Is it possible to be objective in the way we view anything?

[Norsemaiden]

Is it possible to avoid having a subjective view? I would say not. But would say that some views are more objective than others are. While we can't be entirely objective, because there are as many different ways of perceving things as there are different people - we can try to break out of seeing things in a blindly self-centered way and attempt to look at things in a way that tries to evaluate the evidence before us.
This is the argument against relativism. All opinions are not equally valid, because some are more objective than others. Or is my terminology wrong?
We should strive to be as objective as possible if we want to discover various aspects of reality - but some who defend relativist notions reject this evaluative process. They suggest any idea that is entirely unfounded on evidence is just as correct as one that is founded on consistent observations that are shared with others.

(It's late and I'm not sure how much sense I am making. I can't be bothered mentioning any philosophies like Kant's transcendental idealism right now. )

I am assuming there won't be any disagreement, but just checking!

[Silver Incubus]

Well to be honest I really do think that processes like objective and subjective have their roles and really are just tools. In terms of psychology, I feel that objective thoughts and views are from a dissociated frame whereas subjective is in person(Ie you see through your eyes, feeling your emotions, hearing things from your actual position). For instance, to be objective in your relationship with your boyfriend/girlfriend is almost pointless. You will not have the same passion because your feelings will be set aside. Now what can be useful for dissociation(aka a third party view of things) is that you have the ability to see the facts and are able to make a more rational decision, which can be both beneficial or a problem depending on the situation. An example of that could be, it may be rational to let X die, but when you are emotionally involved then letting X die is not an option. Like population control, some people think it is a good idea to kill masses of people, but not them or anyone they know. Being subjective and smelling a flower is an experience whereas dissociation would be the rational explanation of the sense of olfactory mechanisms sending chemical responses to your brain.

Imagine observing yourself in a rollercoaster. What does that feel like? Probably not a very strong feeling. Now if you were to imagine being in the rollercoaster seeing from your own perspective you will have a much stronger sense of feeling.

So they are both useful tools depending on what the desired outcome is. Just remember that emotions are just as important as logic, that is why we have both.

[Norsemaiden]

Originally Posted by Silver Incubus

Well to be honest I really do think that processes like objective and subjective have their roles and really are just tools. In terms of psychology, I feel that objective thoughts and views are from a dissociated frame whereas subjective is in person(Ie you see through your eyes, feeling your emotions, hearing things from your actual position). For instance, to be objective in your relationship with your boyfriend/girlfriend is almost pointless. You will not have the same passion because your feelings will be set aside. Now what can be useful for dissociation(aka a third party view of things) is that you have the ability to see the facts and are able to make a more rational decision, which can be both beneficial or a problem depending on the situation. An example of that could be, it may be rational to let X die, but when you are emotionally involved then letting X die is not an option. Like population control, some people think it is a good idea to kill masses of people, but not them or anyone they know. Being subjective and smelling a flower is an experience whereas dissociation would be the rational explanation of the sense of olfactory mechanisms sending chemical responses to your brain.

Imagine observing yourself in a rollercoaster. What does that feel like? Probably not a very strong feeling. Now if you were to imagine being in the rollercoaster seeing from your own perspective you will have a much stronger sense of feeling.

So they are both useful tools depending on what the desired outcome is. Just remember that emotions are just as important as logic, that is why we have both.

Certainly I agree with you. I am not suggesting being subjective is a bad thing. Really I just wondered if anyone would argue that objectivity is impossible.

[Silver Incubus]

Well its just that I have a more pragmatic view of things of this sort. What is your personal definition of objective? Would a computer making decisions be completely objective? Can a computer even have qualities of objectivity without biological sentience? Does objective mean that one is able to adopt other peoples mental maps and understandings to gain a better perspective or feel of them as well? It is only using facts and not experience or is there a certain level of experience needed for objectivity? If so, what kind of experience would lend to objectivity of a situation or topic?

I really need to understand the meaning of something that may or may not be impossible in order to determine whether or not it can be possible.

[razoredge]

Originally Posted by Norsemaiden

Certainly I agree with you. I am not suggesting being subjective is a bad thing. Really I just wondered if anyone would argue that objectivity is impossible.

I find viewing or evaluating things objectively is easy but in the end you have to make a choice unless your a fence sitter. So at that time your going to choose the results that best suits your desires or needs. There are people that feel they are 100% objective but if you get going on topics with them you find them totally full of hypocracy and inconsideration

[Norsemaiden]

Objectivism in philosophy is that idea that we can have complete
knowledge of the world

relativism is the idea that all knowledge is relative to a perspective or individual

In that all-or-nothing view if objectivism or objectivity meant being able to perceive the world in the one and only true way, then clearly that is impossible. The very definition of what is the one and true way is entirely subjective, or relativist, because we can never perceive everything and nor is there a set rule on how anything must be sensed and evaluated.

I am out of my depth here as far as being able to use all the correct philosophical terms and references!

BUT apparantly objectivism DOESN'T mean that

Objectivism, or metaphysical objectivism, is the view that there is a reality or realm of objects and facts existing wholly independent of the mind. Stronger versions of this claim might hold that there is only one correct description of this reality; they may or may not hold that we have any knowledge of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

The first part seems a very reasonable supposition. That there is a reality whether we have percieved it or not, seems pretty certain. It's the second part that's silly.

If we agree that objectivism is wrong - do we still agree that it is possible to have some objectivity about things?
Maths is objective after all.
Can anyone shed some light on this concept? Does some philosopher explain this fully?

[JoeVice]

Originally Posted by Norsemaiden

we can try to break out of seeing things in a blindly self-centered way and attempt to look at things in a way that tries to evaluate the evidence before us.

its okay norsemaiden, females especially have a hard time with this.

there are certainly situations that call for us to assume a more objective stance. i think the subjective in this case is revealed as, like you said, self-centered, like an exploitation or something. *attatches semantic issue* as far as validation of opinions goes, well, the ones that work best towards the issue at hand are the most valid in the name of that issue. an ideal aim would be to shrink that gap, or blur/transcend the line between the two....along the line of kant's transcendental idealism maybe? although i'm not motivated enough to go through the tedious process of philisophicalizing it...i'll just rest my lazy ass on the basic idea and wait for folks like justin s. and nile to clear things up.

[TheAnonymous]

I think we can never be completely objective. No matter how hard we try, our views and what we say are affected by our personality, our history, etc. However, we can strive to be objective, and try to see things from a different perspective.
So basically, we're either being subjective, or as objective as we can, but it still isn't completely objective. That's something that the human mind isn't capable of, in my opinion.

[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)

[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 o