Subjective is not real?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I am having a difficult time understanding all of the fuss over subjective and objective. The culture that I have lived in values objectivity and therefore I often hear/read the phrase "objective reality". Maybe I am completely misunderstanding the phrase, but it seems to imply one or more of the following:

a.) Only the objective is real.
b.) While the non-objective can be real, the objective is the only thing reliable enough for living life.

c.) The objective is more real than the non-objective.


I would say that c.) is absurd--since when are there degrees of reality?

On the other hand, speaking of the objective, the objective facts seem to say that b.) is false. My guess would be that 90% of behavior is based on the non-objective. Yet, most people function more than adequately.

Then there is a.). What a.) means is that, say, probably 99% of my experience every time I have gone to Great American Ballpark and watched the Cincinnati Reds is not real. If only the objective is real then only things like the numbers on the scoreboard, the time of day that the first pitch was thrown, etc. are real. It means that things like the way that I anticipated more fireworks after yet another Reds home run and the way that I laughed inside when I realized that the Reds had hit so many home runs that they had run out of fireworks are not real. Other than objective things like seeing numbers on the scoreboard nobody else experienced those games the same way that I did. So that means that other than those objective things everybody's experience was not real?

If both the objective and subjective are real, then why do we drag reality into it? Is there objective non-reality?

It seems to me that "objective" and "subjective" are all that is needed.

Of course, there is the question of truth. But can something be true but not real?

A lot of people seem to have the attitude that only the objective has merit. But I bet that those same people listen to friends and relatives tell stories, share feelings, etc. and do not demand that such stories and feelings be tested according to some standard of objectivity. They probably simply do things like laugh.

People simply smile, laugh, etc. when I tell them about what went through my mind at Reds games. They certainly do not demand objective verification.

Yet, many would seem to have us believe that the subjective should all be taken with a grain of salt and that only the objective is truly worthy of our attention.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Objective and subjective refer to the kind of relationships a person can have with reality -- they are states of understanding. When one says a claim is 'objective', one simply means that it is unequivocal, leaving little or no room for alternative interpretations or explanations, given what we know to be true. By contrast, 'subjective' claims are open to multiple interpretations or explanations, again given what we know or can agree upon. Not all interpretations and explanations are equal though. Some are better than others. Thus there is a whole spectrum in which claims can hold varying levels of objectivity and subjectivity. In the pursuit of knowledge, it is generally the aim to make a more objective assessment of some given set of information, but to remain open to the possibility that one's assessment, even if comprehensive, remains incomplete.

Sometimes one can get tongue-tied using the terms 'objective' and 'subjective', because they lend themselves to multiple meanings, depending on the context, and they are often taken to be absolutes. Perhaps then it is better to speak of comprehensiveness and confidence? That is, we should ask whether (1) a given assessment is comprehensive enough to answer the questions we are interested in, and (2) consider how confident we can be in that assessment. Anyway, just thinking aloud...

 

[quatona]

I am having a difficult time understanding all of the fuss over subjective and objective. The culture that I have lived in values objectivity and therefore I often hear/read the phrase "objective reality".

Yeah, the Abrahamic religions tend to be like that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As for the objective being superior, I think that really depends on the context in which you are using the terms 'objective' and 'subjective'.

Sometimes people use 'subjective' as a way of saying "That's just your opinion." But as I've said above, not all opinions are equal, and this pejorative use of 'subjective' to demean someone for holding an opinion fails to say anything about the confidence that one have in that opinion.

Sometimes people use 'subjective' as a way of saying that there is some phenomenal aspect to appreciating something. For example, you can't appreciate poetry or a good novel without involving yourself in it phenomenally (i.e., imagining the characters, the scenery, etc). How you imagine the story unfolding may differ from how someone else imagines it. It's 'subjective' in the sense that you bring something of yourself into it, thereby making it personal.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am having a difficult time understanding all of the fuss over subjective and objective. The culture that I have lived in values objectivity and therefore I often hear/read the phrase "objective reality". Maybe I am completely misunderstanding the phrase, but it seems to imply one or more of the following:

a.) Only the objective is real.
b.) While the non-objective can be real, the objective is the only thing reliable enough for living life.

c.) The objective is more real than the non-objective.

I would say that c.) is absurd--since when are there degrees of reality?

On the other hand, speaking of the objective, the objective facts seem to say that b.) is false. My guess would be that 90% of behavior is based on the non-objective. Yet, most people function more than adequately.

Then there is a.). What a.) means is that, say, probably 99% of my experience every time I have gone to Great American Ballpark and watched the Cincinnati Reds is not real. If only the objective is real then only things like the numbers on the scoreboard, the time of day that the first pitch was thrown, etc. are real. It means that things like the way that I anticipated more fireworks after yet another Reds home run and the way that I laughed inside when I realized that the Reds had hit so many home runs that they had run out of fireworks are not real.

Your subjective experiences and the recollections of them are real. We just have good reason to believe that they're generally not an accurate representation of what might have actually happened.

Seems like this whole post is a massive equivocation on the word real. Try to rewrite it and be more precise with your language to see where you're going wrong.

 

[quatona]

Seems like this whole post is a massive equivocation on the word real. Try to rewrite it and be more precise with your language to see where you're going wrong.

I think it would suffice to abstain from pretending that "subjective" and "objective" are used to describe reality, when actually they are used to decribe and distinguish different classes of proposals.

 

[durangodawood]

Objective: what goes on 'out there'.

Subjective: what goes on in your own mind.

Seems to me both types of events are real. But its fair to call them different types of reality, and treat them differently, for many purposes.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

An overriding theme seems to be that the objective is superior to the subjective. Just search the Singles sub-forum here for the words "beauty is subjective" and see the tone of the larger context.

The point of this thread can be summed up in two words: so what?

Notice that "beauty is subjective" has nothing to do with systematic inquiry and little, if anything, to do with making judgements. It is not hypothetical--it is not saying something like, "If you are deciding which candidate to offer the job, objective criteria such as a college degree are the most reliable guide". It seems to be a categorical statement saying that the subjective has no merit, period.

Yet, we listen with much interest when, oh, a friend describes what made the view from his hotel room so beautiful.

It sounds like we are confused as a culture about what we value and what we consider worthwhile.

 

[Received]

Some people would say that objectivity itself is a type of story. That IOW subjectivity is higher because it's all we have as human beings (we are, after all, subjective), and objectivity is a creation made by subjectivity that's impossible to prove precisely because we're captured within subjectivity -- which isn't at all to say that there isn't something like objectivity out there, just that the moment we speak about it we've already corrupted it by using language, which is pure subjectivity-laden stuff.

And then there is Kierkegaard, who distinguished subjective from objective truth. The former is the stuff, basically, of meaning (for him religious meaning), and the latter is the stuff of what's "out there" in the fabric of reality. For Kierkegaard the subjective truth is much more important than objective truth; without the former you have despair, which psychologically leads to depression, suicide, desperation, etc.

 

[quatona]

Some people would say that objectivity itself is a type of story. That IOW subjectivity is higher because it's all we have as human beings (we are, after all, subjective), and objectivity is a creation made by subjectivity that's impossible to prove precisely because we're captured within subjectivity -- which isn't at all to say that there isn't something like objectivity out there, just that the moment we speak about it we've already corrupted it by using language, which is pure subjectivity-laden stuff.

And then there is Kierkegaard, who distinguished subjective from objective truth. The former is the stuff, basically, of meaning (for him religious meaning), and the latter is the stuff of what's "out there" in the fabric of reality. For Kierkegaard the subjective truth is much more important than objective truth; without the former you have despair, which psychologically leads to depression, suicide, desperation, etc.

Seems to be pretty much where I come from - except that I don´t have any idea how the term "truth" got in there.
Of course, the second level reality (which deals with what things mean to us - as opposed to the first level reality which deals with raw data) is incredibly more important to me (or: without this second level reality the raw data have no significance whatsoever to me). I just don´t know why anyone would insist that their second level reality is a "truth" of sorts.

 

[Received]

Seems to be pretty much where I come from - except that I don´t have any idea how the term "truth" got in there.
Of course, the second level reality (which deals with what things mean to us - as opposed to the first level reality which deals with raw data) is incredibly more important to me (or: without this second level reality the raw data have no significance whatsoever to me). I just don´t know why anyone would insist that their second level reality is a "truth" of sorts.

Maybe because they get a sort of meaning from thinking objective truth is the most important thing.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I just don´t know why anyone would insist that their second level reality is a "truth" of sorts.

Maybe because if it is not true then it must be false?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Since nobody else is going to answer my question I will answer it myself: I think that people are confusing subjective with relative. When people say that beauty is subjective they really mean that beauty is relative.

 

[durangodawood]

Since nobody else is going to answer my question I will answer it myself: I think that people are confusing subjective with relative. When people say that beauty is subjective they really mean that beauty is relative.

What was the question again?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Maybe because they get a sort of meaning from thinking objective truth is the most important thing.

What does truth have to do with it anyway? 2 + 2 = 5 is not true, but it is objective.

If I recall correctly, in Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction, Stephen Gaukroger asserts that there is no purely subjective or purely objective--that objectivity is a matter of degree. I take that to mean that everything is objective to a degree, and that a high degree of objectivity is about reliability.

By the way, this "raw data" thing sounds like what Gaukroger calls "the view from nowhere". He goes on to assert that objectivity does not mean the view from nowhere.

And I do not see what "meaning" has to do with it. If I know that fireworks are set off after every Reds home run, and if I am therefore anticipating more fireworks after another Reds home run but such fireworks are never set off, as far as I can tell none of that has anything to do with "meaning". When I realized that they must have run out of fireworks because the Reds had hit so many home runs, I do not see that having anything to do with "meaning". Maybe when I then laughed about it I was assigning meaning to it--saying that it is funny. But that entire experience--knowing, anticipating, realizing and laughing--was my own subjective experience. Probably nobody else experienced any of that time and space the same way that I did. A case could be made that I therefore acquired knowledge that, omniscient beings notwithstanding, nobody else did or ever will. And, like I already showed, only a tiny fraction of it--if any of it--was about "meaning".

I think that it is a mistake to view objectivity as simply eliminating the elements of opinion, bias, prejudice, etc. The things that we do to realize objectivity--scientists designing experiments; consultants training managers to ask certain questions in job interviews; etc.--seem to be about everybody following the same steps. Subjective experience is about an individual experiencing things his/her own way (see my account of my experience at a Reds game).

And I assert that subjective experience is probably 90% of everybody's experience. Yet, most people function just fine.

I believe that I have even read that schizophrenia is the result of reality being too close, not the result of being out of touch with reality. In other words, if objective reality is what is "out there", as some people here have said, then schizophrenia is the result of "out there" being too close. If that is true then that seems to support my assertion that subjective experience is how people function.

Yet, again, the prevailing attitude seems to be that subjective experience is extremely inferior to the objective. I have not really seen a response that answers why that attitude prevails. And don't forget that while a lot of people on one hand say that objective is superior they on the other hand rarely demand objective verification. If you tell them about your experience they simply smile, laugh, grimace, cry, etc.

 

[quatona]

Maybe because if it is not true then it must be false?

Like, if it´s not red then it must be blue?

 

[Received]

What does truth have to do with it anyway? 2 + 2 = 5 is not true, but it is objective.

If I recall correctly, in Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction, Stephen Gaukroger asserts that there is no purely subjective or purely objective--that objectivity is a matter of degree. I take that to mean that everything is objective to a degree, and that a high degree of objectivity is about reliability.

By the way, this "raw data" thing sounds like what Gaukroger calls "the view from nowhere". He goes on to assert that objectivity does not mean the view from nowhere.

You seem to speak of objective or non-objective, rather than true or false. If you speak of things in terms of (relative) objectivity, that's really no different than a person who says there is a relative degree of truth in things. Semantics.

And I do not see what "meaning" has to do with it. If I know that fireworks are set off after every Reds home run, and if I am therefore anticipating more fireworks after another Reds home run but such fireworks are never set off, as far as I can tell none of that has anything to do with "meaning". When I realized that they must have run out of fireworks because the Reds had hit so many home runs, I do not see that having anything to do with "meaning". Maybe when I then laughed about it I was assigning meaning to it--saying that it is funny. But that entire experience--knowing, anticipating, realizing and laughing--was my own subjective experience. Probably nobody else experienced any of that time and space the same way that I did. A case could be made that I therefore acquired knowledge that, omniscient beings notwithstanding, nobody else did or ever will. And, like I already showed, only a tiny fraction of it--if any of it--was about "meaning".

Add Viktor Frankl to your library. People can have all types of objectivity or objective truths around them, but unless they have something that provides meaning -- a sense of congruence between their lives and the world "out there" -- then all types of psychological problems result. Meaning is much more important than objectivity, but thankfully forcing a choice between the two is a false dichotomy; they work well together.

I think that it is a mistake to view objectivity as simply eliminating the elements of opinion, bias, prejudice, etc. The things that we do to realize objectivity--scientists designing experiments; consultants training managers to ask certain questions in job interviews; etc.--seem to be about everybody following the same steps. Subjective experience is about an individual experiencing things his/her own way (see my account of my experience at a Reds game).

This description of subjective experience seems right in line with everyone having their own opinion. After all, that's what an opinion is: a person's attempted representation of reality, which is very much individualistic, and the moment an opinion becomes a fact is when the individual perspective is considered irrelevant given that the bit of reality in question has been shown to be a bit of reality (as opposed to a bit of personal subjectivity via an opinion).

Yet, again, the prevailing attitude seems to be that subjective experience is extremely inferior to the objective. I have not really seen a response that answers why that attitude prevails. And don't forget that while a lot of people on one hand say that objective is superior they on the other hand rarely demand objective verification. If you tell them about your experience they simply smile, laugh, grimace, cry, etc.

Subjective is much more important than the objective (as I'm understanding the terms), given that without subjectivity (which includes things like meaning and associated things that are particularized with human consciousness) we would have no meaning, and without meaning we would have no purpose, no reason to live, and all sorts of malaise, despair, and psychological disease.

My guess is the objective reigns supreme because we blindly worship science, given that science has helped us live healthier and more efficient lives.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Like, if it´s not red then it must be blue?

People can have false perceptions, false beliefs, false impressions, etc.

It is understandable, therefore, why they would want to be able to think of their perceptions, beliefs, impressions, etc. as true.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

I find philosophy to be pointless sometimes and in the case of Christianity it can ruin your views because it gets to deep into things that don't need to be so deep.

 

[quatona]

People can have false perceptions, false beliefs, false impressions, etc.

Well, in my post you first responded to I was talking about beliefs that are neither true nor false.

It is understandable, therefore, why they would want to be able to think of their perceptions, beliefs, impressions, etc. as true.

Sure it´s understandable.
Just like it´s understandable when people who think that there are only two colours would like to be able to say "if it isn´t colour X it must be colour Y".