Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

Question 112

Are there really any 'objective' views?

• No, you can only strive for objectivity. I also wonder if the more you know, the less objective you can be - extrapolate this to omniscience. If you knew everything, would it be possible to be anything but subjective? Just a thought. (Rik #1589)

• There are things which I'd call objevtive but I wouldn't call them views (which usually impilies subjectivity).

  In fact it's a fundy/creationist/etc trick to call acceptance of objective reality a view or opinion in an attempt to equate it with their subjective beliefs. (Christopher A. Lee #105)

  ---

• If we define objective view as a view independent of the observer, we can see the problem with objectivity, since a view requires an observer. I said problem, because there something in objectivity which we do not want to throw it away completely. There are two aspects of objectivity that are important to us :

  (1) The ability to reach an agreement about something - this is really inter subjectivity rather then objectivity, since it depends on several people and not just on one particular person.

  (2) The ability to make judgment (about what we see) without any personal interest, as a neutral observers.

  What is surprising is that the two aspects I described which are defined in different terms, have some correlation. This is to say that people who try to be objective judgment may agree more easily.

  Unfortunately, these aspects are not sufficient to maintain objectivity, they are only necessary conditions.

  I would say that although we have problems with objectivity it would be pity if we give it up, it is something worthwhile to strive for. (YOELK #1309)

  ---

• Not absolutely. We are not equipped to perceive things objectively, but there are some facts that are so likely to be true that they can be functionally treated as objective truths. The problem is in identifying just what facts those are. Seems like way too many people disagree about that (subjectively). (Roger Burks)

• Sure. Depends on the defintion of "view." If you mean vision, then anything you look at is an objective view. You can't argue about what you're looking at.

  When you talk about views as thoughts, then the immediate answer has to be no. "Objective" means "of or having to do with a known or perceived object, not one that is imagined." If this is the case, then ANYTHING we merely believe in, or not believe in, without proof or experiment, is a strictly subjective view.

  Science is based on objectivity: we made it happen, we showed how it happened, and we saw it happen. There's nothing to imagine there. The subjective thought leads to experiments that will eventually, the scientist hopes, lead to an objective result.

  Someone else (Merlin) posted a response stating:" Yes. For example, 'Dr. Sinister is a drooling imbecile whom Electro worships because he doesn't know any better' is a totally objective statement..." This is wrong. That is Merlin's view of Dr. Sinister, and only his. (Other's may agree with the sentiment, but it is just that--a sentiment-- and Merlin wrote it, making it his at that moment. A sentiment is patently subjective.)

  Keeping with the NG topic of atheism, the existence of God has not been proven or disproven, so there is no way any religion, or atheism, can be considered objective in its views of how and why things are the way they are. We believe what we feel makes sense. I do believe, though, that atheists tend to be more objective-mided. I doubt seriously that even if some proof of the non-existence of God were found that religious folk would abandon their views. (Jaco66)