jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (8 posts)

Nuance Vs. Objectivism, can anything really be explained without subjectivity?

  1. Peter Leeper profile image81
    Peter Leeperposted 5 years ago

    Nuance Vs. Objectivism, can anything really be explained without subjectivity?

    Some beleive certain questions have one absolute answer while others believe that there can be many layers required to truly get to the bottom of things.  Can even the "simpleist" questions ever be answered "objectively"?

  2. CR Rookwood profile image87
    CR Rookwoodposted 5 years ago

    The short answer, I think, is 'no', but practically speaking, consensual reality works well enough for simple daily questions like, "Is that a chair or a raccoon?" Saves everyone a lot of time and bother.

    It's when you start in on trickier, more theoretical questions that objectivity breaks down. The Heisenberg Principle proved that there is no such thing as a detached observer, yet we go on behaving as if there is.

    Some people feel more comfortable with a material understanding of reality that is grounded in observation. It gives them a sense of certainty and rightness. It creates the illusion that the world can be understood this way and nothing else is needed. I don't mind this point of view so long as I don't have to endlessly argue with such persons. I don't like to argue and I think it's a tedious topic.

    Anyhoo, I am more with Charles Forte on the subject. I think we know precious little and the little we do know is open to question and doubt.

    The world is very strange. And we are not in control of it. And two 'detached observers' will more often than not observe two completely different events.

    1. Peter Leeper profile image81
      Peter Leeperposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      wow...a more intellectual response than i was expecting!  Thanks!  I agree that arguing with those who see things in black and white is very tedious and frustrating!  Thanks for answering!

    2. CR Rookwood profile image87
      CR Rookwoodposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the question, Peter! It was fun. wink

  3. whonunuwho profile image78
    whonunuwhoposted 5 years ago

    Objective-not influenced by emotions and unbiased view.
    Subjective- a personal view of a thing or concept, from an emotional concept.
    Nuance- a minor or subtle difference or reception of a concept or proposal.

    If you remove the human element, objectivity can be explained by comparing it to the actions of a robot. If the robot is not programmed to follow directions and reacts to aggression, or maneuvers itself to attack without provocation, or just perform some mindless task, but created with free will, to act and move about uncontrolled, then this is a form of objectivity. If the human element is interjected, and actions are for specific and personally perceived purposes, this is subjective point of view. Their is no nuance or subtle characteristics(the robot is the product of some human mindset) to this, there can be only blatant differences..Humanity is the key element and anything conceived by a human, has to be subjective in nature.

    1. Peter Leeper profile image81
      Peter Leeperposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      subjective is also defined : pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
      I think using the word "emotional" makes some think "dilusional" as opposed to "different answers based on circumstance.

  4. SidKemp profile image95
    SidKempposted 5 years ago

    Believing that an objective reality exists and can be seen and understood is simply a philosophical choice. Those who believe it can be done do it, or aim to. Those who do not, do not. But there is no evidence that can determine the validity of either position, for all evidence is interpreted through one's own philosophy.

    However, pure relativism, that asserts that all subjective views are equally valid, doesn't work. If you had two flight instructors, and one told you to put on a parachute before jumping out of an airplane at 10,000 feet, and the other said "you don't need a parachute, you'll be fine," would you consider both views valid.

    The solution I use is to create inter-subjective perspectives that recognize the validity of each person's view or story, and work to reconcile them, and also to work experimentally - that which is beneficial to all is valid, and can be considered true.

  5. Dominique L profile image60
    Dominique Lposted 5 years ago

    I think it is within the realm of possibility that a human could, as whonunuwho said, train themselves to be a robot and look at things completely objectively, but a person would be working against nature, I think.

    On the other hand, I do think it is possible for people to think about things they don't particularly care about objectively.  For example, I'm a Phantom Of The Opera nut, so I tend to judge Phantom related stuff really harshly.  If I love it, I love it.  If I hate it, someone gets hurt.  But that's because I have an emotional attachment to it.  I'm invested in it.  But take, say, Sherlock Holmes.  I understand that the original stories are very well written and clever, but I'm not so crazy over it that I can't look at the recent movies and enjoy them for what they are, even though my hard core Holmes fan friends got a rash from them.  If any of that makes any sense.

    But I also think the question is moot from an intellectual stand point, as we need to have different opinions and views of things in order to see a thing fully.  Even being completely objective, one person can't see all sides of a situation at any given time.  We need other people of other opinions to point things out to us for fuller understanding.

 
working