Objective or Subjective?

1. 53

   TruthDebaterposted 14 years ago

   Which comes first, the subjective or the objective? Also, which is more important to life?

   replyreport
2. 61

   SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks. What are your thoughts on impulse? I won't hold them against you.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         on impulse - objective guess...that's what comes to mind right away...but again it depends...

         replyreport
         1. 53

            TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Alright. What are the strongest points of objective? thanks

            replyreport
            1. 61

               SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               ...it can be backed up or supported with facts/info.....however.......LOL!

               replyreport
               1. 53

                  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Ok, no rush.
                  
                  So...do you believe the objective comes before the subjective? thanks

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     ..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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 53

                        TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Aren't all of those you listed the subjective making the objective? I'm not sure that the objective exists! thanks

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           yes......

                           replyreport
3. 69

   Cagsilposted 14 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Objective thoughts do exist. It requires self-teaching to be objective in everything you do, not just some.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      what if i'm drawing something from my mind or looking at something someone else has created but have different thoughts around it.

      replyreport
      1. 53

         TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I think this would lean more to subjectives favor. thanks

         replyreport
      2. 69

         Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Remember, your imagination is influenced by knowledge and wisdom, which you've learned and experience. Your imagination incorporates stuff you cannot consciously bring about.
               
               That is how art is created. It's called: talent.

               replyreport
         2. 53

            TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            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

            replyreport
4. 77

   Shadesbreathposted 14 years ago

   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."

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Nicely said.

      replyreport
   2. 53

      TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Shadesbreathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 53

            TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Shadesbreathposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
               1. 53

                  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  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

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 53

                        TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        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

                        replyreport
5. 67

   ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago

   actually because of quantum physics, it seems its all subjective. reality is based on the tool of observation.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      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

      replyreport
      1. 67

         ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         big questions of which the answer is this:
         those who claim to know do not.

         replyreport
         1. 53

            TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            This thread is making my head spin. lol

            replyreport
            1. 67

               ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I just want to say, you have the skill to make the untalkable, talkalotabouted.

               replyreport
               1. 53

                  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 53

                        TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           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:
                           
                           http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJGavI90N9M
                           
                           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!

                           replyreport
6. 53

   TruthDebaterposted 14 years ago

   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?

   replyreport
7. 67

   ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago

   but those who know what is unknowable actually got it.

   replyreport
8. 67

   ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago

   and to continue that:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQV7A5kj … re=related

   replyreport
   1. 53

      TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Cecilia, I watched the links, still watching. I must say, I highly disagree with most of what is said in the videos, I see many gaps. But I do appreciate you posting them, they are interesting to watch. thank you

      replyreport
9. 67

   ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago

   more:
   
   About senses:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBjgLYrM … re=related

   replyreport
10. 53

    TruthDebaterposted 14 years ago

    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

    replyreport
11. 53

    TruthDebaterposted 14 years ago

    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?

    replyreport