Subjectivity versus Objectivity

Any sentence can be meaningful if you give it some meaning.

You are comparing an imagination (the imagined state of reality) against other imaginations (those that reflect what other people believe is true.)

Is that what you’re saying?

Yes. But that does not change the fact that that state of reality is in fact an imagination that was generated by you.

When you watch a movie or play a video game you forget about the fact that it is only a simulation, right? You start believing it is a reality, right? But that does not change the fact that it is not reality.

Yes. But there are people who take words literally. As a consequence, they deny that what we say is true is merely our opinion about what is true.

You can. That’s what most of us do anyways.

Let’s see. Earlier you said:

Basically, you denied that “what exists” is the same as “what one thinks exists”.

Yes. Our predictions can turn out to be correct. However, before the event that we are trying to predict happens, the correctness of our prediction is measured in relation to what happened in the past.

It is meaningless if you take it literally.

It is not. The meaning of the first statement is the same as that of the second. That’s my point. But not everyone sees it this way. Moreover, it’s not always the case . . .

What people mean when they say “truth is independent from what anyone thinks” is that “truth is dependent on evidence”.
Interestingly, evidence is subject-dependent, but that’s not a problem.

The point is that you can have thoughts that are not backed up by evidence i.e. thoughts that are nothing more than wishful thinking.

We all are subjective anyway (but that does of course not necessarily mean that we all are subjectivists). So when I say “I am an objectivist”, I just mean that the objective part of my inner subjective/objective dualism is above average (whatever that means :slight_smile: ).

Continuing my response to gib.
PART I

Yes, you can put it that way.

Yes, I know. We say that dreams are not real all of the time. And we make a legitimate point by doing so. However, at the same time, we say that dreams are real because they are something that we experience. And we also make a legitimate point when we do so. The question that I am interested in is what exactly is the difference between the two kinds of real? Why do we say that dreams are unreal rather than real? What causes us to do so? And why do we say that dreams are also real rather than unreal? What causes us to do so?

One of the reasons why we say that dreams are unreal is to highlight our observation that events that occur in a dream do not have the same real life consequences that events that occur when you are awake do. They can have the exact same consequences in a dream but their consequences in real life are usually very different, in fact, negligible. For example, if you kill someone in a dream the police might be after you. Just like in real life. But when you wake up, no police will be after you.

The word “unreal” in this particular case applies to our assumptions regarding the events that take place in wakeful consciousness that are based entirely on the contents of one’s dream. If someone dies in your dream that does not mean that he will be dead when you wake up. In other words, the probability that he will be dead when you wake up is nil. That’s what we mean when we say that dreams are unreal.

When we say that dreams are real, on the other hand, what we want to say is that the assumption that people in general have dreams or that this or that person had or will have this or that dream is backed up by evidence. Nothing else. It always comes down to assumptions.

In my experience, people who initiate this questioning of subjectivity versus objectivity, who present it as such a dichotomy are usually seeking to escape reality.

In their presentation the subjectivist is somebody who thinks that their subjective experience of reality is what best approximates reality, or simply what reality is (for them). In turn they present the objectivist as someone who knows about what reality is and who proposes that an agreement about what this reality is exists among all (sane) people.
Both are effectively solipsists in this scenario or let’s say the idea is a solipsism shared among all humans (or even rocks, for the apostles of self valuing).

It is quite obvious that the people have different definitions for “subjectivity” and “objectivity”. The number of subjectivists is very much larger than the number of objectivists. It is impossible to get those required definitions in a discussion (1) between subjectivists and (2) between the many subjectivists and the few objectivists.

Being the subjectivist you can always agree to disagree and being evasive is a virtue among the effeminate. So that’s why most people will choose the “It’s all cool, man, it’s all just an opinion, man.” option.
But, there comes a point where the masses become irritated with all the most extreme looney cases among them who demand equal air time or even more air time with their subjective opinions and that’s when they cry for more objectivism. Objectivism for them means that an authority figure(s) sets boundaries for right opinions.

People are in their lives much more often subjective than objective with their assessment of something and why wouldn’t they. It’s their life which depends on evaluating something in accordance with their needs.
Objectivity helps with this decision making, it provides a more accurate evaluation of reality in particular longterm consequences but ultimately the decision is always based on what is good for us as a subject, or what we deem to be good.

So what is a subjectivist and an objectivist?
Does the subjectivist denounce the validity of trying to be objective in an assessment of reality?
Does the objectivist not ultimately consider his subjective preferences and needs when making decisions? Are they universal?

The goal of an objectivist is to just not consider his subjective preferences and needs in order to make decisions. Whether this goal is accomplished is a different question. So, an objectivist should not claim that his decisions are universal. If he claimed this, he would be more a subjectivist than an objectivist. An objectivist needs to be calm, serene. So, it is not easy to be an objectivist. Even saying “I am an objectivist” is not easy, if one is a real objectivist. An objectivist can never be sure whether he really is an objectivist or not. So, “being an objectivist” is more like “becoming an objectivist”. It is easier to be a subjectivist, although a subjectivist has a similar problem with his self-referentiality, because he too has senses and a brain, and it is not easy to deny that there are objects.

Everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject, but in order to know, to decide what this object exactly is, there must be such an object and not only a subject (regardless whether the object is merely in the brain of the subject or really there [in the world]).

The subject/object dichotomy is a relatively old problem of epistemology. I believe that it is unsolvable.

It is likely impossible to be an absolute subjectivist or an absolute objectivist. So, it is likely that there are merely relative subjectivists and merely relative objectivists.

Do you mean to not exclusively consider his subjective preferences when making his decisions or do you mean to not consider his subjective preferences?

Because objective inquiry is always detached from making decisions. It’s about understanding the phenomenon at hand.
A judgement is always subjective but of course it’s not necessarily based on only very narrow-minded considerations.

For some Europeans there exists a desire to be objective in their judgement of others or in other words a sense of fairness, of truthfulness which must be fulfilled. This sense can be misdirected and exploited by hypocritical cheats and liars.

I think we will agree that there is no clear cut distinction between objectivists and subjectivists. It is a matter of degrees. This is because objectivity is measured by the degree to which one’s judgments are informed by what happened in the past. And higher degree of objectivity isn’t necessarily better than lower degree of objectivity. It depends on many things among them one’s needs. Sometimes, being objective is an overkill. Not all truth is relevant.

So “Apples are fruit,” is meaningless unless we give it meaning?

Yes, that’s how meaning works. You have to use your imagination in order to conceptualize the meanings of terms. If I use the word “apple” in a sentence, you have to image the idea of an apple in order to understand the meaning of the word.

I don’t think I’ve ever mistaken a video game for reality. We get emersed in games, and sometimes metaphorically we say that it becomes reality for us, but if this were literally true–for example if I were playing Call of Duty–I’d probably shit my pants (getting shot at is hella scary).

Besides, I thought you were the one arguing that reality is whatever we believe it is. So believing the video game is reality does change the fact that it is not reality (according to you).

Not sure I get the relevance of that to what I said.

Excellent! :smiley:

These are subtly different. “Independent of what anyone thinks” means everybody. “One” means a particular individual. ← That individual is the child in this case, and that Santa Clause doesn’t exist is true according to me, a different individual.

In terms of what it means, yes. And potentially in reality too.

This is true.

How else is one supposed to take it?

Meaning of X = meaning of Y
Meaning of X = meaningless
Ergo: meaning of Y = meaningless

^ Basic syllogism.

Or is this an instance where it is not always the case? So you brought up an example to make a point, but the example you brought up doesn’t apply in this case.

No, what people mean is that truth refers to reality and not people’s thoughts on reality. That might imply the existence of evidence, but it may not. Many people believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Usually what we mean is that dreams are real as dreams (i.e. fabrications in our heads), but when we say they’re not real, we mean the things we see in our dreams don’t exist in the real world.

That’s true. In fact, this is what we do for any experience we have for which a later experience invalidates it–that is, when a later experience can’t possibly be real unless the previous experience is unreal. This is where we get the idea of “imaginary” things, or “mental” things. The mind cannot process two or more contradictory or incompatible experiences, so it selects one (usually the most recent, or the one with the most evidence) and the rest are regarded as “only mental”.

True.

I agree that what we say is real or unreal is based on assumptions (or is an assumption), but I don’t think that means that what we say refers to those assumptions; it’s just backed by those assumptions.

No. We already gave it a meaning.

That’s fine.

Yes, we don’t forget reality to such an extent. But we do forget it to a smaller extent. For example, we often forget that we have to do this or that (say, I don’t know, laundry) because these activities are irrelevant in the context of video games. So when you quit playing video games you go “oh shit, I forgot to do the laundry!”

My point is that decontextualization (taking things out of context or quite simply ignoring certain aspects of reality) can make you forget about the fact that it is you who’s ignoring these aspects of reality and not reality that lacks them.

Truth isn’t independent from human judgment.
If we say so it’s for the sake of convenience and not because we mean it literally. Unless we’re not so bright.
Truth is a product of human judgment.
Specifically, it is a product of human reasoning and by reasoning I mean the proces by which we choose what to assume regarding the unknown (i.e. something we haven’t experienced.)
There is an infinite number of ways to reason but there is only one that has evolved in humans and that has persisted through time.
And that’s reasoning based on evidence.
Hume says that induction is a custom.
I support his view.

You can take it to mean that what you think is true is different from what others think is true.

You can also take it to mean that what is true depends on evidence and not on what anyone thinks is true. Thoughts and evidence being two different things.

That’s a good way to ignore what I am saying i.e. to misunderstand me.

You are now stepping into the territory of non-sense. If there is no evidence that something exists how can you know that it exists? Unless you simply imagine that it exists?
Simply repeating “but if there is no evidence that it exists it does not mean that it does not exist” is stupid.
Yes, it is true, but that’s merely because our assumptions are inescapably fallible.
Whatever you think, no matter how certain you are, you might be wrong.
The point is that we determine what exists and what does not based on whatever evidence we have.
This is why I can say that God does not exist.
What is my evidence that God does not exist?
The totality of my personal experience is my evidence that God does not exist.

Yes, but that is not sufficiently precise.

My point is that words such as real and unreal apply only to assumptions. An assumption is said to be real not something mystical.

Idealistically said, an objectivist excludes all kinds of subjectivity. That is difficult to do. So: Realistically said, an objectivist tries to exclude all kinds of subjectivity. An objectivist is comparable to a monk. Monks were the first scientists. Excluding all kinds of subjectivity is a huge task.

A judgement can but does not have to be based on subjectivity alone; mostly it is based on both subjectivity and objectivity and sometimes even on objectivity alone. In the vast majority of cases, when it is based on both, the question whether it is more based on subjectivity than on objectivity or vice versa depends on the kind and the form of the respective culture.

They are likely confusing objectivity with fairness and also with truthfulness. All three are not the same. But to someone who is decadent, nihilistic, the meanings of objectivity, fairness and truthfulness are very close or even identical. These decadents are, philosophically said, influenced more by ethics (high degree of subjectivity, low degree of objectivity) than by logic (high degree of objectivity, low degree of subjectivity). They are no objectivists. Objectivists are more like monks who live for only one goal: excluding subjectivity by doing exercices.

Yes, and this happens currently more than ever before.

I wouldn’t define objectivity as something that excludes something else (such as subjectivity.) Exclusion is negative. It makes things simpler. When taken to its extreme, the way monks do, the result is literally nothing. Instead, I’d define objectivity as the degree to which one includes what happened in the past (you can also say evidence) into one’s judgment. Subjective factors such as personal preferences must be minimized, that is true, but on its own that’s not enough.

When you judge something then you do this in relation to an ideal, like a notion of good and bad in a specific context.
So when you say that a judgement itself can be objective then I presume that you see some ideals or an ideal to be independent from a thinking subject, to be “out there” as a guiding principle.

Or are you thinking in terms of laws of nature and deriving ideals for subjects, for people, to be ultimately based on them?

It requires a certain level of self-awareness and environmental-awareness and self-in-relation-to-environment-awareness to begin thinking more objectively.

You need to understand your self, your own biases, your own needs, to take them out of the equation when evaluating the environment more objectively.

Let’s say I was a humanist of sorts and I’d try to base my decisions on what is good for humanity. At first glance someone could think that I am now being objective because I am not considering myself. But what I am considering is my ideals of what is good for humanity. That I have even chosen to base my decisions on what is good for humanity and not basing it on negroes or on all organic life or all matter is already a specific ideal.

This is why I can’t see how a judgement is not connected to a subject and the subject’s ideals, preferences, tastes.

However that doesn’t mean that all judgements are equal in terms of understanding reality. The self-awareness of the subject is not complete and is also influenced by how reality at large is understood, more nuanced or less. In this way the self-awareness of the subject grows with understanding the surrounding environment.

Nevertheless, in my view, it’s not life-affirming to try and diminish the subject. The subject’s strength must grow as the subject’s capability for objectivity grows.

Yes, knowing that the validity of these “laws of nature” can more or less only be temporary. The more exercises, ecperiences, experiments, observations, objectivity are done, the closer comes the goal (aim).

It takes time …

It needs calm …

We did? When? Was there a conference? Did the authorities formally declare “From this day forth, ‘Apples are fruits,’ will mean such-and-such-and-such”? Did they not get around to “X is true independently of what anyone thinks”? I mean, the list of all possible expressions which can have a meaning or not must be huge, so I’m guessing they didn’t get around to it yet.

I agree with this for the most part (I disagree on the point about why we speak of truth as being independent of human judgement, but that’s a digression). My take on it is as follows:

Saying that truth is a product of human judgement is like saying Luke Skywalker is a product of George Lucas’s imagination. This is true, but only in the context of the real world. In the world of Star Wars, George Lucas doesn’t exist. He hasn’t written himself into the story. And Luke Skywalker isn’t dependent on him for his existence. Luke Skywalker imagines himself (we can presume) as being just as independent as any other character in the story.

The human mind is like this in that it invents a narrative (metaphorically speaking). It writes a story beginning with the material given to it by the senses (which is also like a story being told to it by the universe). It makes judgements on what it senses and invents plot elements to the story which we call beliefs, knowledge, theories, assumptions, predictions, etc. All such judgements and truths, therefore, are dependent on us for their reality. However, in the context of the story we’re writing, these truths are independent of us. We don’t say “2 + 2 = 4 because I think so.” We say “2 + 2 = 4 independently of what I think.” We say this only because that is the truth in the story we’re writing.

Most people just live in the story. And it’s not wrong per se. It’s just the default way we live. You and I, who recognize the dependence of truths and judgements on human thought, are simply writing a different story, but a story nonetheless. We have not risen out of the story to a higher truth, we have simply switched to a different story.

So when you ask me whether Santa Clause’s existence is mind-dependent or not, I cannot answer that without knowing whose story we’re talking about. I will often fall back on the default story (the one most people are writing in which Santa Clause’s existence–whether real or not–doesn’t depend on anyone’s mind) since I assume that’s almost always the context in which we speak. It’s the context in which “independent of what anyone thinks” is meaningful and makes sense. But if we are explicit about the fact that we’re talking in the context of my subjectivist story, then sure I’ll agree that Santa Clause’s (non-)existence depends on my assumptions.

But those don’t mean the same thing as “X is true independently of what anyone thinks,” (though they might follow from it). The latter statement is only meaningless in an idealist/subjectivist context (or as I’d prefer to say, incoherent), but I must assume that the one uttering it, if he’s being serious, doesn’t mean it in an idealist/subjectivist context.

I’ll bet I misunderstand you. Let’s fix that, shall we?

You said: “independently of what anyone thinks” is meaningless. ← True or false?

You said: “independently of what anyone thinks” means the same as “that which some person thinks exists”. ← True or false?

Talk to those who believe it, not me.

Or faith, or reason, or authority…

So what do you say to a theist? That he’s referring to the land of Honalee?

Care to add that extra touch of precision?

I’m being a stickler on language here. You can say real and unreal “apply” to assumptions (though I still disgaree that they only apply to assumptions), but not “refer”. To “refer” is to focus on a thing as that which you are speaking about. I might have the assumption that my car is real, but when I say “My care needs a wash,” I am referring to my car, not my assumption in my head. But if I were to say “I hold an assumption in my head that my car needs a wash,” then I’d be referring to my assumption.

When we hold assumptions, we regard them as true (i.e. real), but there needn’t be any assumptions when we look at an object and take it to be real. If we then think to ourselves “that object is real,” that thought could be said to be an assumption, but that thought needn’t be there just to look at the object and see it as real. Seeing objects as real is not an assumption, it’s nature of experience.

Sometimes, it appears as if you are taking the piss out of me. That’s not a fun thing to perceive.

It is me who interprets whether what you’re saying has any meaning or not. And if you said something like “Apples are fruit” I’d assume you are saying something meaningful.

I understand that.

The problem occurs when people deny that truth depends on human judgment. This creates social disagremeent which is a kind of social friction. A peaceful way to resolve it would be to 1) adopt one and the same method of reasoning and 2) find a way to join our experiences. This would either require that they present some kind of evidence that would change my opinion or accept that truth depends on human judgment.

What does “truth is independent from what anyone thinks” mean to you?

So far, it appears to me that you think that “truth is independent from what anyone thinks” means “we ignore that truth is dependent on what someone thinks”.

It is true if you interpret it literally as in something that is beyond our experience. Whatever refers to something that is beyond experience does not refer to something that can be experienced. And that’s what I mean when I say that it is meaningless: it does not refer to something that can be experienced.

It is true in the sense that if you interpret “truth is independent from what anyone thinks” to mean “the more evidence you have the better your judgment is” then that statement is perfectly compatible with the statement “truth depends on human judgment”.

I never said that they “refer” to assumptions. I said that they “apply” to assumptions. They describe and they categorize assumptions. It is assumptions themselves that “refer” to something and this somethign is something that we have not experienced.

You are not seeing it “as real”. You are merely seeing it. It is only after you see the object that you describe it as real. And even then, what you’re really doing is you are describing the assumption that you saw such an object as real.

Agreed. Goethe was right.