R
Rocinante
Guest
Reading some threads here it is clear that there is confusion/disagreement about what these terms mean. Can someone clarify the issue?
- Status
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I can not believe there is confusion over these terms.
But, here many terms are tossed around as if they are objective truths. This is to be expected when in a philosophy forum with a supernatural emphasis on it.
If one were asking what these terms mean in a non superatural emphasized setting you would understand why there is so much confusion going on here.
D
danserr
Guest
If something is objective, it is independent of what people think or perceive.
If something is subjective, it is dependent on what people think or perceive.
If something is subjective, it is dependent on what people think or perceive.
G
grannymh
Guest
I agree. When something is objective, it is independent. For example. The human person is worthy of profound respect.
May I have a clarification on “if something is subjective”. It is my understanding that subjective usually refers to the way a person reasons.
Thank you.
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I agree that the human person is worthy of profound respect. This is why I remain an agnostic.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
May you elaborate, please? I’m a bit confused.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Dear Marc,
I am confused myself, and did not mean to state my thoughts rigidly and realize I am if you will allow me, to talk “out loud” about the thoughts I have when reading these things and thinking more deeply about them.
I am not sure what caused your confusion Marc, but I am sure I must have been unclear.
I worked too many hours the last few days to be sane enough to reply.
D
danserr
Guest
Subjective- dependant on what people think or perceive.
For example, The distinction between being on Mars and not being on Mars is objective, since it is not at all dependant on our beliefs.
The distinction between “here and there” is subjective, since it depends on a persons point of view… (For a person in california, california would be “here” and Ny “there”. While for a person in NY, NY would be “here” and california “there.”
Someone saying “chocolate is delicious” is making a subjective statement, since it depends on what they think. But someone else may not prefer chocolate.
For example, The distinction between being on Mars and not being on Mars is objective, since it is not at all dependant on our beliefs.
The distinction between “here and there” is subjective, since it depends on a persons point of view… (For a person in california, california would be “here” and Ny “there”. While for a person in NY, NY would be “here” and california “there.”
Someone saying “chocolate is delicious” is making a subjective statement, since it depends on what they think. But someone else may not prefer chocolate.
G
grannymh
Guest
It sounds more like a distinction between real and unreal.
However, there are many, many meanings for ojbective.
I
illmatic
Guest
Objective truths apply to everyone and everything.
Subjective truths depend on the individual.
Subjective truths depend on the individual.
R
Rocinante
Guest
ok. obviously I was right about there being confusion and disagreement about these terms. perhaps it is better if these terms are simply avoided so it is clear what anyone means, but if we do want to use them, a distinction between ontology and epistemology may bring some clarity.
how about these definitions? something is ontologically objective if it exists independently of any particular person’s experience and ontologically subjective if it refers to a a specific person’s experience. an inquiry or claim is epistemically objective if it is done in the spirit of scientific disinterest, i.e., that the inquirer is sane, not lying to himself, not biased, etc. A claim or inquiry is epistemically subjective if it is driven by personal interest.
such a distinction between ontology and epistemology is needed for example in talking about my headache. i can make objective claims about it in the spirit of scientific objectivity but my pain is a subjective phenomenon. there also are likely to be objectively measurable goings on in the brain that correspond to the subjective experience of my headache.
rocinante
how about these definitions? something is ontologically objective if it exists independently of any particular person’s experience and ontologically subjective if it refers to a a specific person’s experience. an inquiry or claim is epistemically objective if it is done in the spirit of scientific disinterest, i.e., that the inquirer is sane, not lying to himself, not biased, etc. A claim or inquiry is epistemically subjective if it is driven by personal interest.
such a distinction between ontology and epistemology is needed for example in talking about my headache. i can make objective claims about it in the spirit of scientific objectivity but my pain is a subjective phenomenon. there also are likely to be objectively measurable goings on in the brain that correspond to the subjective experience of my headache.
rocinante
M
Mojoforyeshua
Guest
Usually these terms are used philosophically to describe truth.
Subjective: “I like cookie dough ice cream”
Objective: “Ice cream is cold”
Subjective is about the subject, in this case the subject is myself
Objective is about the object i.e. ice cream.
Subjective: “I like cookie dough ice cream”
Objective: “Ice cream is cold”
Subjective is about the subject, in this case the subject is myself
Objective is about the object i.e. ice cream.
G
grannymh
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
Small suggestion.
Check dictionary usage for subjective and objective. I am using the American Heritage College Dictionary. Before giving my preferred definition, I would like to know which definition others like. Thank you.
R
Rocinante
Guest
but we can also make objective claims about the subject like, the subject’s name is mojo.
T
The_Exodus
Guest
This is not an entirely accurate distinction, since ice cream can only be “cold” in relation to some subject sensing its “coldness.”
The subject/object distinction is best represented, in my opinion, by defining objective as “the way in which a thing exists in itself” or “that which has a mode of existence independent of our mind” or “that which has its own being” and subjective as “the way in which an object exists in the mind” or “the way in which a thing in itself enters into our experience.” Now, it is difficult to give specific examples of something objective, since it is too easy to fall into subjectivity in doing so. This is the error you make here, since by defining ice cream as “cold” you are giving existential properties to ice cream which exist in your mind. To be more accurate, the objective statement you are getting at is “ice cream exists.”
Although it is true that, of anything which exists, in order for us to speak about it, we must make some subjective claims about it (i.e. ice-cream is cold, white, etc.), it must be admitted that the data of the object - i.e. that which exists in itself - effect our senses which, in turn, produces the subjective response. Unless we admit this, we would have to claim that all objects exist because they are thought (i.e. our thought gives objects being), and then there would be no difference between what exists “in reality” and the mind. Knowledge would in fact be nothing other than the intellect unfolding itself, upon itself, since it could not be admitted any external object or datum which determines it.
To speak more generally, what is meant by object is that which determines or enters the subject, while not losing its existence in itself, and what is meant by subject is that which receives the object, while not becoming the object itself, but only insofar as the object is received in the manner of the subjects existence.
T
The_Exodus
Guest
Insofar as a subject is knowing anything, there is subjective ontology involved, whether this is in “science” or anything else.
The point you are driving at is that personal interest seems to indicate “value,” which depends so much on experience and can vary widely, whereas that which depends strictly on “raw” sense data, and does not rely on experience, is free from these problems.
In truth, however, every person is a subject, insofar as it is the person who is doing the sensing. In this respect, every person’s thought it subjective. What is being thought about however, is objective.
The truth of reality, as it were, or what exists in itself, is objective in the sense that it exists whether or not our minds conceive of it as existing. Reality goes on even if we don’t know about it. The truth of our knowledge of said reality, however, is subjective, insofar as all truth is experienced.
Now, I do not mean the vague and general “all truth is subjective” in this, since I believe truth to be the corresponding of the object which exists in itself and the mind which perceives it. I only wish to point out that science is not somehow more or less exempt from the subject/object problem than any other branch of knowledge.
M
Mojoforyeshua
Guest
Exodus- Just tryin to keep it simple 
. Though, yes saying that ice cream exists would be a more obviously objective statement. Though, cold is something that draws heat to itself while something hot is something that expels heat. By that definition, ice cream is indeed cold.
Point made however
. Though, yes saying that ice cream exists would be a more obviously objective statement. Though, cold is something that draws heat to itself while something hot is something that expels heat. By that definition, ice cream is indeed cold.Point made however
- Status