Circularity of 'Objectivity' in Dictionary

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your OP forgot to explain how that is supposed to be circular.

For those in 'kindergarten' class who do not understand the OP's "Circularity of 'Objectivity' in Dictionary"

To save me time, here's from an AIChatBot [with reservations].

"Here are some ways to explain the idea of circularity in the dictionary definitions of "objectivity" to someone in simple terms:

1. Imagine a circle:
Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Label one point "objective." Now, follow the arrows from "objective" to "fact," "actual," "real," and back to "objective." It's like chasing your tail!
Explain that each definition relies on the previous one, meaning none of them actually explain what "objective" truly means. They just point to each other in a loop.

2. Use an analogy:
Compare it to building a house. You wouldn't use the house itself as the foundation, right? Similarly, you can't define "objective" using terms that depend on it, like "fact" or "real."
Alternatively, compare it to a recipe. If the recipe for "chocolate cake" listed "chocolate cake" as an ingredient, it wouldn't be very helpful!

3. Emphasize the lack of independent meaning:
Explain that none of the definitions provide an independent reference point for what "objective" means. They all just point back to each other, creating a closed loop.
This means that the dictionary definition doesn't actually tell us what "objective" is, only how it relates to other words, which are themselves defined circularly.

4. Focus on the practical consequences:
Explain that relying on circular definitions can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion about "objectivity" when we don't even know what it means!

This can be especially problematic in fields like science, where objectivity is crucial.
Remember, the key is to keep it simple and relatable. Use visuals, analogies, and everyday examples to help the person understand the concept of circularity without getting bogged down in technical jargon.

Here are a few ways you can explain the idea of circularity in the dictionary definition of "objectivity" to someone who might not grasp it immediately:

1. Analogy:
Imagine you're trying to explain what a "table" is. You say "a table is a flat surface used for eating or writing." But then, "flat" is defined as "having a level surface, like a table." You're stuck in a loop! This is similar to how the definition of "objective" relies on other terms like "fact" and "real," which themselves rely back on "objective" in circular fashion.

2. Infinite regression:
Imagine you're standing on a ladder, and you try to climb up by grabbing the rung above you. But that rung is held up by the rung below, which is held up by the rung you're currently on, and so on. You're stuck in an endless loop! This is like the dictionary definitions, where one term leads to another, and another, and you never really reach a solid foundation.

3. Lack of independent meaning:
Point out that the definition of "objective" uses words like "fact" and "real" without actually defining those words. What makes something a "fact" or "real" if you rely on a definition that ultimately circles back to "objective"? It's like trying to build a house with only nails; you need something to nail to!

4. Consequences of circularity:
Explain how relying on circular definitions can be problematic. It makes it difficult to truly understand what "objective" means, and it can lead to confusion and disagreements. It also raises questions about whether true objectivity is even possible or just a philosophical ideal.

5. Alternative approaches:
Briefly mention that philosophers and scientists have different ways of understanding and achieving objectivity, which don't necessarily rely on circular definitions. You can suggest further reading if he's interested in learning more.

[Veritas Aequitas]

However, what is 'objective' needs more refined and careful thinking;

The test for objectivity is fairly simple.

If you place different people(different subjects) in a particular situation and they have the same experience, then you have objectivity. If not, then you have subjectivity.

You can see that in science. The same experiment is performed by different scientists, in different places and if they get the same result then they have objective facts.

An ordinary example:

An apple drops for a tree. Do different people observe the same thing happening? Yes. Objective.

Give the apple to different people to taste. They will tend to have different evaluations : "delicious", "I hate apples", "sour", "too sweet", "good texture", "poor texture". Subjective.

What is most critical is 'what is fact and thus objective' must always be conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Emergence, Realization and Knowledge [FSERK] {FSK}.

What is fact? in [] = mine.

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.

Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. [within an agreed scientific FSK]
For example, "This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, [within the linguistic FSK]
and "The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. [within the astronomical FSK]
Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts. [within a historical FSK]

Generally speaking, facts are independent of [a subject's] belief and of knowledge and opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Often when a fact [as objective] is presented, what is implicit and not explicit is the underlying human-based FSK that grounds the fact.
In doing philosophy we need to be very rigorous in making reference to the underlying condition [FSK] that grounds the objectivity [of varying degrees] of whatever the fact.

For example, that 'water is H20' is not because one's mother, father, friends, God, etc. said so, rather it has to be very specific,
that 'water is H20' is because the human-based [a specific collective-of-subjects] science-chemistry FSK is authorized to said so with high credibility and objectivity as generally accepted.

[Iwannaplato]

It is obvious from the above, what is objective is merely going round in circle and do not represent anything of substance, realistic or recognizable.

Then drop your use of the term. Stay with 'intersubjective' which is what you have said that objective boils down to anyway. There's no reason to on and on talk about two definitions of a term that in most dictionaries you consider the meaning of as unclear or confused.

That's just him going round in a circle chasing his own tail. There's nothing circular in the dictionary definition of objectivity, the problem lies entirely with VA.

For myself, I blackboxed the issue. Either way, if he thinks that the main usage of objectivity has a problem and he thinks - which he has stated - that intersubjectivity is objectivity, then he could drop the whole objectivity issue. It's an unnecessary battle, and one that has started dozens of threads and countless posts in many other threads.

It's a waste of his time - carrot - and certainly everyone else's.

I am guessing it's just not appealing for him to give up calling his FSKs system objective. Because the word has positive connotations.

I'm sure he'll just keep on with this issue, but I thought he might streamline in his own interests.

Live and hope.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA: 'What is objective [fact, real, actual, true] must always be qualified to a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] [of varying degrees of objectivity within a continuum] of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective. [sic]

Why is 'the scientific FSK...the most credible and objective'? And to which FSK [sic] is that fact 'qualified'? It can't be the scientific FSK, because that would be circular.

The scientific FSK's objectivity qualifies the factuality, reality and actuality of things as with other FSKs of the same consideration.

To assess the credibility of a human-based FSK [re reality and actuality] we have a human-based FSK of assessment based on rationality and critical thinking, i.e.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?t=41040

[nemos]

Or, was your explanation here as simple a thing as could get?

My options certainly have their limits, so I will, even more simply, not say it. But to me, this explanation seems to be sufficient, so as not to walk around it, but to continue moving forward.

you can try to rephrase it like this:
1. Objects are always objective because they are objects.
2. Subjects (looking at them only as on the subjects) are always subjective, because they are subjects.

I don't know if anyone will agree with this or not, but I see the rationale for our subjectivity as follows:
We do not have access to information about objectivity, or "the world", whatever it is, in any other form than through data (electrical impulses) supplied to us by the sense organs, interacting with objectivity, and making a conscious interpretation of these impulses, or projection onto consciousness (just like a shadow on a surface is a 2D projection from a spatial 3D object).

If this seems acceptable, then it remains to conclude that all people, or the part of them that is in consciousness, are virtual and live each in their own "matrix" (for those who are familiar with this story).
And if this is also acceptable, then we can generalize even more and imagine not a full-fledged organism that will connect to the matrix and receive electrical impulses through the peripheral nervous system (as in the "matrix"), but the brain or CNS in a can with nutritious liquid, to which those electrical impulses are sent fed directly.
The fact is that when communicating with other subjects, we must keep in mind not only our own subjectivity (personal "matrix"), but also the subjectivity of the communication partner (or personal matrix, which is independent of yours).
So when we try to understand another's point of view about objectivity, we are actually trying to form a subjective opinion about another's subjective point of view, or a projection from a projection. So many rakes that it is practically impossible not to step on one.

So, when expressing our intellectual opinion or understanding of an object or objectivity, including another subject or his opinion, we actually do not say anything about it, and all we do is describe ourselves, our understanding, and opinion about the object, including another subject or his opinion .
Sigh of relief, I'll be done with it...

[phyllo]

However, what is 'objective' needs more refined and careful thinking;

The test for objectivity is fairly simple.

If you place different people(different subjects) in a particular situation and they have the same experience, then you have objectivity. If not, then you have subjectivity.

Now this is pure simplicity, which is where, in fact, 'perfection' lies.

You can see that in science. The same experiment is performed by different scientists, in different places and if they get the same result then they have objective facts.

Again, 'objectivity', or what is 'objective', does not get much simpler.

And, as what I have been saying from the outset here, 'that' what every one can agree with and accepts is True Objectivity or how Truly Objective Facts are uncovered, and known irrefutably.

See, the actual and irrefutable Truth of things really is absolutely and Truly extremely simple and easy to find, and know. One just had to first learn 'how-to', though.

An ordinary example:

An apple drops for a tree. Do different people observe the same thing happening? Yes. Objective.

Give the apple to different people to taste. They will tend to have different evaluations : "delicious", "I hate apples", "sour", "too sweet", "good texture", "poor texture". Subjective.

Now this is pure perfection, which is; simplicity at its best.

And as will be soon discovered, what was just written in this post could be agreed with, and accepted, and so because absolutely no one could disagree with this, there is no disputing this as well, which means Objectivity has been reached, so an actual Objective Fact has been found, uncovered, and is being revealed.

See how finding the actual irrefutable Truth of things really is, indeed, very simple and very easy to do.

Thank you for the positive feedback.

[nemos]

...mistake

[Atla]

There is circularity of the meaning of 'what is objectivity' in a dictionary which end up explaining nothing realistic.

So here. Here's another way of it being explained:

"Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something.
In contrast, objective most commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation only."
(Dictionary.com)

I believe everyone can agree with is 'subjective' i.e. based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person, a subject.

However, what is 'objective' needs more refined and careful thinking;

The typical meaning of objective is,
"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective

What is fact?
"that which actually exists or is the case; reality or truth:"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact

What is actual?
"existing in act or fact; real:"

What is real?
"existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious:"

What is true
"being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false:"

All the above meanings are from Dictionary.com

It is obvious from the above, what is objective is merely going round in circle and do not represent anything of substance, realistic or recognizable.

What is most recognizable as objective and factual [true, real, actual, ] are scientific facts.
But scientific facts only has 'currencies' as qualified to the human-based scientific framework and systems [scientific methods, peer review, etc.].
Since the ground of the scientific framework is human-based, it is based on a collective of subjects, i.e. inter-subjects interactions and consensus.
In this case, scientific facts as objective is based on intersubjective interactions consensus.
As such, what is objective is grounded on the subjective, albeit intersubjectivity via a collective-of-subjects.

And note, what is the the most real and objective scientific fact is at best a polished conjecture.

Realists will claim that there is something that is really real independent of the scientific methods.
This is merely a speculation and an ASSUMPTION.
To attempt to reify this assumption as real is delusional.
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

My point is;
What is objective [fact, real, actual, true] must always be qualified to a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] [of varying degrees of objectivity within a continuum] of which the scientific FSK is the most credible and objective.

On this principle, we can have theological facts, truths and objectivity as conditioned to human based theological FSK.
But the objectivity of the theological FSK [based on faith] relative to the empirical based scientific FSK (as a standard index of 100/100) is merely at the other extreme of negligible objectivity.

So the question of what is objectivity must be deliberated within the above considerations without compromise.

Discuss??
Views?

What a joke. Both the realist and anti-realist worldviews are circular, which was the whole point from day 1. And the science-FSK establishes that the realist one is a lot more likely to be the correct one.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your OP forgot to explain how that is supposed to be circular.

For those in 'kindergarten' class who do not understand the OP's "Circularity of 'Objectivity' in Dictionary"

To save me time, here's from an AIChatBot [with reservations].

"Here are some ways to explain the idea of circularity in the dictionary definitions of "objectivity" to someone in simple terms:

1. Imagine a circle:
Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Label one point "objective." Now, follow the arrows from "objective" to "fact," "actual," "real," and back to "objective." It's like chasing your tail!
Explain that each definition relies on the previous one, meaning none of them actually explain what "objective" truly means. They just point to each other in a loop.

2. Use an analogy:
Compare it to building a house. You wouldn't use the house itself as the foundation, right? Similarly, you can't define "objective" using terms that depend on it, like "fact" or "real."
Alternatively, compare it to a recipe. If the recipe for "chocolate cake" listed "chocolate cake" as an ingredient, it wouldn't be very helpful!

3. Emphasize the lack of independent meaning:
Explain that none of the definitions provide an independent reference point for what "objective" means. They all just point back to each other, creating a closed loop.
This means that the dictionary definition doesn't actually tell us what "objective" is, only how it relates to other words, which are themselves defined circularly.

4. Focus on the practical consequences:
Explain that relying on circular definitions can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion about "objectivity" when we don't even know what it means!

This can be especially problematic in fields like science, where objectivity is crucial.
Remember, the key is to keep it simple and relatable. Use visuals, analogies, and everyday examples to help the person understand the concept of circularity without getting bogged down in technical jargon.

Here are a few ways you can explain the idea of circularity in the dictionary definition of "objectivity" to someone who might not grasp it immediately:

1. Analogy:
Imagine you're trying to explain what a "table" is. You say "a table is a flat surface used for eating or writing." But then, "flat" is defined as "having a level surface, like a table." You're stuck in a loop! This is similar to how the definition of "objective" relies on other terms like "fact" and "real," which themselves rely back on "objective" in circular fashion.

2. Infinite regression:
Imagine you're standing on a ladder, and you try to climb up by grabbing the rung above you. But that rung is held up by the rung below, which is held up by the rung you're currently on, and so on. You're stuck in an endless loop! This is like the dictionary definitions, where one term leads to another, and another, and you never really reach a solid foundation.

3. Lack of independent meaning:
Point out that the definition of "objective" uses words like "fact" and "real" without actually defining those words. What makes something a "fact" or "real" if you rely on a definition that ultimately circles back to "objective"? It's like trying to build a house with only nails; you need something to nail to!

4. Consequences of circularity:
Explain how relying on circular definitions can be problematic. It makes it difficult to truly understand what "objective" means, and it can lead to confusion and disagreements. It also raises questions about whether true objectivity is even possible or just a philosophical ideal.

5. Alternative approaches:
Briefly mention that philosophers and scientists have different ways of understanding and achieving objectivity, which don't necessarily rely on circular definitions. You can suggest further reading if he's interested in learning more.

Your OP forgot to explain how that is supposed to be circular. Your follow up doesn't address that issue in any way.

[Age]

Or, was your explanation here as simple a thing as could get?

My options certainly have their limits, so I will, even more simply, not say it. But to me, this explanation seems to be sufficient, so as not to walk around it, but to continue moving forward.

you can try to rephrase it like this:
1. Objects are always objective because they are objects.
2. Subjects (looking at them only as on the subjects) are always subjective, because they are subjects.

And, thus are 'objects' always objective, as well?

I don't know if anyone will agree with this or not, but I see the rationale for our subjectivity as follows:
We do not have access to information about objectivity, or "the world", whatever it is, in any other form than through data (electrical impulses) supplied to us by the sense organs, interacting with objectivity, and making a conscious interpretation of these impulses, or projection onto consciousness (just like a shadow on a surface is a 2D projection from a spatial 3D object).

Who and/or what is the 'we', exactly, which you refer to and speak of here?

you also mention that 'that we' does not have access to information about 'objectivity', itself. But, what is the word 'objectivity' referring to, to you, exactly?

If this seems acceptable, then it remains to conclude that all people, or the part of them that is in consciousness, are virtual and live each in their own "matrix" (for those who are familiar with this story).

What is the 'matrix story'?

And if this is also acceptable, then we can generalize even more and imagine not a full-fledged organism that will connect to the matrix and receive electrical impulses through the peripheral nervous system (as in the "matrix"), but the brain or CNS in a can with nutritious liquid, to which those electrical impulses are sent fed directly.
The fact is that when communicating with other subjects, we must keep in mind not only our own subjectivity (personal "matrix"), but also the subjectivity of the communication partner (or personal matrix, which is independent of yours).

Are you here more or less just saying that each and every individual person just has different view on and of things, or that within every individual human body there exists unique and individual different views?

So when we try to understand another's point of view about objectivity,

What is 'objectivity' again, to you?

we are actually trying to form a subjective opinion about another's subjective point of view, or a projection from a projection.

But why are you trying to do this?

What are you doing this for, exactly?

So many rakes that it is practically impossible not to step on one.

So, when expressing our intellectual opinion or understanding of an object or objectivity, including another subject or his opinion, we actually do not say anything about it, and all we do is describe ourselves, our understanding, and opinion about the object, including another subject or his opinion .

So, why actually bother expressing anything about these things if you are actually really not saying about them at all?

Sigh of relief, I'll be done with it...

Okay, but why 'sigh of relief' now, were you doing something hard or strenuousness here?

Also, with you expressing 'your' intellectual opinion or understanding here where you actually saying something or not saying anything'?

[nemos]

Who and/or what is the 'we', exactly, which you refer to and speak of here?

We are the subjects, it seems to me. I might be wrong about you in particular, so I apologize in any case.

But, what is the word 'objectivity' referring to, to you, exactly?

Objectivity is composed of electrical signals delivered to us by our sense organs. If you have another way to receive information from the "outside", then I can only be happy for you.

What is the 'matrix story'?

Follow the sign -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix

But why are you trying to do this?

Maybe because I'm addicted to social interaction. Or possible, interaction at all, because the brain requires information. It would be absolutely disgusting to live in a world, albeit a virtual one, where there is nothing, not a single bit of information.

Okay, but why 'sigh of relief' now, were you doing something hard or strenuousness here?

Yes, organizing so many characters makes me tired not only when writing, but also when reading. I like short and concise wording.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objectivity is composed of electrical signals delivered to us by our sense organs. If you have another way to receive information from the "outside", then I can only be happy for you.

If your above is qualified only to common sense, then I can agree with you.

But from a philosophical perspective, common sense or even conventional sense are insufficient to represent what is efficiently real.
Within common sense, there are mind-independent external independent objects out there but to insist upon such a claim as absolutely-real cannot be realistic.

To insist external objects are absolutely objective and real is delusional because external objects are tentative, transitional, impermanent and illusory.

As Russell had asserted "even when one is looking at a table, perhaps there is no Table at ALL?"

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.
Problems of Philosophy

Take the stars you see in the night sky.
Yes, they are from electrical signals that are delivered to us by our sense organs from billion of light years ago.
But in real time, at present 2023, that star [electronic waves triggered in your mind] could not existed at all at present, i.e. already have exploded or collapse into nothing.

Besides, what is triggered in your mind could be an illusion and do not represent anything 'real'.

At such, you need to expand your thinking for your own sake in doing philosophy.

[Iwannaplato]

Take the stars you see in the night sky.
Yes, they are from electrical signals that are delivered to us by our sense organs from billion of light years ago.
But in real time, at present 2023, that star [electronic waves triggered in your mind] could not existed at all at present, i.e. already have exploded or collapse into nothing.

Besides, what is triggered in your mind could be an illusion and do not represent anything 'real'.

Which is the same regarding other people for you. They might be an illusion. And yet you act as if other minds and other people exist and that they are external to you. You cannot experience their experience, yet you assume, over and over, with never a doubt, that their experiencing is real. Here above you chastise and condescend to another mind while telling it, without realizing you are doing this, that for all you know it doesn't exist. As such, you need to expand your thinking for your own sake in doing philosophy. You think the illusion issue goes away at smaller distances? And what is distance to a radical anti-realist? There's only experiencing. There is no distance from experiencing.

[nemos]

As Russell had asserted "even when one is looking at a table, perhaps there is no Table at ALL?"

THE MATRIX: THERE IS NO SPOON

In reality, it is not so important what exactly the table is, but you can always count on the fact that the table is related to something real and objective (given through the senses)(even if it's just binary code, in any case, your consciousness receives it directly as a code (binary, ternary or whatever, it doesn't really matter)) as this real projection in your consciousness. And the reason for this is the fact that you can put a spoon on it, possibly "non-existent", but quite useful.

Of course, the situation is complicated by various psychic side effects, such as schizophrenia, with optical and acoustic visions that are born directly in your mind, without projecting anything from the outside, and therefore are not available to anyone else except you. However, as the story of John Nash shows, it is also possible to deal with this problem now and then.

After all, the ultimate test of our subjective perception's connection and correspondence with "objective reality" is survival. The one for whom this conformity will not be sufficient will most likely not survive, at least not on his own, without the care of others.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As Russell had asserted "even when one is looking at a table, perhaps there is no Table at ALL?"

THE MATRIX: THERE IS NO SPOON

In reality, it is not so important what exactly the table is, but you can always count on the fact that the table is related to something real and objective (given through the senses) as this real projection in your consciousness. And the reason for this is the fact that you can put a spoon on it, possibly "non-existent", but quite useful.

Of course, the situation is complicated by various psychic side effects, such as schizophrenia, with optical and acoustic visions that are born directly in your mind, without projecting anything from the outside, and therefore are not available to anyone else except you. However, as the story of John Nash shows, it is also possible to deal with this problem now and then.

I think you are not getting my point.

The issue here is whether your claim, there is a real and objective [given through the sense] is absolutely mind-independent real discretely regardless of whether there are humans to perceive or not.

You may perceive a discrete 'table' and 'spoon' but you cannot deny what is more realistic about these items are that they are merely clusters of dense molecules of certain atoms within a soup of particles,



It is further argued, even such particles are not absolutely mind-independent.

The discrete 'table' and 'spoon' are the crude sense of reality, not the more realistic version of reality.