Does objectivity really exist, or is it a human construct? If objectivity does exist, then does that mean there are objective truths for every single thing in the universe, or only certain things? If it does not, then why do we attempt to gain knowledge in a supposedly objective manner? Of course, this isn’t such a black and white issue, but I wanted to give the basic questions. So, what do you think?
Define objectivity, just to make sure everyone’s on the same page.
no dont you might give a biased definition
Its impossible to be completely objective as our perceptions shape our observations and what we think about it afterwards. It also shapes how we think. What is important is that we recognize the biases that our experience cast upon our views such that we have as objective a view point of things. Everything is relative and that includes objectivity. Science itself is limited by our capability to observe.
That’s not a relative statement.
I always saw this question as sort of like the ‘Is there free will or not’ question. The answer is probably no, so why worry about it?
Why do you think that we do not have free will and that there is no such thing as objectivity? Isn’t that inherently contradictory? If all is subjective, than can I not see myself as free and you see yourself as a slave?
If Aristotle was here he’d kick your philosophical ass in this thread
Yeah, well, if he’s so smart, how come he’s dead?
Do you mean like
History wise, like what actually happened? Or what
If a man poops in a toilet and no one’s around does it stink
Yeah, he would. I’m not the best at philosophy, I just like it.
In your horizon. You can maybe define objectivity in a certain range (for example, from a human point of view, from a noodle’s point of view, whatever, even though that’s generalized already) For example, when you say “grass is green”. Humans generally perceive grass to be green. A bee doesn’t. A dog doesn’t. Grass itself sure as hell doesn’t. So in fact, we actually have no clue what colour it does have, if it even has one, because the thing itself is impossible for us to know. However, you can still define something like objectivity.
Objective from our point of view: humans normally perceive grass to be green. (Leaving aside the fact that you may see a different green than I do, or probably see all things I see as green as you would call purple or whatever, but that’s a linguistic problem)
Subjective (from our point of blahblah): I think grass should be blue. / It has a blue tint in it for me. / Grass has thisandthat effect on me ( singled out individual).
(Sorry for the sucky example <.<)
I understand that, DT. What I didn’t understand was Curtis’ POV that reality is subjective and that we have no free will. It seems like the two ideas are incompatible to me. I could be wrong, though.
I don’t see how they’re related in this case. Free will is about decision, reality about perception. I’m guessing if you say they’re incompatible, you mean that if we don’t have a free will anyway, then we can’t see something subjectively or objectively, because no choice is given in the first place? And that Curtis says the opposite, if no free will is present, reality automatically becomes a subjective matter. okcorrectmeplxkthx
It doesn’t, everything is subjective. That includes this argument. We can’t help but colour what we say and what we think and what we do with our experiences, because, if we didn’t, we wouldn’t have anything to start from.
DT: Free will is a perception. For example, people that say “I didn’t have a choice” or that are indecisive. That in itself is a choice.
Nulani: Everything is subjective including your statement that everything is subjective? Do you mean to say that your statement is an absolute, thereby refuting your own argument?
Or perhaps you mean to say that the statment “Everything is subjective” is also subject to subjectivity, in which case that means that there can be absolutes, which also refutes your statement.
Everything except this sentence is subjective.