Is beauty really subjective or is it objectively determined by God?

[TK421]

Beauty is both objective and subjective. I’m using the word “subjective” here as it is sometimes used in philosophy: something that is experienced by the individual.

St John Paul II greatly expanded the Church’s understanding of beauty to go beyond the objective and into the subjective as well. He focused a great deal of his study on the experiences of man in order to perceive God. That is: through our subjective experiences we are able to attain objective truths. Adam, seeing that he was unlike all the other animals, came to understand loneliness. It was also through this experience that he came to realize that his mind was not like that of the animals, but like that of God’s: he was capable of reason. In his first task of naming the animals, he understood his authority over them and his ability to reason.

The various covenants in scripture, starting with that most basic covenant between Adam and God, and leading into the covenant of Christ to his Church, are all understood subjectively. That is: the knowledge and understanding of them is acquired via an experience.

 

[Bahman]

Beauty is subjective since it is related to experience of something meaningful in what we receive namely information from objective word. Information is neither beautiful nor ugly.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Beauty is subjective since it is related to experience of something meaningful in what we receive namely information from objective word. Information is neither beautiful nor ugly.

Well, what is to stop anyone from observing that your claim that “Information is neither beautiful nor ugly,” is just as subjective as your claim about “beauty?”

So your statement adds precisely NOTHING to the discussion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Beauty is both objective and subjective. I’m using the word “subjective” here as it is sometimes used in philosophy: something that is experienced by the individual.

St John Paul II greatly expanded the Church’s understanding of beauty to go beyond the objective and into the subjective as well. He focused a great deal of his study on the experiences of man in order to perceive God. That is: through our subjective experiences we are able to attain objective truths. Adam, seeing that he was unlike all the other animals, came to understand loneliness. It was also through this experience that he came to realize that his mind was not like that of the animals, but like that of God’s: he was capable of reason. In his first task of naming the animals, he understood his authority over them and his ability to reason.

The various covenants in scripture, starting with that most basic covenant between Adam and God, and leading into the covenant of Christ to his Church, are all understood subjectively. That is: the knowledge and understanding of them is acquired via an experience.

I agree with your general point. This separation of subjective and objective as if “subjective” is inherently unimportant or meaningless depends upon a presumption that being a subject of reality is inherently not that significant. However, there is (or could very well be) just as much, if not more, importance and objectivity in being a subject as there is in merely being an object in the world.

Clearly, it would seem, classifying or dissecting objects is a relatively simple endeavor compared to trying to comprehend what it means to be a subject and the significance of that ontology, properly understood. However, just because some endeavor is easier to accomplish, does not make it better or the presumed “correct” or only one.

Sure, neutered from all subjectivity, science quanitifies observable reality and charts the consistencies found there. What science CANNOT do is tell us ANYTHING about the significance or meaning of those consistencies.

The idea of beauty is a reminder that quantifying physical or objective reality is simply inadequate as far as knowing everything about it, if we are serious about uncovering the significance or meaning it holds.

To simply assert that meaning and significance are “unimportant” with regard to physical reality IS to make a statement about meaning or significance – just a profoundly presumptuous and simple-minded one.

 

[esmero]

God is perfect beauty as God is the perfect, superlative form of all positive qualities. As such, there is perfect beauty, the objective standard of beauty, and it’s not “determined” by God, but it IS God.

An easier way to understand this is that beauty is not exactly a pretty face or voice or whatever, but rather the way we feel when we are struck by beauty. We think someone is beautiful because looking at them makes us feel a certain way. This feeling we know and understand as the recognition of beauty. And beauty is fully realized in God. So we can surmise that looking at God, or being in His presence, would make us feel exactly that feeling, with infinite intensity.

As to why some people are more beautiful than others, it just comes down to the particular differences we all have; we all reflect God’s traits in varying arrangements.

As to why what is beautiful changes from person to person, it just comes down to our own ability to perceive beauty in general, to how we’ve been prepped throughout life in relation to it.

 

[inocente]

This separation of subjective and objective as if “subjective” is inherently unimportant or meaningless depends upon a presumption that being a subject of reality is inherently not that significant. However, there is (or could very well be) just as much, if not more, importance and objectivity in being a subject as there is in merely being an object in the world.

The words subjective and objective are not about being a subject or an object:

Subjective = based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions.
Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

*Clearly, it would seem, classifying or dissecting objects is a relatively simple endeavor compared to trying to comprehend what it means to be a subject and the significance of that ontology, properly understood. However, just because some endeavor is easier to accomplish, does not make it better or the presumed “correct” or only one.

Sure, neutered from all subjectivity, science quanitifies observable reality and charts the consistencies found there. What science CANNOT do is tell us ANYTHING about the significance or meaning of those consistencies.

The idea of beauty is a reminder that quantifying physical or objective reality is simply inadequate as far as knowing everything about it, if we are serious about uncovering the significance or meaning it holds.*

You claim that being objective is incompatible with finding meaning, which implies that if God objectively determines beauty then there is no meaning to be found in beauty, which seems a strange thing to claim.

But objective doesn’t equate to meaningless (a bomb exploding in a packed church is an objective event, the number of people it kills and maims is objectively quantifiable, but that doesn’t make it objectively meaningless to the victims and their families). The words subjective and objective are nothing about meaning:

Subjective = based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions.
Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

btw You may want to claim that the music of your sig. band, yon Pink Floyd, is objectively beautiful, but it isn’t, nor is it objectively ugly. That’s based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The words subjective and objective are not about being a subject or an object:

Subjective = based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions.
Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

You claim that being objective is incompatible with finding meaning, which implies that if God objectively determines beauty then there is no meaning to be found in beauty, which seems a strange thing to claim.

Well, no. what it means is that if God injects beauty into an object, the meaningfulness of that beauty is only discernable to subjects - even if we accept only your definitions of subjective and objective.

But objective doesn’t equate to meaningless (a bomb exploding in a packed church is an objective event, the number of people it kills and maims is objectively quantifiable, but that doesn’t make it objectively meaningless to the victims and their families). The words subjective and objective are nothing about meaning:

Subjective = based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions.
Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

Your view is self-refuting. How can anything be meaningful without reference to ends, purposes or intentions, which require subjects to endow objects with meaning.

Ditto with significance. Anything can be significant only to the extent it can be compared to other things in terms of meaningfulness. Objects, in themselves, are not more or less significant. Significance and meaning are qualities that only subjects can endow on objects.

Since God is a subject in the fullest sense of the word, then meaning is endowed on objects by his act of creation and his intentions for those objects. Meaning and significance are then inherent in objects as a result of their being created by a subject to begin with.

If matter just exists as brute fact, there is nothing meaningful or significant residing in it. Which means, ultimately, that your distinction between subjective and objective would make physical reality value neutral with regard to meaning and significance.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is through the subjective nature of our experience of the world that we find beauty. To say that beauty does not exist in the world but only in our subjective experience of the world is to abandon any reason at all why people say (and often agree with each other) that some things are beautiful and others are ugly, or that some things are more beautiful than others. If the experience of beauty were simply subjective, why would one thing be more beautiful than another? Would the appearance of the beautiful and the ugly be merely a hodge-podge of vacillating experiences without rhyme or reason?

 

[Bradski]

Not that everyone will agree, but that again is a matter of subjective differences which can be explained at least in part by prejudice, politics, or unworthy critics of excellence.

Which is it when you disagree? And did you check up on the axe question?

Since God is a subject in the fullest sense of the word, then meaning is endowed on objects by his act of creation and his intentions for those objects.

I see…So when God created/creates everything, as well as the physical attributes of the object, he also includes a ‘degree of beauty’. He makes a decision as to whether it will be aesthetically pleasing or not. This will be ugly, this will be reasonably beautiful etc. And we get, as I said before, this Hierarchy of Beauty (which I asked about but received no comment). Do you really want to run with this?

Because it would probably come as a surprise to Gilmour that he is not picking that chord or bending that string or sustaining that note. That it’s actually God doing it. It’s God imbuing the sound with what He has decided is the appropriate amount of beauty. Odd that…

To say that beauty does not exist in the world but only in our subjective experience of the world is to abandon any reason at all why people say (and often agree with each other) that some things are beautiful and others are ugly, or that some things are more beautiful than others.

If I find something beautiful and you don’t, then who is right? And please, don’t skip this. It’s important. Make the effort to answer at least that one question.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I see…So when God created/creates everything, as well as the physical attributes of the object, he also includes a ‘degree of beauty’. He makes a decision as to whether it will be aesthetically pleasing or not. This will be ugly, this will be reasonably beautiful etc. And we get, as I said before, this Hierarchy of Beauty (which I asked about but received no comment). Do you really want to run with this?

Why would I “run” with that? It isn’t what I said, nor what I had in mind.

It brings to mind a poorly formed version of divine command theory hurriedly tossed together in an awkward attempt to waylay any claim that beauty is more than mere subjective preference.

Because it would probably come as a surprise to Gilmour that he is not picking that chord or bending that string or sustaining that note. That it’s actually God doing it. It’s God imbuing the sound with what He has decided is the appropriate amount of beauty. Odd that…

Well, no, Bradski, if I were to attempt a “simplistic” version of what is going on, I would surmise that God has created certain sounds, captured in Gilmour’s music and vocals, that resonate with the human soul in such a way as to put listeners into touch with the beauty that is integral to the essential nature of Being itself.

If I find something beautiful and you don’t, then who is right? And please, don’t skip this. It’s important. Make the effort to answer at least that one question.

Why would I answer such a malformed question? What difference does it make “who’s right?” Isn’t the important question, “How do we know which idea of beauty most accurately and completely describes what beauty is or most accurately accounts for the idea of beauty in a way that would be recognizable to those genuinely interested in discovering beauty?”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If I find something beautiful and you don’t, then who is right? And please, don’t skip this. It’s important. Make the effort to answer at least that one question.

I am!

Axe me another question.

 

[Bradski]

Why would I “run” with that? It isn’t what I said, nor what I had in mind.

You said:

Meaning and significance are then inherent in objects as a result of their being created by a subject to begin with.

And the subject in question was God. Now if beauty is objective (let’s use a rose as an example) then it must be a property of that rose. Just like the colour, the size and the weight. It’s an objective property inherent in the rose and not dependent on the subjective views of anyone. It doesn’t vary according to who is looking at it, just like the other properties.

Now if God created the rose with the inherent and objective properties of colour, size and weight, then He must be equally responsible for the equally objective property of beauty. Or do you wish to argue that point…? And again, if beauty is an objective property of everything, then there must be a hierarchy of beauty to literally everything. Again I will ask if you agree with that or not.

Well, no, Bradski, if I were to attempt a “simplistic” version of what is going on, I would surmise that God has created certain sounds, captured in Gilmour’s music and vocals, that resonate with the human soul in such a way as to put listeners into touch with the beauty that is integral to the essential nature of Being itself.

Then according to you, He has created those particular sounds as being more beautiful than, for example, Achy Breaky Heart sung at the local pub on Karaoke night. But too easy to compare good music with trash there. How about Wish You were Here to Bach’s cello suite number 1. If beauty is objective, then one must be more beautiful than the other. Do you agree? I’d be keen to know how you’d tell. Leading on to…

Why would I answer such a malformed question? What difference does it make “who’s right?” Isn’t the important question, “How do we know which idea of beauty most accurately and completely describes what beauty is or most accurately accounts for the idea of beauty in a way that would be recognizable to those genuinely interested in discovering beauty?”

Or in other words: ‘Who’s idea of beauty most accurately…etc etc ‘ Or in other words: ‘Who is right?’ It amounts to exactly the same thing.

 

[Bradski]

I am!

If we agree, then you are right. If we disagree, then you are right. It seems you have the call on every claim as regards the beauty of everything.

The thing is, and I’m surprised you haven’t noticed this…everyone else says exactly the same thing.

And if you can find the most responsible, knowledgeable person who you believe has the idea of beauty most accurately and can completely describe what beauty is or most accurately accounts for the idea of beauty then we will have a situation like this:

Bradski: Is this more beautiful than that?
Charles: Yes, I think it is.
Expert: Well, actually, it’s the other one that’s more beautiful.
Charles: Oh. Looks like I was wrong.
Bradski: WTF?

 

[Peter_Plato]

And the subject in question was God. Now if beauty is objective (let’s use a rose as an example) then it must be a property of that rose. Just like the colour, the size and the weight. It’s an objective property inherent in the rose and not dependent on the subjective views of anyone. It doesn’t vary according to who is looking at it, just like the other properties.

Now if God created the rose with the inherent and objective properties of colour, size and weight, then He must be equally responsible for the equally objective property of beauty. Or do you wish to argue that point…? And again, if beauty is an objective property of everything, then there must be a hierarchy of beauty to literally everything. Again I will ask if you agree with that or not.

Well, no, Bradski.

I never claimed beauty was a “property” of the rose. What I am claiming is that the combination of properties that exist together in the rose evince a connection to or resonance with a greater reality within the soul of the subject experiencing the rose. It is by virtue of the essential nature of the subject that the experience triggers a connection within the subject to a deeper reality - a glimpse into the hidden nature of Being itself.

Do you know what resonance is, Bradski?

If an idiophone is near to some object that vibrates at the same pitch, the idiophone can be made to resonate or vibrate at the same pitch without being struck, plucked or strummed.

Melodious sounds are not properties of objects, per se. Neither are the mere vibrations of objects capable of evoking melodious sounds. There is a little undertstood quality about some sounds that evoke a particular response or resonate with the human soul, in a manner similar to the way some vibrating objects resonate with others.

Now you can chalk that up to mere chance or happenstance, but I suspect that just as human beings were purposed towards understanding the universe using our intellects, we are also capable of living in harmony with the deep reality that brought the universe into existence. One of the ways THAT harmony can be realized is by letting the universe or certain aspects of it resonate with us, to “speak” to us in profound ways to the core of our beings.

That, I would suggest is how beauty is to be understood and valued. It is not a property of things so much as the capacity of combinations of properties to evince a profound experience of the deeper reality that is at the core of our being, triggered by our experiences of phenomena in the universe that are capable of doing so - i.e., exhibit the triggering properties we call beauty.

This has an analog in our capacity to relate to some things with our intellects - some objects are comprehensible in the sense that they trigger understanding. Others are beautiful in the sense of triggering a resonating experience of profound awe, appreciation or enjoyment.

Just as it wouldn’t make much sense to “line things up” and rank them from more comprehensible or intelligible to less so, it doesn’t make much sense to do so regarding beauty. Some individuals will be more or less able to comprehend different objects and, likewise, some individuals will be more or less ready to experience resonance with the beauty of certain objects.

I remember walking through the Vatican Art Gallery for hours and hours with my family a few years back. After a time, appreciating the art gave way to sheer exhaustion. Even the greatest beauty may not be appreciable given certain states of the human soul - exhaustion being one, but corruption being another. Which could go a long way to explaining why the beauty of different objects is not appreciated in the same way by different subjects.

Now you might not be able or willing to appreciate what I am saying here, but given that it is late I’ll have to leave things where they stand because I am, at this moment, unable to make them any clearer.

I think you are wrong about viewing beauty as a property of things just like you would be wrong if you insisted “intelligibility” had to be a property of things. We wouldn’t insist that to be objectively “intelligible” there had to exist some property called “intelligibility” that is resident in the things we understand and absent in the things that boggle us. Likewise, this paradigm need not hold with respect to beauty.

 

[inocente]

Well, no. what it means is that if God injects beauty into an object, the meaningfulness of that beauty is only discernable to subjects - even if we accept only your definitions of subjective and objective.

They’re not my definitions, they are the meanings everyone else in the world uses except for you.

Subjective = based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions.
Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

Link any dictionary which says different.

Your attempt to make the words mean something else just doesn’t work. For instance, in the above, a beautiful woman is, by your definition, an object. Nope. According to you, the woman is beautiful because God injected her with beauty, something He presumably omitted to do for plainer women. And men (or “subjects” as you call them), looking at the beautiful woman walking down the street, discern meaningfulness. Yeah right. First thing a man does when looking at a beautiful women is discern meaningfulness.

*Your view is self-refuting. How can anything be meaningful without reference to ends, purposes or intentions, which require subjects to endow objects with meaning.

Ditto with significance. Anything can be significant only to the extent it can be compared to other things in terms of meaningfulness. Objects, in themselves, are not more or less significant. Significance and meaning are qualities that only subjects can endow on objects.

Since God is a subject in the fullest sense of the word, then meaning is endowed on objects by his act of creation and his intentions for those objects. Meaning and significance are then inherent in objects as a result of their being created by a subject to begin with.

If matter just exists as brute fact, there is nothing meaningful or significant residing in it. Which means, ultimately, that your distinction between subjective and objective would make physical reality value neutral with regard to meaning and significance.*

Your private definitions have now led you to call God a subject, which seems a strange thing to say about Almighty God.

The words subjective and objective, as everyone but you use them, are not about meaning or lack of meaning, nor about significance or lack of significance.

Well, no, Bradski, if I were to attempt a “simplistic” version of what is going on, I would surmise that God has created certain sounds, captured in Gilmour’s music and vocals, that resonate with the human soul in such a way as to put listeners into touch with the beauty that is integral to the essential nature of Being itself.

Had to google who Gilmour is, and I see he’s a guitarist with your favorite pop combo. He certainly doesn’t resonate with my human soul in such a way as to put me “into touch with the beauty that is integral to the essential nature of Being itself”. A gushing fan might say that, but that’s the problem with claims that beauty is objective, you have to be a fan to see the Emperor’s new clothes, and you have to argue that the rest of us are not fans because we’re not so discerning. Well nope, we just don’t like 1970’s English dirges . I suggest that if you grew up in a different century, in a different part of the world, you probably wouldn’t either. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Bradski]

What I am claiming is that the combination of properties that exist together in the rose evince a connection to or resonance with a greater reality within the soul of the subject experiencing the rose. It is by virtue of the essential nature of the subject that the experience triggers a connection within the subject to a deeper reality - a glimpse into the hidden nature of Being itself.

I doubt if you’ve read Private Eye. It’s a weekly British satirical magazine. I used to read it many moons ago. One of its regular features is what they called Pseud’s Corner. People send in examples of existential mumbo jumbo and we all have a snigger at the pretentiousness of what they print. No offence, but those first two sentences took me back a few years.

This has an analog in our capacity to relate to some things with our intellects - some objects are comprehensible in the sense that they trigger understanding. Others are beautiful in the sense of triggering a resonating experience of profound awe, appreciation or enjoyment.

If you understand something, that something was already there to understand. The square on the hypotenuse will always equal the sum of the squares on the other two sides. It is a property of a right angled triangle. It is an objective fact. Appreciating that fact (that is, actually understanding that it is true, which can be a little light bulb moment) is different to appreciating (or not) a poem or a painting. There is no ‘light bulb moment’ when valuing an object as to its aesthetic appeal.

And you might note the word ‘appeal’. It’s quite common to use it in matters of aesthetics and for good reason. I don’t think anyone would suggest that Pythagorus’s Theorum is appealing in the same way (as opposed to a theory which could be appealing in that it is the best of those on offer).

Just as it wouldn’t make much sense to “line things up” and rank them from more comprehensible or intelligible to less so, it doesn’t make much sense to do so regarding beauty.

You can certainly line them up as to their degree of difficulty in being understood. You can also line up everyone from those least able to understand something to those most able. But you CANNOT do that as regards aesthetics. But that it what you propose.

I think you are wrong about viewing beauty as a property of things just like you would be wrong if you insisted “intelligibility” had to be a property of things. We wouldn’t insist that to be objectively “intelligible” there had to exist some property called “intelligibility” that is resident in the things we understand and absent in the things that boggle us. Likewise, this paradigm need not hold with respect to beauty.

How did you get around to arguing my case? I’m not the one that is saying that. You are the one that has been saying that beauty is objective - and therefore must be a property of something. It is literally impossible to describe something as having an objective aesthetic value without that value being an objective property of that something. You can say that it’s a combination of properties if you like (its shape and colour and texture) but properties they must be. God given to boot.

 

[Bradski]

English dirges? Sir, you have no taste. But then, each to his own (well, except for Peter).

 

[Bahman]

Well, what is to stop anyone from observing that your claim that “Information is neither beautiful nor ugly,” is just as subjective as your claim about “beauty?”

So your statement adds precisely NOTHING to the discussion.

Seriously!?

 

[Peter_Plato]

They’re not my definitions, they are the meanings everyone else in the world uses except for you.

Subjective = based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions.
Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

Link any dictionary which says different.

Your attempt to make the words mean something else just doesn’t work. For instance, in the above, a beautiful woman is, by your definition, an object. Nope. According to you, the woman is beautiful because God injected her with beauty, something He presumably omitted to do for plainer women. And men (or “subjects” as you call them), looking at the beautiful woman walking down the street, discern meaningfulness. Yeah right. First thing a man does when looking at a beautiful women is discern meaningfulness.

Your private definitions have now led you to call God a subject, which seems a strange thing to say about Almighty God.

The words subjective and objective, as everyone but you use them, are not about meaning or lack of meaning, nor about significance or lack of significance.

The very first dictionary I checked on line gives as its first definition of subjective, the following:

sub·jec·tive (səb-jĕk′tĭv)
adj.
1.
a. Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world: “The sensation of pain is a highly subjective experience that varies by culture as well as by individual temperament and situation” (John Hoberman).
b. Based on a given person’s experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual: admitted he was making a highly subjective judgment.
2. Psychology Not caused by external stimuli.
3. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or complaint perceived by a patient.
4. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
5. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
6. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.
sub·jec′tive·ly adv.
sub·jec′tive·ness, sub′jec·tiv′i·ty (sŭb′jĕk-tĭv′ĭ-tē) n.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Pay attention, Inocente, because words often have more than the “generally accepted by you” meaning. The first definition is very close to the one I am using.

The same thing happens when we look at the word objective. The very first meaning is NOT the one YOU insist is the ONLY possible meaning because it is the only one YOU are familiar with.

ob·jec·tive (əb-jĕk′tĭv)
adj.
1.
a. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality.
b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.
2. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
3. Medicine Relating to or being an indicator of disease, such as a physical sign, laboratory test, or x-ray that can be observed or verified by someone other than the person being evaluated.
4. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.

1. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
2. A thing or group of things existing independent of the mind.
3. Grammar
   a. The objective case.
   b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The primary optical element, such as a lens or mirror, in a microscope, camera, telescope, or other optical instrument, that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.
   ob·jec′tive·ly adv.
   ob·jec′tive·ness n.
   American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

Now, you could do the sane and correct thing and take back what amounts to a scurrilous and poor attempt to dismiss my case or you can continue to insist that you have made an error.

From my past interactions with you on these forums, I doubt the former will happen, which is why you are so much fun to joust with. It is so easy to take apart what you say and point out how parochially narrow and fraught with logical error it is.

It seems to me that we’ve had EXACTLY THIS discussion before and I pointed out your error then with little response. It seems someone does not learn from past mistakes.

Now of course, you can INSIST that you are correct and in the modern world, of which you are a part, ONLY your definitions of subjective and objective exist any more BECAUSE humans have evolved past their primitive past. Go ahead…

 

[Peter_Plato]

They’re not my definitions, they are the meanings everyone else in the world uses except for you.

Subjective = based on personal feelings, tastes and opinions.
Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

Link any dictionary which says different.

philosophypages.com/dy/s9.htm#subj

Subjective: That which depends upon the personal or individual…

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
(iep.utm.edu/objectiv/)

The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.

The perceiving subject can either perceive accurately or seem to perceive features of the object that are not in the object. For example, a perceiving subject suffering from jaundice could seem to perceive an object as yellow when the object is not actually yellow. Hence, the term “subjective” typically indicates the possibility of error.

The potential for discrepancies between features of the subject’s perceptual impressions and the real qualities of the perceived object generates philosophical questions. There are also philosophical questions regarding the nature of objective reality and the nature of our so-called subjective reality. Consequently, we have various uses of the terms “objective” and “subjective” and their cognates to express possible differences between objective reality and subjective impressions. Philosophers refer to perceptual impressions themselves as being subjective or objective. Consequent judgments are objective or subjective to varying degrees, and we divide reality into objective reality and subjective reality. Thus, it is important to distinguish the various uses of the terms “objective” and “subjective.”

.

Note: The Encyclopedia clearly states that there are “various uses of the terms ‘objective’ and ‘subjective,’” implying that there isn’t only one definition accepted “by everyone” as you insist.

Further note that the distinction made in the above quoted article is substantively identical to the one I am using. In fact, the one that you insist is the only possible definition for each word depends upon the above distinction and does not contradict it.

The problem, for you, is that your alleged “only meaning” for each word are not the only possible ones that come from the distinction.