Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Incidentally, even if this poll is fairly new, it’s interesting to note, the symmetry of 1/3-1/3-1/3 between 12 people, with 4-4-4 votes each. If anything can be said at this stage, is, that there is a uniformity in meaning between objective/don’t know/subjective matrix, and even if embryonic in its reach, the grasp represents a fairly predictable start of further possible reach.

May the poll at this point come to this kind of interpretation? I am not trying to pad my argument with this kind of reasoning, but possibly, more than a patent evaluation may be the object(objective) of the poll.

No. That would be again: Subjectivity.

Objectivity is letting the objects “talk”, “speak” (to the subject). Epistemologically, the subject should not be involved, at least in the most possible sense.

Objectivity has also and certainly or likely even basically to do with belief, yes, but just not only. You can try to let the other things (objects) “talk” or “speak” to you; you can try to let them be phenomenons which have nothing to do with you; you can try to observe them by excluding yourself as a subject. And all this can be learned, trained, exercised - more and more -, so that you can become more and more an objectivist, at least in the sense of an objective listener, an objective phenomenolgist, an objective observer, an objective monk, an objective scientist … and so on.

No. A consensus is not really necessary. You can be objective without others, without agreement or consensus. But you have to take in account that others or some of them will indeed disagree. If an Occidental monk, for example, had always considered the consensus, he would have never become the first scientist. And if scientists had always considered the consensus, they would have never had success in the accordingly centuries. They have become less successful because of the fact that they have more and more considered the consensus and become dependend.

What changed was what they called “truth”, but “truth” and “objectivity” do not mean the same. Newton’s physics was “true” till Clausius’ second law (“entropy”) of thermodynamics, in any case till Planck’s constant, Planck’s quantum theory, and Einstein’s (actually Hilbert’s) relativity theory. The “truth” about dynamics and about time changed. Both “truths” are very typical for the Occidental culture. One of the both led to the knowledge that entropy and irreversibility make probabilities and statistics more relevant, more “true”; the other one of the both led to the knowledge that time is more organic than anorganic, more historical than physical, more chronic than mathematical.

So what changed was a pattern of the Occidental way of life, experience, the kind of epistemology, the interpretation of “truth”, also of “subjectivity” and “objectivity”. The cultural goal, aim, target, object came closer.

But all this does not mean that “truth” and “objectivity” were, are and will be the same.

A short model of object and subject.
Events bifurcate reality between confirmation and Experiment. They are by Chance. This led to a belief, which is subjective as a mode of confirmation. And an opportunity to make an Experiment, which is objective.

Equally briefly, where does the confirmation come from, and what is its status of difference from experiment? If it is different from experiment/experience, then what conclusions can be drawn from it, as far as the difference is concerned?

Look at the syntax. A sentence requires a subject, not necessarily an object.

And with Schopenhauer I say that everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject.

Rarely, but then the subject substantially consumes its object.

Subjects have an advantage.

X says: “The Sun rises in the East”.
Y says: “The Earth rotates around its axis once every 24 hours (mean solar time), causing the change of day and night for an observer on the surface”.

Oswald Spengler (translated):

Although quite erudite, he expresses the very reason why science’s ontologies must be revisited and reborn.

The second law of thermodynamics is false. The universe is not winding down to a stop.

Yes. See also here.

With time the differance disappears. The appearent difference, of course.

I think you’re right that objectivity comes out of subjectivity–it is not opposite. It’s like a man color blind to red all of a sudden seeing red and thinking it must b something opposed to color. Subjectivity and objectivity possess opposing characteristics–namely, tendencies towards consensus vs tendencies away from consensus, thereby giving off the illusion of being real vs in the head–but if consciousness and mind are characterized by subjectivity and if objectivity requires consciousness and mind, then objectivity must be a form of subjectivity. Having different characteristics does not make two things opposite.

Is it objectively true that there is a reality?
Yes or no?

Sorry to interject, but was compelled, You are raising the question to the level of the paradoxical. I do not think it has gone that far. But I am unwilling to substantially interject, that would invalidate my excuse for it. It is proximal but distant enough to bring up the point.

There’s also the possibility that it’s like asking if you are an inhaler or an exhaler. Perhaps consciousness is a balancing act of the subjective and objective, and that even when we allow that subjectivity seems primary, we can only hold that thought for so long, we can’t permanently talk ourselves out of playing along with the objective. The soul must breathe.

I would think we’d have to say yes. The brain is hardwire to think so. If objectivity comes out of subjectivity, that doesn’t make the objective false.

Let the paradox sink in. :laughing:

What does it mean that there is or that there is not a reality?
That’s the first question one has to ask.

In order to prove that the concept the word “reality” refers to is a meaningful one, you have to give me an example of something that is reality and something that is not.
It must be a particular of some sort.
You can say that what is not reality is what we expect to happen and what is reality is what happens.
That’s what we mean when we say “what is true (i.e. what will happen) is independent from what one thinks is true (i.e. will happen)”.
For example, I expect that it will be warm in the next couple of days.
That’s not reality. That’s what I think is reality.
Even if I was 100% sure that that’s what’s going to happen, and even if I was more informed than everyone else on Earth, it’s still not reality but merely what I think is reality.
What happens during the next couple of days, whether it is warm or not, is what is reality.
Is that what you mean by reality?
I am pretty sure that’s not the case.
Because if that’s the case then what does the question “is it objectively true that there is a reality?” means?

To say there is a reality is a tautology. To say there is anything is to say that thing exists, but reality by definition exists. To say there is not a reality is meaningless.

Reality is everything around you. The world of Star Wars is not reality.

I mean that even when you verify that the weather is warm by looking outside, feeling the air, etc., that is a subjective experience all the same (it comes from the senses) though it might also count as an objective experience (i.e. seeing a clear blue sky with the sun shining means that objectively there is a clear blue sky with the sun shining).

It means the existence of reality is not a matter of opinion or that it depends on one’s experience which can differ from someone else’s. If the existence of reality is objective, it means it exists for everybody whether they experience it that way or not.