Objectivity is a concept, like heaven; not a real thing

[f12hte]

What we call objectivity, does not exist among humans. What we call objectivity is just a group of people with the same subjective opinion. But subjectively agreeing does not yield perfect objectivity; just limited agreement in a limited group. Even if every human being on earth agreed to an idea, it is not true objectivity. Objectivity always has a limited scope, and thus is nothing more than agreements among subjective opinions. Objectivity is one of Plato's perfect forms, which do not exist in the world.

[surreptitious57]

One could say that from a human perspective objectivity does not exist only the absolute minimum of subjectivity which is not the same
So true objectivity is therefore something that can only exist outside of human minds and is also immune from interpretation of any kind

I however think that despite this mathematics is truly objective and also all knowledge that is arrived at through falsification
So maybe it is possible after all for true or absolute objectivity to be known by human minds albeit only in very specific cases

[Immanuel Can]

What we call objectivity, does not exist among humans. What we call objectivity is just a group of people with the same subjective opinion. But subjectively agreeing does not yield perfect objectivity; just limited agreement in a limited group. Even if every human being on earth agreed to an idea, it is not true objectivity. Objectivity always has a limited scope, and thus is nothing more than agreements among subjective opinions. Objectivity is one of Plato's perfect forms, which do not exist in the world.

You should disambiguate your usage there. Does "subjective" mean, "had by a subject," as in "perceived by a person,"

Or does it mean, "non-objective," or "made up solely in the mind of a person: illusory"?

Which is it?

Something can be "subjective" in the first sense, and also be objective, universal and always true...like "The earth is spherical." That cannot be said unless a person (a "subject") says it; but it is not "subjective" in the sense that a person who says "The Earth is flat" is as right as the first person is.

Just how "unobjective," or "subjective" can the actual shape of the Earth be? And does the second person's perception MAKE the Earth flat, or does it only fool him into thinking it is, when really, it isn't?

In that case, the objective fact about the Earth is that it is a sphere; the objective fact is that the second subject's perception is just wrong, no matter how firmly he may believe it.

P.S. -- If "objectivity is...like heaven," then what's "subjectivity" like?

[Impenitent]

-Imp

[Age]

What we call objectivity, does not exist among humans. What we call objectivity is just a group of people with the same subjective opinion. But subjectively agreeing does not yield perfect objectivity; just limited agreement in a limited group. Even if every human being on earth agreed to an idea, it is not true objectivity. Objectivity always has a limited scope, and thus is nothing more than agreements among subjective opinions. Objectivity is one of Plato's perfect forms, which do not exist in the world.

Firstly, how are you defining 'heaven'?

Secondly, how are you defining 'objectivity'?

You appeared to be alluding to there is more 'objectivity' with a larger group or with more agreement.

If there is some truth to this, then, from what you have written above, then of course 'you' will never get full or true objectivity, and as such objectivity could never be reached and thus will never be a real thing to 'you'.

Every time you limited the concept of 'objectivity' to human beings you have reduced 'objectivity' to 'that' what it is not.

The concept of 'heaven' and 'objectivity' can very easily and very simply be real things. But, from the concept you have and are holding onto here now, then they obviously can not be real things.

[Eodnhoj7]

What we call objectivity, does not exist among humans. What we call objectivity is just a group of people with the same subjective opinion. But subjectively agreeing does not yield perfect objectivity; just limited agreement in a limited group. Even if every human being on earth agreed to an idea, it is not true objectivity. Objectivity always has a limited scope, and thus is nothing more than agreements among subjective opinions. Objectivity is one of Plato's perfect forms, which do not exist in the world.

If it is a subjective truth, it is not universal hence false.
If it is an objective universal truth it contradicts itself.

[f12hte]

What we call objectivity, does not exist among humans. What we call objectivity is just a group of people with the same subjective opinion. But subjectively agreeing does not yield perfect objectivity; just limited agreement in a limited group. Even if every human being on earth agreed to an idea, it is not true objectivity. Objectivity always has a limited scope, and thus is nothing more than agreements among subjective opinions. Objectivity is one of Plato's perfect forms, which do not exist in the world.

Firstly, how are you defining 'heaven'?

Secondly, how are you defining 'objectivity'?

You appeared to be alluding to there is more 'objectivity' with a larger group or with more agreement.

Heaven is the mental concept that a faithful individual sees as a reward for his good behavior. It is a mental idea. Objectivity is the mental concept that we can know something for sure, when everybody subjectively agrees on the premise. But repeating subjective opinion has nothing to do with objectivity. Objectivity is just an idea that lives in the mental world. And being a mental concept objectivity can not be made granular and be achieved in units. In a word, true objectivity is impossible to practice.

[f12hte]

What we call objectivity, does not exist among humans. What we call objectivity is just a group of people with the same subjective opinion. But subjectively agreeing does not yield perfect objectivity; just limited agreement in a limited group. Even if every human being on earth agreed to an idea, it is not true objectivity. Objectivity always has a limited scope, and thus is nothing more than agreements among subjective opinions. Objectivity is one of Plato's perfect forms, which do not exist in the world.

If it is a subjective truth, it is not universal hence false.
If it is an objective universal truth it contradicts itself.

If it is a subjective truth, then it is truth for the individual in question.

If it is a objective and universal truth, then it is a truth that only an omniscient God could discern.

[Eodnhoj7]

What we call objectivity, does not exist among humans. What we call objectivity is just a group of people with the same subjective opinion. But subjectively agreeing does not yield perfect objectivity; just limited agreement in a limited group. Even if every human being on earth agreed to an idea, it is not true objectivity. Objectivity always has a limited scope, and thus is nothing more than agreements among subjective opinions. Objectivity is one of Plato's perfect forms, which do not exist in the world.

If it is a subjective truth, it is not universal hence false.
If it is an objective universal truth it contradicts itself.

If it is a subjective truth, then it is truth for the individual in question.

If it is a objective and universal truth, then it is a truth that only an omniscient God could discern.

Again same paradox observed above.

[Age]

What we call objectivity, does not exist among humans. What we call objectivity is just a group of people with the same subjective opinion. But subjectively agreeing does not yield perfect objectivity; just limited agreement in a limited group. Even if every human being on earth agreed to an idea, it is not true objectivity. Objectivity always has a limited scope, and thus is nothing more than agreements among subjective opinions. Objectivity is one of Plato's perfect forms, which do not exist in the world.

Firstly, how are you defining 'heaven'?

Secondly, how are you defining 'objectivity'?

You appeared to be alluding to there is more 'objectivity' with a larger group or with more agreement.

Heaven is the mental concept that a faithful individual sees as a reward for his good behavior.

So, it is possible then, correct?

It is a mental idea.

At the time period of when this is written, agreed.

Objectivity is the mental concept that we can know something for sure, when everybody subjectively agrees on the premise.

Agreed

But repeating subjective opinion has nothing to do with objectivity.

Agreed.

Objectivity is just an idea that lives in the mental world.

But, when we know some thing, for sure, which EVERY one agrees with, then that is objectivity, right?

Or, when we can look at things, from EVERY things' perspective, then we can have an objective view of things, correct?

And being a mental concept objectivity can not be made granular and be achieved in units.

Why not?

Depending on your definition for the word 'granular', any of these mental concepts could very easily and very simply be made into reality.

In a word, true objectivity is impossible to practice.

What is 'true objectivity'? How do you define 'true objectivity'?

[f12hte]

So, it is possible then, correct?



But, when we know some thing, for sure, which EVERY one agrees with, then that is objectivity, right?

Or, when we can look at things, from EVERY things' perspective, then we can have an objective view of things, correct?

And being a mental concept objectivity can not be made granular and be achieved in units.

Why not?

Depending on your definition for the word 'granular', any of these mental concepts could very easily and very simply be made into reality.


What is 'true objectivity' or measurable? How do you define 'true objectivity'?

Granular means countable. Wheat is granular. Water and objectivity are not countable

Objectivity refers to the elimination of subjective perspectives and a process that is purely based on hard facts.

In other words, objectivity is impossible in practice because no human can know any fact for certain. Nobody sees the world objectively, so how can a group of people see the world objectively? What we sense is combined with things we know to build up a representation of the outer world that helps us survive. In fact, we know nothing of the world that exists outside of our heads. The light of vision never gets inside of your head. The light elicits an electrical impulse, which travels to the brain via the optic nerve. Your brain does not taste the food you eat, but a rough electrical analog of the taste. The hairs in the inner ear generate electricity, no sound enters the brain. In short all of our senses convert the physical action of the environment on our bodies into electrical impulses, which are informed by past memories and experience. By the time the sensation reaches consciousness, it is no longer the naked environmental stimulus, but a mental image built of the stimulus and memories acquired in previous learning. You've seen the clip where a gorilla walks onto the basketball court in the middle of a game. Viewer's attention is directed towards observation of something about the game. With attention elsewhere, nobody notices the gorilla who walks on to the court. Why not? Because of what I say in this paragraph, above. We don't experience the environment directly. We build a mental image of it that works for us; to assure our continued survival.

So where does this leave the scientific method's first step, observation? If we are observing stuff that we build in our head, are we really observing the naked environment so as to be truly objective about our pronouncements? It leaves us with head-scratchers like the dual nature of the photon detected in the double slit experiment, where we say it's a wave and it's a particle, depending on, of all things, how we 'observe' it.
We know nothing of reality. We only know what helps our survival in our current environment.

[Age]

So, it is possible then, correct?



But, when we know some thing, for sure, which EVERY one agrees with, then that is objectivity, right?

Or, when we can look at things, from EVERY things' perspective, then we can have an objective view of things, correct?

And being a mental concept objectivity can not be made granular and be achieved in units.

Why not?

Depending on your definition for the word 'granular', any of these mental concepts could very easily and very simply be made into reality.


What is 'true objectivity' or measurable? How do you define 'true objectivity'?

Granular means countable. Wheat is granular. Water and objectivity are not countable.

So, are you saying, that, to you, if some thing can not be broken down into separate units and be countable, then it can not be real nor achieved. Correct me if I have read you wrong.

Objectivity refers to the elimination of subjective perspectives and a process that is purely based on hard facts.

In other words, objectivity is impossible in practice because no human can know any fact for certain.

Well then it is not a "fact".

The so called "fact" would not be a fact, but just be an assumption instead. Correct me if I am wrong here.

And, if 'objectivity', from your perspective, is impossible, then that is all you had to state. But, stating some thing as though it is true or false, from an absolute perspective is another matter.

Nobody sees the world objectively, so how can a group of people see the world objectively?

From your perspective, and with the definitons you use, then NO group of people could, obviously.

What we sense is combined with things we know to build up a representation of the outer world that helps us survive.

But you just got through saying we can not know any thing, correct?

In fact, we know nothing of the world that exists outside of our heads.

So, then this contradicts your prior sentence, correct?

The light of vision never gets inside of your head. The light elicits an electrical impulse, which travels to the brain via the optic nerve. Your brain does not taste the food you eat, but a rough electrical analog of the taste. The hairs in the inner ear generate electricity, no sound enters the brain. In short all of our senses convert the physical action of the environment on our bodies into electrical impulses, which are informed by past memories and experience. By the time the sensation reaches consciousness, it is no longer the naked environmental stimulus, but a mental image built of the stimulus and memories acquired in previous learning. You've seen the clip where a gorilla walks onto the basketball court in the middle of a game. Viewer's attention is directed towards observation of something about the game. With attention elsewhere, nobody notices the gorilla who walks on to the court. Why not? Because of what I say in this paragraph, above. We don't experience the environment directly. We build a mental image of it that works for us; to assure our continued survival.

So, why write objectivity and heaven are concepts and are not real things?

Why not just write every thing is just a concept and not real things?

So where does this leave the scientific method's first step, observation? If we are observing stuff that we build in our head, are we really observing the naked environment so as to be truly objective about our pronouncements? It leaves us with head-scratchers like the dual nature of the photon detected in the double slit experiment, where we say it's a wave and it's a particle, depending on, of all things, how we 'observe' it.

That may be what some people say. But what is really happening is some thing that can be very easily and very simply explained AND understood.

We know nothing of reality. We only know what helps our survival in our current environment.

If that is what 'you' BELIEVE, then that is what it MUST BE, to 'you'.

Some would say 'reality' can be very easily and simply known.

[Djustman007]

What we call objectivity, does not exist among humans. What we call objectivity is just a group of people with the same subjective opinion. But subjectively agreeing does not yield perfect objectivity; just limited agreement in a limited group. Even if every human being on earth agreed to an idea, it is not true objectivity. Objectivity always has a limited scope, and thus is nothing more than agreements among subjective opinions. Objectivity is one of Plato's perfect forms, which do not exist in the world.

This is exactly the point when we say truth is just but an opinion. It kicks from here to buying into people's mind to help propagate it. The propensity to become truth is dependent on the opinion leader's ability to have followership.