seeds wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:15 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 9:31 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 6:43 am
I think popeye 1945 argues that what we call objectivity is impossible, because 'all meaning is subjective' - and that is both to reject and invoke a distinction. So I'm trying to counter that claim - and agree with you that objectivity is possible.
In the most commonly held definition of objective- objectivity is impossible.
We just need to clarify what we mean by objectivity to make the word useful.
To be objective requires a definable context, and bound by agreed criteria.
To me,
"objective" (as in
"objective reality") refers to anything that exists outside of (as in not a part of) one's own mind.
The obvious problem with that is the whilst everything in fact lives outside your "mind", you cannot know anything because we can only know these things as "objects" IN the mind's eye, and therefore all is subject to our world view.
In which case,...
(and assuming solipsism to be nonsense)
...the only things - in all of reality - that can be deemed as being objective relative to one's own mind are other minds.
Even if one tries to argue that the stars and planets, or even our own bodies and brains are objective phenomena relative to our minds (of which I agree),...
...I would still assert that, yes, they are objective phenomena relative to the contents of our own minds, but I humbly (and speculatively) suggest that we're still talking about the properties and contents of yet another mind, with that being the mind of God.
So, we're still talking about minds (and their internal agents) being the only objective phenomena in all of reality (again, objective relative to each other).
Now, as to how this relates to the topic of this thread, seeing how the only "things" that exist in all of reality are agent-based minds and their internal/subjective (mentally-manifested phenomena),...
...then even morality must ultimately be thought of as being a subjective creation, for there is absolutely nothing created that is not subjectively derived in one way or another.
_______
I saw an interesting demonstration today. The presenter played a meaningless sound to a large audience. No one was able to understand what it meant, except that that it might have been modified human speech. He plays it through several times: nothing.
THen he says "Brexit was a big mistake", then re-plays the sound. THe sound is now easily recognisable - it is the same phrase and no one can here it any differently. I was so amazed by this that I played the video from the start to see if the sound had changed - it had not. I could only hear "Brexit was a big mistake".
THis underlines the simple fact that people perceive with anticipation of what they think they might be going to hear. I'm sure that sometime in the past you have heard something completely differently to what a person is saying to you because you are expecting something else or what they have to say is way off the context of the present moment.
Look into witness statements from police incidents. People at exactly the same place and time remember completely different events, clothing, what was said, to whom and so on.. It can make a massive difference who the questions are phrased and a cop wanting to find the answers they want to hear can ask questions to lead and guide the witnesses to their own expectations, often inadvertently.
What is "OUT THERE" objectively is not the direct object of out perception, which is continually laced with anticipations. And whilst we think we see what we think we see there is so much more we do not see and much we think we see that is embellishment.
When it comes to values which are not even visible or in any way objects of perception the problems accelerate. We have merely to reflect upon political differences. Two people can see the same Person giving a speech and one will see the nation is peril and run to overthrow the Capitol whilst another will see a Bigfatorangebabyman sore loser lying to a bunch of gullible fools.