[Norsemaiden]

Originally Posted by Justin S.

The use of "objective" and "subjective" in terms of the absence or presence of "bias" in perception or representation (with respect [correspondence] to some mind independent "reality") is a fairly recent (mis)understanding of these words and their importance. This confusion is amplified by translators who have read this recent understanding back onto older works, thereby obscuring the original sense, especially for those who do not engage the source texts.

The English "object" stems from the Latin jectus/jacere and ob, which mean roughly "to throw, to thrust" and "before, toward, against" respectively (same root as project, projectile, inject, etc.). Thus, something "objective" is that which can be put before us and be inquired about. In a court of law, one "objects" and puts forth a rebuttal for deliberation.

"Subject" is an important and controversial translation (of a translation, etc.) of Aristotle's hypokeimenon, or that which lies beneath, the "foundation."

The subject/object distinction is one of the oldest of Western metaphysics (i.e., Philosophy). It is not taken seriously enough if viewed merely in terms of "bias," which is foreign to the original distinctions. The question of whether our representations correspond to anything "mind independent" is a distinctly "modern" one (in the philosophical sense, i.e. Cartesian), and culminates in the so-called realism/idealism problem. However, both sides are "idealism" in a essential sense, as both stances are concerned with mental (ideal) representations and their scope (e.g. whether they correspond only to themselves or something mind independent).

The "objectivism/relativism" debate is little more than confused and uneducated polemics on the fallow ground of idealism. These teams spar over the possibility of a perspective-less perspective without asking (among many other things) what constitutes a "perspective" (Latin- seeing, to look through) as such (or, more thoughtfully, the disclosure ["truth"] of being and beings)

Thanks for that Justin. Is it the case that philosophers can entirely reject "objectivism" in the philosophical sense, but yet agree that the idea of one person's perspective being more "objective" than another perspective is still valid? Is my use of the word "objective" misleading here, and if so what word would a philospher use instead?