




Yes, but that reason is the issue, whether it is prior and/or intended to make sense connectively toward some object, one of the most important objecticrs being, Being, as against mere existence.

The actual content is not the issue because it is primarily the retention of the flow or causitive structure that matters in recall, irrespective of the relative value of the typical content.

Objectives cam be deceiving, as the evil genius so rightly pointed out, it is too sensational to point to the actual sanctity of a cruel and sudden reversal. This is why I always thought Nietzhe intended a contradictory fallacy if not an out an out paradox .
Last edited by Meno_ on Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4631
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: To the objectivites

Postby Guide » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:19 pm

The primordial "phusis", "what comes forth", as the thing that becomes an object of reason, is there without the "why" of "reason", it "is". And yet, it was already thought over and against nomos and techne. The already names being. Each part names being. Being is. Future is, past is, time is. The things "there" "is".

This is why I always thought Nietzsche intended a contradictory fallacy if not an out an out paradox .


However, amidst the sworl of the abyss which is raging over the planet, casting the opaqueness of its vest of shadow, Heidegger responds: let be.
Guide
 
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Artimas, Baidu [Spider]