Which comes first, the subjective or the objective? Also, which is more important to life?
guess it depends on what you are thinking, experiencing or reading or communicating....what comes first....hmmm...have to think a little a bit about that. good question.
Thanks. What are your thoughts on impulse? I won't hold them against you.
on impulse - objective guess...that's what comes to mind right away...but again it depends...
Alright. What are the strongest points of objective? thanks
...it can be backed up or supported with facts/info.....however.......LOL!
Ok, no rush.
So...do you believe the objective comes before the subjective? thanks
..well I think (right now) experience comes first to my mind...I'm not done with my answer though...that's my first thought....and again it all depends on what we are talking about - am I talking about me and my life experiences; are we talking about what I've learned in an academic sense and through working and gaining knowledge...what I've read, researched, etc. are we talking about what my interests are...hmmmm.....and objective info is supposed to be without an opinion but i sometimes wonder about that.
Everyone starts out subjective, but reaches objective when all knowable is learned.
Subjective comes from an singular idea or thought, usually from an imagination stand point. The subjective idea/thought when viewed via imagination can be realized(appear one-sided).
To take the idea/thought and create something with it, requires objective thoughts, which creates integrated pieces, like puzzle pieces, that fit together, so as to see a whole picture.
Objectivity is required to finish any started project. It must be seen from every viewpoint or standpoint, so to know things are correct.
Subjective things cease to be subjective, when actions are taken to create something, because objectivity is required to complete it.
Those were excellent points for the objective. But do objective thoughts exist? Even when thoughts are of an objective completion, are those thoughts still not subjective to the individual? thanks
what if i'm drawing something from my mind or looking at something someone else has created but have different thoughts around it.
I think this would lean more to subjectives favor. thanks
Okay, you give me two things to break apart? Yet you phrase it as if you're asking a question, when you are actually asking two different questions in one sentence.
(a) you are drawing something from your mind?
(b) looking at something someone else has created?
But have different thoughts around it. This makes no sense.
If you are drawing something from your mind, you are taking action in some manner. Technically, drawing. Artistic isn't subjective or objective, it's conscious.
Consciousness isn't subjective or objective, because it's not described in that manner. It's never been described in that way.
If you were looking at something someone else has created? But, you have a different thought around it, then the piece or object(anything but art) is subjected to your subjective view. You will not be looking at objectively otherwise you would have reached the same conclusion as the other person.
okay - yes 2 questions my mistake.
so viewing art would be subjective (unless same conclusion) - those are my thoughts too. and never be objective in this example.
as for creating art - I always thought of creating art as subjective because the image (or whatever) develops from my mind and not influenced necessarily by concrete or established info. - my opinion about it - is as simple as that.
Cagsil, when drawing, isn't it the subjective that gives the thoughts of what the objective will be? To first draw a line, doesn't it take the subjective thought to pick up a pencil and start drawing? When that picture you drew is completed, will there be one objective idea of the objective picture or will there be separate subjective ideas of the picture from each individual?
Us saying consciousness isn't subjective or objective without us explaining or knowing why and because it is taught doesn't rule out as consciousness being subjective which I think it is. Consciousness has to be subjective, how many subjective opinions even agree on what consciousness is? If I misunderstood you, please let me know. thanks
Objective. It's basic. Objective truth has primacy because it is the only one that is universal. Evolution did not manifest subjectivity until in manifested intelligence.
If you do not drink water, you will die. Period. That's objective. You can't argue your way out of that.
If you are dead, well, all your subjective possibilities die with you. Objective truth has primacy because, well, it is not subjective. You must accept objective reality to have the luxury of subjective "truth."
Thanks Shades, Like Cagsil, you put up good points for the objective.
Water is a good example. But even with the objective which we need to survive, doesn't the subjective/thought always come before the objective? When a person is thirsty, they first have the subjective thought of thirst before obtaning the water. How can we know for sure that the subjective didn't create the objective in evoution also? How would we ever reach a goal or anything else without first having the subjective thoughts and ideas to reach the objective? thanks
Interesting point, but I would counter that if what you say is true, you include all life as having intelligence. For the desire to drink and the subsequent action of drinking to "require" a subjective impetus, then squirrels and grasshoppers are intelligent and contemplate the nature of their thirst subjectively rather than instinctively.
I suggest that the thirst generated by a lack of hydration spawns a chemical and neurological process, an instinct, that is entirely objective. This is because I believe in evolution and therefore see intelligence as having developed out of the process. The development of intelligence gave us (and whichever other creatures you would like to include with us) the ability to have subjective congnition by which we contemplate the components or metaphysics of objective truths, so much so that we can begin debating whether the objective truth came first.
I believe subjectivity requires intelligence and therefore came much later, long after objective truths were the only truth there was.
So, I'm not making an argument that subjective truth is less interesting or has less promise for whatever you'd like it to be useful for, but I am giving objective truth primacy based on the fact that subjective truth cannot exist with out objective truth, making objective truth a necessary truth, whereas subjective truth is not necessary for anything beyond the conversation in which it can justify itself and other exercises as a function of intelligence.
I do think all life has intelligence or it wouldn't still be alive. I think instinct is subjective as well, "fight or flight" introduces an animals decision and thinking of whether they have a chance to beat a rival or they should flee. Animals also do this grazing, some has the escape distance memorized so they can eat as long as possible with predators in sight. Sexual selection points to the subjective thoughts of animals and plants evolving different colors to attract the opposite sex, carriers, or mates.
The thirst spawns a subjective chemical reaction in the brain. If the thirst was objective and automatic, why would some animals refuse water dying of dehydration? If instinct like a heart beat, why wouldn't the animal drink rather than refuse?
Doesn't intelligence come in increments and memories? We have had many years of memories and increments in our biology. Without some intelligence to begin with, how would our result be intelligence?
I don't know how the objective can come before the subjective considering that every action comes from a thought. Which action doesn't come from a subjective thought? If the objective comes from the subjective, isn't the objective dependent on the subjective making the sub. more powerful?
You make great points for the objective, thanks.
Your line of reasoning then requires that protozoa and even plants get credit for making decisions rather than operating on automatic, biological imperitive.
I'm not saying that's wrong, just that I don't buy it. It's definitely a shift from the Objective/Subjective truth argument if we're going to have to start arguing the nature of intelligence down calling amoebas and tulips thinking creatures.
Frankly, I think your argument is trying to force subjectivity onto something that operates on principles of physics that are not self aware by any measure I have ever seen, read about or heard of even anecdotally. Just because something is alive does not make it intelligent, even if we allow a pretty broad definition of intelligence, even a sliding scale. At some point it stops being intelligence and starts being instinct or something else bio-mechanical. The chemical reaction in an earth worm that drives its feeding and sleeping cycles is no more "subjective" than the one that makes hydrogen atoms let go of oxygen during electrolysis.
I think you could make a better case that there is no intelligence at all than the case you are making now, and that even our intelligence is nothing but an electro-chemical process, by which we have created the concept of subjectivity to describe events that are too complicated for our small, ape brains to fully fathom; subjective truth is a lable we assign to what is actually an inevitable outcome that we think we have decision making power over (yes, we've moved into the Free Will argument now too) a chemical and physical reaction that started with the objective truth of a Big Bang or whatever else you'd like to credit with the origins of the universe.
Furthermore, I think your argument also confuses or seeks to merge the concept of conditionality with the concept of subjectivity. One is a property of, in essence, an if/then statement (fight or flight, instinct in general), the other subject to contemplative processes rooted in will as guided by intelligent purpose, but, that takes me back to the beginning of my point, so I suppose I must let it rest.
If we are no different than protozoa, then I say there is no subjective truth at all, it's merely an illusion created by the objective truth of the chemicals in our body reacting in all their incredible complexity.
Shades, there are many humans that act without self awareness, self awareness is a higher level of intelligence, there are many levels. Life adapting to an ever changing environment has to be conscious or aware of that environment. Some bacteria are smarter than humans, this is why we can't figure out how to make medications to counter certain diseases. Some bacteria are also smarter than our own cells, if not, our cells would be able to defend all bacteria. Please define your idea of intelligence and maybe I will have a better idea of what intelligence means to you.
It takes memory to make instinct. It takes memory to make intelligence. Instinct is memorized, this means it is a thought of a mind, how does a creature without a mind remember something?
We control the chemicals in our brains by how we perceive, they don't run on automatic unless we aren't conscious of how they run. A person has free will to think anyway they wish. The subjective thoughts create the objective signals. thanks
No human being can live without any form of self-awareness. It is physically impossible. Even a baby can tell it is alive, it just isn't able to understand the full and complex scope of what it is. Nor do they understand anything at all, but they do know they are living- it's called a sense of life.
Your use of the word "self-awareness" is out of context. Being "aware" of dangers and other things can only be done through sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch.
Are there people who are not aware of their actions or the consequence? Sure, that doesn't mean that they are/have not self-awareness. There is a difference.
I agree with a lot of what you just wrote Cagsil, but if there was ever a term that had multiple subjective meanings, it is awareness, self awareness, and consciousness. I think you are right that all life could possibly have some level of self awareness/knowing it's alive while it varies in different levels. thanks
actually because of quantum physics, it seems its all subjective. reality is based on the tool of observation.
I agree, this is why they use different measuring methods for large scale and small scale. I think the main problem is figuring out how to link the small and the large. I may be wrong. How do we explain or prove that subjective thoughts built the planet and universe? thanks
big questions of which the answer is this:
those who claim to know do not.
This thread is making my head spin. lol
I just want to say, you have the skill to make the untalkable, talkalotabouted.
Thanks, it just goes to show how hard the truth is to find sometimes, most of the time. Even when the truth is found, is it ever an objectionable truth or only subjective?
the thing about optics is that its all subjective to relevance. there is no objective truth because we have to translate it inside our heads. we can only operate on existing belief systems. the mind has to progressively inch towards ever increasing tolerance for transcending what we know.
what is reality...err. actually whatever we think it is, that's reality.
If all is subjective, then couldn't the objective truth exist if the individual subjectively believes it exists? lol Sorry, I was holding this one in.
well, in my opinion, that objective truth will be objective only to the observer. Another observer (or another species) would have a different objective truth.
Oh as promised:
physicist talking to kabbalist. cool!
Kind of like a more intelligent version of hubpages forums.
so consciousness, cosmology, woowoolala kabbalah...actually started to talk in the same language!
I think it has been beat into our societys head that the objective is more important than the subjective. When in reality, isn't the objective still subjective to the individual?
but those who know what is unknowable actually got it.
and to continue that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQV7A5kj … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBjgLYrM … re=related
Here are some thoughts saying everything is subjective and the objective doesn't exist until the subjective creates it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7p5xHD0 … re=related
How do 2 different subjective minds come to an agreeing conclusion of a belief or reality? Is this only done by subjecting the same objective?
by emrldphx5 years ago
For those who are interested, I am putting together a primer on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Much of the disagreement in this forum is due to confusion between the two. We'll start with a...
by AshtonFirefly14 months ago
I've been researching the relationship between philosophy and science lately, and I came across this opinion during discussion:This person claimed that scientific theories, by nature, are ultimately influenced by and...
by fallenangel6666 years ago
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who...
by pburger6 years ago
A science paper is supposedly objective truth. But if language is the medium of expression, and all language is subjective, how objective the language of science?
by jomine4 years ago
A definition is a sentence that describe the meaning of a word precisely and clearly that the word can be used unambiguously. A definition limits the meaning of a word.A synonym on the other hand is a word with a...
by cjhunsinger2 years ago
It would seem that a question of proof of a claim is always asked and never given or accepted. It may be beneficial to define what a truth is or what a proof may consist of, so that a common agreement can be established...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.