JCC What is objectivity? Why do we like it so much?

Objectivity, in contrast to subjectivity, is valued more in discourse. Why? And does objectivity truly exist?

I would argue it may well exist, but it is something that we have not ever and may not ever be able to attain and utilize. We can only experience life through our eyes and that is all we will ever have, therefore I am leaning towards the belief that we can and only be subjective.

But if this is true, then why do we value "being objective" as being somehow more useful than being subjective?

Side Question: Why do people seem to think being logical is something separate from emotional responses? Or, rather, why do we see emotions as bad when it comes to logic, as if the two cannot work in tandem(which I believe they do)?

 

Well, whatever it is, math being boring is an example of it, apparently.

 

Well no, that's subjective through a lens of attempting to analyze its objective values and merits. lol

 

Even numbers are so much cooler than odd numbers.

 

We wish it existed because it would be orderly. But it doesn't and that's a good thing.

 

We like objectivity because it's something everyone can address. We all can discuss objective matters, whereas subjective topics result in the DC/Marvel thread 'discussions' you see.

 

I still think they should have called for help.

 

That's what I find debatable. We are, and our lives are experienced from a subjective nature 100% of the time, therefore if objectivity exists, it would be like Jello says, only an approximation of what we think it should be.

But the very fact that we can only assume that its an approximation, while acknowledging that one can never be objective(due to the human experience), makes me doubt that it exists. And if it does exist, its something that we can't grasp.

 

Uh, bro, I was explaining why we LIKE it.

Also seriously you're reaching /r/iamverysmart levels here. You're using a lot of words but saying nothing.

 

objectivity is an ideal, rather than a reality possible for human minds to achieve. in some fields/situations it is desireable to attempt to attain this ideal. in others it is counterproductive and self-deceptive

 

Usually. Unless you're actually asking for somebody's opinion.

Because being subjective usually means applying your own spin or being influenced by your own feelings. Most people would rather make up their own minds about the subject in question than have somebody else muddy the waters.

If all you're being asked to do is state facts then I would say that you can indeed be entirely objective. If you're being asked to come to a judgement then obviously that is going to be at least partially subjective but you can still be as objective as possible by considering all the available options/positions equally.

 

Objectivity is placed on a higher pedestal because it accurately corresponds to its own referent. This is different from subjectivity, where everyone's opinion of a topic is treated equally, regardless of accuracy.

For example, let's say I'm holding a red apple, and I tell someone else, "This apple is red." That's an objectively true statement, when referring to that apple and others like it. However, if I said, "all apples are red", that would be both a subjective opinion and false as well. No one seems to debate the obviousness of these concepts, unless they carry moral or historical implications.

 

That's not a subjective claim at all. That's an objective claim.

 

No, its subjective because some apples are green.

 

I just want you to know that your definitions are so poorly formulated that I have tried, and failed, three times to fully articulate all of the issues before scrapping the post in frustration.

Here, have a .gif of Larry David which fully encapsulates the broad spectrum of my current emotional state.


Also learn the difference between subjectivity, relativism, and induction, because holy hell.

 

"Subjective" - you keep using that word.

 

Apparently "subjective" means "incorrect". Interesting.

 

"Subjectivity" refers to a subject in terms of opinion, while "objectivity" refers to accuracy in matters of truth. Relativism doesn't work on a philosophical level, because you'd have to include the claims made by the speaker along with everyone else's. As for "induction", Webster's defines it as "inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances"...or in other words, "guessing".

 

The apple colour analogy never worked anyway. This apple is red, green, yellow, orange and a whole lot else besides.

 

I was trying to keep it simple, for the sake of this discussion.

 

Ahh... you thought I was serious. OK. To be clear then, your earlier examples of something being subjective sounded like you thought it was subjective because the statement was an inaccurate assumption. And that if it had been correct, it would have been an objective statement.

 

I had no reason to think otherwise.

Generally, yes. In terms of philosophical discussion, the word "subjective" is used for very broad issues, full of varying opinions. However, if you were to make a steadfast claim on something, that claim would be objective because it refers to that particular object. Whether its true or not is another matter.