The subjective versus objective
(Please don’t kill me!)
If you view the world very objectively, and you believe everything is just as it is, and feelings get in the way of observation, who believes this is a ‘better’ way to survive, more pure (this “better” in itself is subjective isn’t it!).
From “You are not gifted”
Mikey W explains that boosting confidence and telling everyone they are gifted would give a false confidence.
Yet I would claim that telling everyone they are not gifted is a very unproductive, inspirational way of objectifying humanity.
We all grow to gain strengths and weaknesses, no matter how minuscule or trivial.
But that is just a small fraction of what I’m talking about;
If it benefits a person to tell them they are good at something, should it not be done?
If it lowers someone’s abilities by telling them they are objectively equal to most people in a statistically significant way, should it not be avoided?
Here again, I draw parallel to the placebo affect; if we can alter belief of people for the better of their well being, creativity, amongst other improvements, should this not be done?
In the placebo affect, we see that if we tell someone something, whether or not we believe it, we can alter their health. We can tell someone we have just found a cure for your depression it is in this pill (or this therapy, or this process). They take our advice and feel better. Yet here there is no process other than themselves.
The predicament lays within the self, though; what if we dispelled all belief, and gave perfect transparency to our methods, the science, the absolute objective process, and found nothing but the self was responsible. The belief would change, and in most cases, lose potency.
What an incredibly interesting concept.
This is quite a sporadic post so, I’m sure it doesn’t flow well, but if you have any thoughts, please let me know.
When I say objectivity, I am speaking analytically – we can see numbers and rationalize things. When I say subjectivity I’m speaking of belief and ‘feelings’ – that which are hard to quantify. Please don’t crucify me again
Always stirring up SOME sort of controvercy huh? :)
Youve got a really good point though.
I have a friend who is horribly negitive about almost everything because his parents are constantly talking him down. Hes ok at graffiti, not the best, but i can tell he finds joy in his work, so i positivly reenforce him often. He talkes his art down, says it sucks, ect ect but i cant be around all that, so i try to shift his perception, and point out strengths rather than errors.
This motha fucka has become so passionate about graff now that hes started coming up with some ideas i could only imitate. Everything his pops says he sucks at, hes better than me at, but wont accept. In his mind, he really is useless. He could be making a living as a mechanic, but is so brainwashed into being nothing, that he really believes it now. while a little positive enforcment has him turning into a force to be reconed with!
@bigred, People don’t like when I say “objective”.
Yeah, and see – he’s living is negativity, if he were to switch his life around and say damn I could be a good mechanic or I could really take my art somewhere, he’d be better off.
And all it is, is the subjective way of telling someone they are “subjectively” talented at something, and out come objective results! Fascinating.
This is stupid. :) Even the self-labeling “I view the world from an Objective point of view” is a subjective statement which lasts in periods of certainty.
Here’s a situation. Someone is telling you that you cannot do something. Tries to convince you just with their presence in your life, no matter what point of view they reflect on you. You punch them in the fucking chin. :) No need for further debates.
Ok ok I need an English lesson. Feel free to make fun of me (Im not a native speaker).
Ok ok ok. Objective and subjective. Isn’t that how you show the world. Does that relate to how you speak to people. Or did I miss something here?
Being objective you can’t interact with the world. Telling the truth is still subjective. Telling someone that they suck is still subjective. Or am I walking on thin ice here?
OBJECTIVITY & SUBJECTIVITY
The difference between these two important ideas is the difference between fact and opinion. Facts are objective and provably true; however, if no clear facts exist about a topic, then a series of balanced opinions needs to be produced to allow the reader to make up his or her mind; opinions are subjective ideas held by individuals and so are always biased. If unbalanced opinions are presented as if they are facts, they act as propaganda or persuasion, e.g. a newspaper headline might state: “Youngsters are the prime cause of trouble in this area”. This is presented as an objective fact but is clearly a subjective opinion.
An objective piece of information, therefore, needs either to be the whole truth and at least be unbiased or balanced, whereas a subjective point of view is biased because it is either not the complete picture or it is merely a viewpoint or expression of feelings.
When studying literature, it is best to be objective when you consider a text’s qualities. Of course, literature read for pleasure should be approached subjectively as this allows you to ‘be there’ with the characters, feeling involved with the plot and so forth. But when you discuss literature for an essay, it is far safer to ‘stand back’ and see it objectively for what it is: no more than an attempt to engage and hold your attention, build trust in its writer, and persuade you to a way of thinking – the writer’s way!
Looked at objectively, a text is no more than a ‘vehicle’ for communicating a persuasive message. This applies to characters and settings, too – all highly compelling and believable ‘vehicles’ for the writer to convince you to think his or her way!
It means that you could be subjectively persuaded to suck more or objectively make up your own mind how much you suck, really.
I have such a huge problem with subjective vs objective that I don’t even know where to begin. In my mind, nothing can be objective!!! Even “facts” that “everyone” “agrees on” are all perceived and proven through subjective means. And with each person perceiving said “objectivity”, there comes a myriad of unique associations and qualities of the complex train of thought to be had about the “fact” and subjective meaning to be given to the “fact”… It’s just not objective.
Oh it is, you say? PROVE IT!!! Show me something that is real OUTSIDE OF HUMAN PERCEPTION!!! And good luck. :)
@tangledupinplaid21, there within the excellence of your point is a game-changer!
“Show me something that is real OUTSIDE OF HUMAN PERCEPTION!”
Indeed, but this means that what you’re calling Subjective is actually OBJECTIVE!
As in, the observer, not the subject of the observation.
Here is your whole post with the two words interchanged. See now how it would read, coming from an approach of the consciousness being Objective and an “outside reality” being observed as Subjective, as in the subject to said observation.
“I have such a huge problem with subjective vs objective that I don’t even know where to begin. In my mind, nothing can be subjective!!! Even “facts” that “everyone” “agrees on” are all perceived and proven through objective means. And with each person perceiving said “subjectivity”, there comes a myriad of unique associations and qualities of the complex train of thought to be had about the “fact” and objective meaning to be given to the “fact”… It’s just not subjective.
Oh it is, you say? PROVE IT!!! Show me something that is real OUTSIDE OF HUMAN PERCEPTION!!! And good luck. :)”
“A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed”
It depends on the context. If the context is “Show me something that is real OUTSIDE OF HUMAN PERCEPTION!!!”, then subjective would be the personal experience perception of what’s real, and objective would be the perception of all different perspectives represented of what’s real. Elementary! That’s boring.
Misunderstanding of the world “object.” Not object as in, a thing. An object, as in a thing of sorts, would be the SUBJECT of your observation. Think “Test subject”
“Object” as in “Objective”? Think “objective observer”
Objective is the perspective of the observer, and subject is a thing observed.
The bad assumptions of Science mix these things two up… Science insists that we are separate from the Universe and that it can be studied “outside us”.
It fails to see the nature of us making our larger SELF the subject of our observations is in fact the subject of our observations making observations about itself.
And thus creates a science that successfully manipulates reality, seeming to give credence to the conclusions drawn from it, while all-along the dualistic assumptions built-in to its search cause paradoxes on the level of creation that is truly non-dual.
Thus all the confusion with Quantum physics, when many of us know what’s truly been discovered and proven…
Objective: that which can be predicted by math.
Subjective: that which cannot.
That is my definition and I’m sticking to it.
Everything stems from the brain and the body, taste, smell, mood, everything, therefore, everything is subjective. It is impossible to be completely objective. You can try, and it does do a lot of good to do so for you then are becoming self-aware and looking at your own thoughts and taking a step back from it all, but no one can truly become objective. However, if someone were able to, and if you argue that you can, then there has to be something external, a soul, the observer, something, to objectively look at the world without your brain and personal ties interfering.
@ijesuschrist, why is math so important to you?
Do you believe your truest essence to be that of a math equation?
Whether or not, really though why should math be the axis of this duality?
People seem to have forgotten now that math was not always considered part of science or relevant to it… in fact over the scope of modern human science it’s a relatively recent change based on the successes of mathematics in physics. Before the last few generations of science, math was realized to be completely in the domain of human MIND and thus not considered a part of truly objective science.
Math is highly over-rated. Indeed it is a successful logic/linguistic mechanism for understanding, describing, manipulating what of reality fits within the resolution of its capabilities.
It’s the purest product of the type of dualistic thinking that causes topics like these to be possible.
But it’s only that: A product of thought, and if you use only its perspective to see reality, you’re like seeing the infinite scope of cosmic possibility thru a serial-style calculator processor.
First I’d like to mention that, I only view the world subjectively. To me, it seems that’s the only way we can experience the world. Just as in Kant’s philosophy of idealism, we acknowledge stimuli coming from an external source, but can we ever know anything about the nature of that source? This is referred to as the “noumenon”, the “thing in itself”, and we only experience the phenomenon which would be “thing as it appears”. Thus if such an objective reality exists “outside” we can only know it through our own experience/mind/thoughts… essentially relegating any autonomous reality to the realm of the unknowable.
“The predicament lays within the self, though; what if we dispelled all belief, and gave perfect transparency to our methods, the science, the absolute objective process, and found nothing but the self was responsible. The belief would change, and in most cases, lose potency.”
In response to the OP, specifically ^ this quote, I have to say, to me it seems that only the self is responsible and our own potential is limited by our minds. I strongly agree that if this “placebo effect” were applied in a positive manner, people would be more likely to succeed in their lives. I feel like we live in a global society that focuses too much on the negative, and is encumbered by a system that reinforces such negativity leaving the masses to feel un-empowered and feeling helpless. It’s difficult to focus on positive thoughts when you turn on the television everyday and the media is bombarding you with so much bad news and problems in the world, and then there’s the criticism generated by our self-conscious fears when focusing on our peers. This is why I think there are only few truly successful people in the world. Those are the people who are able to filter out negativity and avoid self-sabotaging behaviors like bad relationships, unhealthy diets, and poor investments.
Success seems to start with self-discipline and improvement of the self. Once one can improve the self and exercises positive thinking, I believe they will generate happiness in their lives and the lives of the people around them.
It starts with the self (subject) – so be the change you want to see in the world.
“Objective: that which can be predicted by math.”
I find it ironic that you’d define your criterion for objectivity with a subjective system. Mathematics and numbers themselves are non-material. Mathematicians are able to produce results in theory, that don’t always work in the “real” world. There are indeed some ‘non-material’ ‘objects’ upon which enough people can agree that we may call them objective, For instance, where do numbers reside?
Perhaps we are in some matrix, but we are something, simply because you can ask “Do I exist?” is conclusive evidence that you do exist. Perhaps we are a computer with adaptive programming and not really human, but when you step back and observe the thing observing in itself, yourself, it IS observing and in this sense it is both the object and the subject and is completely both.
The fact that you know you are observing simply because you ARE observing is completely objective, there is no reasonable way to dispute this, you cannot deny that the fact that you ARE observing, therefore it is completely objective. Regardless of the fact that everything you observe is subjective, observing in itself is not an observation.
@nightowl, A scientist will not say math is science. A mathematician will not say science is mathematics. Mathematics is very mysterious. I’ve had a conversation with who I believe to be one of the most intelligent mathematicians on the planet, and the way he describes things (I can only imagine what he really knows) you see something very elegant about mathematics that begs to be philosophical.
Look at euler’s equation. It relates the 5 most important numbers to our existence; 1 the identity, 0 nothingness, e natural growth, pi the ratio of radius to circumference, and i the number which we cannot comprehend in our physical universe, yet MUST be used.
I am not a mathematician and am by no means gifted in it, but I have caught glimpses of how far “down the rabbit hole” it seems to go. I may be just in awe at something trivial, but mathematics to me is incredible. We can predict things on a macroscopic level to absolutely incredible (yet arbitrary) preciseness.
You are trying to debate whether mathematics is itself subjective (human made) or objective (something actually… ‘real’ whatever that means). This is not an easy thing to debate and claiming you know this outright is a blatant display of arrogance. (Not being mean, just seriously – that is quite the statement).
I’ll ask you, how far have you gone in studying mathematics? Do you know about the golden ratio? Do you know about euler’s identity? I’m not saying that learning these will change your mind, but without knowing them, I don’t think you should dismiss mathematics so quickly.
Most of all, mathematics shows to me, that there is always this objective mass and energy reality in which we are constantly subjectively observing. It is out there and we are in here. The fact that 1+1 is always going to equal 2 in our universe screams to me that there is objectivity in our existence, albeit we must look at it through a subjective lens.
Saying math is highly over rated is like saying understanding is highly over rated.
@cogito, I understand your confusion.