What does 'objective' actually mean?

[Chriliman]

The word 'objective' can either mean:

1. The state of reality as it actually exists apart from all minds

or

2. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

When one word has two meanings it can cause confusion. I've come accross the confusion in many different threads here.

I think we can drop the first meaning because it's impossible for any being to know the state of reality as it actually exists apart from it's ability to perceive/know reality.

So that first meaning is based on an unknowable reality and therefore irrelevant to all knowable things in the knowable reality.

I believe that God is the only being in existence who perfectly knows reality and this is how he can make/create all things possible.

Thoughts?

 

[HitchSlap]

The word 'objective' can either mean...


Thoughts?

Sure. I think reality exists. I think that we can objectively know some things about reality. I think that falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without. I think that objective reality is independently verifiable. That's what I think.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I believe that God is the only being in existence who perfectly knows reality and this is how he can make/create all things possible.

Thoughts?

Why do you believe this?
How does God's ability to "make/create anything possible" follow from his ability to know reality perfectly?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The word 'objective' can either mean:

1. The state of reality as it actually exists apart from all minds

or

2. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

When one word has two meanings it can cause confusion. I've come accross the confusion in many different threads here.

I think we can drop the first meaning because it's impossible for any being to know the state of reality as it actually exists apart from it's ability to perceive/know reality.

So that first meaning is based on an unknowable reality and therefore irrelevant to all knowable things in the knowable reality.

I believe that God is the only being in existence who perfectly knows reality and this is how he can make/create all things possible.

Thoughts?

My thought is that arbitrary reasons to ignore the first definition, especially when the discussion specifically calls for the first definition, leads to the confusion you claim to want to avoid.

We can identify things that would be objective in reality using the first definition. We can also identify subjective things in reality.

 

[Chriliman]

Why do you believe this?
How does God's ability to "make/create anything possible" follow from his ability to know reality perfectly?

Because if one knows all there is to know about reality then one can do all things that are possible to do.

We as human beings cannot say with certainty that such a being does not exist.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Because if one knows all there is to know about reality then one can do all things that are possible to do.

It doesn't follow that maximal knowledge leads to maximal power.

We as human beings cannot say with certainty that such a being does not exist.

We also can't say that it's possible that one does exist.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Because if one knows all there is to know about reality then one can do all things that are possible to do.

We as human beings cannot say with certainty that such a being does not exist.

Still doesn't look like it follows. Can you elaborate?

And while we may not be able to know with absolute certainty that such a being does not exist, we can be reasonably certain if the evidence against it outweighs the evidence for it, which is the position I think we are in.

 

[Soyeong]

The word 'objective' can either mean:

1. The state of reality as it actually exists apart from all minds

or

2. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

When one word has two meanings it can cause confusion. I've come accross the confusion in many different threads here.

I think we can drop the first meaning because it's impossible for any being to know the state of reality as it actually exists apart from it's ability to perceive/know reality.

So that first meaning is based on an unknowable reality and therefore irrelevant to all knowable things in the knowable reality.

I believe that God is the only being in existence who perfectly knows reality and this is how he can make/create all things possible.

Thoughts?

I was going to suggest dropping the second definition because it is really a misnomer. We can try to make our judgements as objective as possible by gathering as much evidence as we can and taking steps to limit the influences of our biases, but at the end of the day we are all biased and all of our judgements are inherently subjective. Saying that objective reality exists is different from saying that we can accurately know what it is.

 

[Chesterton]

I've always thought "external" was better than "objective".

 

[Chriliman]

I was going to suggest dropping the second definition because it is really a misnomer. We can try to make our judgements as objective as possible by gathering as much evidence as we can and taking steps to limit the influences of our biases, but at the end of the day we are all biased and all of our judgements are inherently subjective. Saying that objective reality exists is different from saying that we can accurately know what it is.

Agreed.

So when someone says that they're being objective, they really mean they're being subjectively objective. Is there a word other than 'objective' to describe that? Or is 'objective' the best word to use?

 

[Chriliman]

Still doesn't look like it follows. Can you elaborate?

And while we may not be able to know with absolute certainty that such a being does not exist, we can be reasonably certain if the evidence against it outweighs the evidence for it, which is the position I think we are in.

It is the position that you are in, otherwise you'd believe in God, if you felt the evidence pointed to God.

The purpose of this thread is to clear up the confusion between using the word 'objective' to describe subjective analysis and the existence of reality apart from all minds.

Maybe I'm the only one who's confused as why the same word can be used for both cases. It just seems to me that there should be a word for subjectively analyzing something in an objective way. Or maybe we should only use the word 'subjective' when we analyze things and only use the word 'objective' to describe the existence of reality apart from all minds? Idk, thus the thread.

 

[Chriliman]

I've always thought "external" was better than "objective".

Okay, but to me "external" from all minds should have the same meaning as "objective". But the word "objective" has two completely different meanings, as I've outlined in the OP.

 

[Chesterton]

Okay, but to me "external" from all minds should have the same meaning as "objective". But the word "objective" has two completely different meanings, as I've outlined in the OP.

Yeah that's true, but it doesn't really matter because you'll never get agreement from a materialist that anything is objective or external anyway. That would be tantamount to saying there exists something other than the human mind which can judge and evaluate. The only thing they'll say is actually true is that there is no such thing as true (along with whatever other life beliefs they happen to like having).

 

[Soyeong]

Agreed.

So when someone says that they're being objective, they really mean they're being subjectively objective. Is there a word other than 'objective' to describe that? Or is 'objective' the best word to use?

I don't think anyone who says they are being objective is strictly making a true statement, so I wouldn't say that someone that someone is being objective or subjectively objective, though I would say that someone is trying to be objective or as objective as possible, which is what someone usually means when they say they are being objective.

 

[quatona]

The word 'objective' can either mean:

1. The state of reality as it actually exists apart from all minds

or

2. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

When one word has two meanings it can cause confusion. I've come accross the confusion in many different threads here.

I think we can drop the first meaning because it's impossible for any being to know the state of reality as it actually exists apart from it's ability to perceive/know reality.


So that first meaning is based on an unknowable reality and therefore irrelevant to all knowable things in the knowable reality.

Agreed.

I believe that God is the only being in existence who perfectly knows reality and this is how he can make/create all things possible.

This confession of your personal beliefs appears to be completely unrelated to the topic of the post.
On top, it is self-contradictory, given your criticism of the definition in question. The definition in question renders God´s "objective" knowledge just as impossible as humans´ "objective"knowledge.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The word 'objective' can either mean:

1. The state of reality as it actually exists apart from all minds

or

2. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

When one word has two meanings it can cause confusion. I've come accross the confusion in many different threads here.

I think we can drop the first meaning because it's impossible for any being to know the state of reality as it actually exists apart from it's ability to perceive/know reality.

So that first meaning is based on an unknowable reality and therefore irrelevant to all knowable things in the knowable reality.

The first meaning is actually quite useful in not only philosophical conversation but ethical/moral conversation as well. However, I have witnessed your difficulty in using it...so I wholeheartedly agree that you should probably stop trying to use it until you genuinely understand it. You seem to think that you can learn or gain knowledge about what objectively exists in reality simply through your own thoughts and feelings...you can't though. So please, for everyone's sake...stop using the first definition.

I believe that God is the only being in existence who perfectly knows reality and this is how he can make/create all things possible.

Thoughts?

You're free to believe whatever makes you feel good. I don't agree though.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because if one knows all there is to know about reality then one can do all things that are possible to do.

What you said here is completely illogical. How do you go from "knowing" to "doing"? It's entirely possible that if a being that exists that knows everything there is to know it could be incapable of doing anything at all.

We as human beings cannot say with certainty that such a being does not exist.

Well we certainly don't have any reason to believe such a being exists. It doesn't appear to be something someone can know so it's a bit pointless to speculate about.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It just seems to me that there should be a word for subjectively analyzing something in an objective way.

We have a method for subjectively analyzing things in an objective way....it's called science.

Or maybe we should only use the word 'subjective' when we analyze things and only use the word 'objective' to describe the existence of reality apart from all minds? Idk, thus the thread.

Generally speaking, we use the second definition when we talk about the lack of objectivity in people's perceptions.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Chriliman]

You seem to think that you can learn or gain knowledge about what objectively exists in reality simply through your own thoughts and feelings...you can't though.

It's statements like the above that cause confusion. How else do human's gain knowledge about what objectively exists other than by viewing it and thinking about what objectively exists from their individual subjective perspective?

Your statement implies that I should be able to gain knowledge without using my subjective abilities to understand the world, but how would this be possible?

If it's not possible then what you've said above is actually wrong and we actually do gain knowledge subjectively because it's the only way to gain knowledge.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's statements like the above that cause confusion. How else do human's gain knowledge about what objectively exists other than by viewing it and thinking about what objectively exists from their individual subjective perspective?

Your statement implies that I should be able to gain knowledge without using my subjective abilities to understand the world, but how would this be possible?

If it's not possible then what you've said above is actually wrong and we actually do gain knowledge subjectively because it's the only way to gain knowledge.

How would you know if you were wrong?