Objectivity and 1st Person Subjectivity

[Qoeleth]

Consider the following statements:
1)“From your point of view, the answer is 4, but objectively, the answer is 5.”- Possible.
2) “From his point of view, the answer is 4, but objectively, the answers is 5.”- Also possible.
3) “From m**y point of view, the answer is 4, but objectively, the answer is 5.”- No one would say that, because if a person thought something else was ‘objectively’ the case, they would necessarily accord their own ‘subjective’ view to match it.

Hence, an ‘objective’ view necessarily seems to match ‘1st person subjective’ view.

Can anyone think of any example, where they hold something objectively to be the case, but believe subjectively something different? e.g. “I know that it is objectively Tuesday, but nevertheless still believe subjectively it to be Wednesday.”

So, if there is a necessary accordance of objective truth and 1st person subjective truth- does this mean that ‘objectivity’ is basically meaningless?

 

[Gidras05]

Can’t we look at it that the subjective first person is simply correct in aligning it with the objective?

The fact is that there has to be a specific definition of objective here. If objective is something that has been proven x amount of times to an x amount of subjective views, then it’s easy to see how this solves your problem.

If by objective truth you mean outside any and all subjective views, no matter how much the majority or how much it’s been proven, then it’s meaningless to even argue since we can’t ever know true “objective truths” since we’re limited by our subjective views.

Hence how none of us can truly understand God’s glory and what it means to truly be “Truth” and “Good” and “Perfect”.

By the way, you really like to get hung up on this Objectivity argument xD

There’s a lot of praying and a lot of goodwill that all this energy could be going into ^_-

Edit: As for arguments for objective truth, objective morality, objective nature etc etc, I believe (but am not entirely sure) that most of these are informed inferences. Seeing the world around us, if enough clues or hints point to something specific, the probability that it’s true is certainly high. I know there are philosophical deductions that are sound and don’t need informed inference, but I’m not expert on those =p

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Consider the following statements:
1)“From your point of view, the answer is 4, but objectively, the answer is 5.”- Possible.
2) “From his point of view, the answer is 4, but objectively, the answers is 5.”- Also possible.
3) “From m**y point of view, the answer is 4, but objectively, the answer is 5.”- No one would say that, because if a person thought something else was ‘objectively’ the case, they would necessarily accord their own ‘subjective’ view to match it.

Hence, an ‘objective’ view necessarily seems to match ‘1st person subjective’ view.

Can anyone think of any example, where they hold something objectively to be the case, but believe subjectively something different? e.g. “I know that it is objectively Tuesday, but nevertheless still believe subjectively it to be Wednesday.”

So, if there is a necessary accordance of objective truth and 1st person subjective truth- does this mean that ‘objectivity’ is basically meaningless?

Objectively, God knows that our sins make us unlovable, especially before we become Christians, but, really, even after we become Christians. We humans are so unlike the total holiness of God that, objectively speaking, we can be nothing but disgusting, slimy worms to God.

But Subjectively, God loves each and every one of us totally.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son…”

Romans 3:23
“…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,…”

I have read many sages say that God is Logos, but he is not rational and logical in the puny way we humans are. They say that God’s Mind is as far above our minds as we are above an ants. They say that attempts to gain or lead others to supernatural Faith via logic and philosophy are bound to be of little use.

At the end of his life, St. Thomas Aquinas refused to complete is major work, Summa Theologica, telling his Dominican brothers that, after having had a direct vision of God, he now saw all his theological and philosophical writings to be “straw.” The quote handed down by his religious order is:

**“All that I have written seems like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me.”
**
After that, the only portion of the Bible that he would deal with is the Song of Songs, which as you know, is an EROTIC LOVE POEM about the relationship between a man and woman. God is not even mentioned or referred to once in the “Song of Songs.” Not very logical.

Love is not logical. God is not logical in the puny way we fools of the earth are. I think the Book of Ecclesiastes says this over and over, and the Hebrew Prophets and Jesus Christ says it over and over again too, as far as I can see.

As far as I know, no one has ever been **ARGUED **into the Faith or into Holiness.

But many a soul has been **LOVED **into the Faith and into Holiness.

But, I could be wrong. So, check with a saint, please.

 

[Qoeleth]

Objectively, God knows that our sins make us unlovable, especially before we become Christians, but, really, even after we become Christians. We humans are so unlike the total holiness of God that, objectively speaking, we can be nothing but disgusting, slimy worms to God.

But Subjectively, God loves each and every one of us totally.

Are we slimy worms “objectively”, or “metaphorically”? Can a metaphor ever be objective, since it is a construction/interpretation by the subject?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Consider the following statements:
…]
3) “From my point of view, the answer is 4, but objectively, the answer is 5.”- No one would say that, because if a person thought something else was ‘objectively’ the case, they would necessarily accord their own ‘subjective’ view to match it.

…]
Can anyone think of any example, where they hold something objectively to be the case, but believe subjectively something different?

I don’t think instances of this would conform to the sentence structure you e presented. But I could see something like this being said where perception and intuition tell us little of actualities. I would expect the subject part to include a phrase like “it seems like…” and the objective part to include a phrase like “…but it turns out” or “but measurements show” and so on. Does that help any?

 

[inocente]

So, if there is a necessary accordance of objective truth and 1st person subjective truth- does this mean that ‘objectivity’ is basically meaningless?

You’ll first have to rewrite all the dictionaries in the world. For instance, Cambridge American:

*Subjective - influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts.

Objective - based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings.*

 

[Qoeleth]

You’ll first have to rewrite all the dictionaries in the world. For instance, Cambridge American:

*Subjective - influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts.

Objective - based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings.*

Yes, but my objective point of view is inescapably based on my FEELINGS or BELIEFS of what is real fact. See the problem? That ‘real objectivity’ is not, in fact, possible.

 

[Qoeleth]

I don’t think instances of this would conform to the sentence structure you e presented. But I could see something like this being said where perception and intuition tell us little of actualities. I would expect the subject part to include a phrase like “it seems like…” and the objective part to include a phrase like “…but it turns out” or “but measurements show” and so on. Does that help any?

Yes, but that is comparing one’s views in the past with the present.
“I though that X was the case, but it turns out to be Y-” is possible, comparing the former self’s view (in effect, now a quasi-third person) with the present self’s views.

But:
“I think X is the case, but in fact it is Y”- is not possible!

 

[davidv]

Yes, but my objective point of view is inescapably based on my FEELINGS or BELIEFS of what is real fact. See the problem? That ‘real objectivity’ is not, in fact, possible.

If your view is based on your beliefs and feelings, based on the definitions given, how can your point of view anything but subjective?
I see the problem being the you are not use words consistently and in a way that does not communicate meaning to your audience.

 

[inocente]

Yes, but my objective point of view is inescapably based on my FEELINGS or BELIEFS of what is real fact. See the problem? That ‘real objectivity’ is not, in fact, possible.

No, not really. Other people find it useful to separate a subjective belief in what is the best flavor ice cream from the objective fact that the Moon orbits the Earth.

If someone jumps off the top of the Empire State building, his internal FEELINGS or BELIEFS about whether real objectivity is possible will not change what will objectively happen when he hits the ground.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

No, not really. Other people find it useful to separate a subjective belief in what is the best flavor ice cream from the objective fact that the Moon orbits the Earth.

The moon orbits the sun.

The Monty Hall problem is a classic example of what the OP wants. The subjective answer is 1/2, but the objective answer is 1/3. One could easily say, “I believe that 1/2 is the correct probability, but the actual probability is 1/3.”

 

[inocente]

The moon orbits the sun.

Are you one of those city folk who never saw the night sky? The Moon orbits the Earth, the Earth orbits the Sun. Moons orbit planets, planets orbit stars.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Are you one of those city folk who never saw the night sky? The Moon orbits the Earth, the Earth orbits the Sun. Moons orbit planets, planets orbit stars.

I am one of those scientists who actually do the math, rather than just observe things. Newton’s universal law of gravitation is very useful here:

distance from moon to sun: 150 million km
distance from moon to earth: 384 thousand km
mass of sun: 1.98 x 10[sup]30[/sup] kg
mass of moon: 7.36 x 10[sup]22[/sup] kg
mass of earth: 5.97 x 10[sup]24[/sup] kg
Newton’s gravitational constant G: 6.674 x 10[sup]-11[/sup] N m[sup]2[/sup] kg[sup]-2[/sup]

Newton’s gravitational law: F=G m[sub]1[/sub] m[sub]2[/sub] r[sub]12[/sub][sup]-2[/sup]

Doing that, you get about twice the value for the force of moon & sun than for moon & earth, thus: the moon orbits the sun, not the earth.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Doing that, you get about twice the value for the force of moon & sun than for moon & earth, thus: the moon orbits the sun, not the earth.

One can’t correctly say “and”? Don’t all of these bodies orbit the masses at the center of the galaxy?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

One can’t correctly say “and”? Don’t all of these bodies orbit the masses at the center of the galaxy?

What happens to a box when you apply two forces to it, and one is greater than the other?

While all the bodies in the galaxy rotate about the supermassive black hole in the center, Newton’s law given above shows that the force of the moon to sun is about 12 orders of magnitude larger (i.e., 1,000,000,000,000 times larger) than that of the moon to the center. The reason is the massive distance (about 30,000 light years ~ 2.5 x 10[sup]17[/sup] km), despite the roughly 4 million solar mass (8 x 10[sup]36[/sup] kg) black hole.

 

[inocente]

I am one of those scientists who actually do the math, rather than just observe things. Newton’s universal law of gravitation is very useful here:

Doing that, you get about twice the value for the force of moon & sun than for moon & earth, thus: the moon orbits the sun, not the earth.

We can all make up private definitions of words, but for the sake of communicating it’s best to stick with the standard definition used both generally and in astronomy: Orbit - the curved path, usually elliptical, through space followed by one celestial body about another.

So it is perfectly true to say the Moon orbits the Earth, and if you google “moon orbit sun earth” you’ll find a number of hits which agree, including:

universetoday.com/20293/does-the-moon-orbit-the-sun/
blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/29/the-moon-that-went-up-a-hill-but-came-down-a-planet/
wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_moon_revolve_around_the_sun
neatorama.com/2008/09/29/does-the-moon-orbit-the-earth-or-the-sun/
physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=471049
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

Please cite some references which agree with you that the Moon doesn’t orbit the Earth, then we can get back to the thread’s topic, although perhaps you’ve just provided a perfect example of Objectivity and 1st Person Subjectivity, a.k.a being wrong.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What happens to a box when you apply two forces to it, and one is greater than the other?

If I can assume infinite rigidity for this example then the box would accelerate in the direction of the net forces acting on it. …

While all the bodies in the galaxy rotate about the supermassive black hole in the center, Newton’s law given above shows that the force of the moon to sun is about 12 orders of magnitude larger…]

Okay, I think I see what you are getting at. In terms of the influence on the bodies movement the moons interaction with the earth is seen more as a peturbation that a major factor.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

We can all make up private definitions of words, but for the sake of communicating it’s best to stick with the standard definition used both generally and in astronomy: Orbit - the curved path, usually elliptical, through space followed by one celestial body about another.

What definitions did I make up? I simply gave Newton’s laws and the values for certain constants–well, averages for the radii.

So it is perfectly true to say the Moon orbits the Earth, and if you google “moon orbit sun earth” you’ll find a number of hits which agree, including:

universetoday.com/20293/does-the-moon-orbit-the-sun/
blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/29/the-moon-that-went-up-a-hill-but-came-down-a-planet/
wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_moon_revolve_around_the_sun
neatorama.com/2008/09/29/does-the-moon-orbit-the-earth-or-the-sun/
physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=471049
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

Please cite some references which agree with you that the Moon doesn’t orbit the Earth, then we can get back to the thread’s topic, although perhaps you’ve just provided a perfect example of Objectivity and 1st Person Subjectivity, a.k.a being wrong.

As ThinkingSapien points out in his latest post above, the earth is a perturbation on the moon’s orbit about the sun. The Bad Astronomy link actually goes so far as to say that, but digresses to the Roche limits (though he curiously calls it the Hill sphere) which somewhat disguises the notion that the moon is going around the sun at all.

 

[inocente]

What definitions did I make up? I simply gave Newton’s laws and the values for certain constants–well, averages for the radii.

In post #13 you wrote that “the moon orbits the sun, not the earth” (my emphasis), which is false by all standard definitions of the word “orbit”.

If you made a mistake then fine, otherwise I’m suggesting you made up your own definition of “orbit”. By all means cite any technical or non-technical dictionary, or really anything you like (other than your private thoughts or calculations), that anyone agrees with your claim that “the moon orbits the sun, not the earth”.

I’m a bit surprised we’re having to have this conversation.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

In post #13 you wrote that “the moon orbits the sun, not the earth” (my emphasis), which is false by all standard definitions of the word “orbit”.

If you made a mistake then fine, otherwise I’m suggesting you made up your own definition of “orbit”. By all means cite any technical or non-technical dictionary, or really anything you like (other than your private thoughts or calculations), that anyone agrees with your claim that “the moon orbits the sun, not the earth”.

I’m a bit surprised we’re having to have this conversation.

An orbit is a gravitationally curved path of an object about a point in space. Going by that widely-accepted definition, the moon orbits the sun and the earth. Since the gravitational force of the moon & sun is greater than that of the earth & moon, the moon orbits the sun more so than it orbits the earth, so that is my slight mistake: I should not have said, “not,” but “more so than.”