Often I hear people (both skeptics and believers) claim their statements/comments/responses are "objective", and therefore more valid than a subjective response.. They lessen someone else's argument, on the basis that they are being "subjective". Alternatively, people regluarly point to science as objective and God as subjective.

But let's put all that aside for now. What I'm asking is this - is it actually possible for us to be objective?

On a superficial level, we all have opinions; though it can be argued that one might not necessarily give their own opinion, but provide a balanced view of all possible opinions. Fair enough. I'm looking a little deeper though.

More fundamentally, the human language does not allow for anything to be objective. Below is a quote from the book "Language and Representation", by Martin Montgomery:

The 'interested' character of linguistic representation
the world is not given to us directly and straightforwardly in experience. In apprehending, comprehending and representing the world we inevitably draw upon linguistic formulations. One might say that because of this we always see it slightly askew. But it is not so much a question of bias that is at stake here. What it amounts to in fact is that there is no absolutely neutral and disinterested way of apprehending and representing the world. Language always helps to select, arrange, organize, and evaluate experience, even when we are least conscious of it doing so. In this sense representation is always interested: the words chosen are selected froma determinate set for the situation at hand and have been previously shaped by the community, or by those parts of it, to which the speaker belongs.

Our way of communication - language - is based on pre-existing signs. Signs that when spoken or read trigger in us a picture or image, a representation of our world. And it is with this tool that we communicate ideas to the world, and indeed to ourselves. We see the world through a filter (Montgomery describes it as "slightly askew"), whether we realise it or not. The words we choose are reflections of a sign-system, and consciously or unconsciously we choose our words for various effects.

It is impossible to be objective when the system we use to represent those ideas is inherintly subjective in nature.

That's my opinion anyway.

Your comments/thoughts/queries

Regards, PA

Let me see if I understand this. We see the world based on our opinions and thus speak it in out language, which doesn't make the world objective to all, but subjective by each individual? I think I understand..... I dunno. Can you put that in a simpler form.

PA,

yes, we actively create our worlds. We filter everything consciously and subconsciously. We create symbols to categorize what we process, and this becomes language. Yes, language is subjective, language is emotional.

Remember, "we see what we want to see". We suffer from a self-confirming bias.

However, we can account for, reduce, or eliminate this issue when we apply various methodologies of study. Doing so requires training, being subjective does not. That is why subjective jibberish lingers.

So, if we see what we want to see, then the truth is subjective?

Yes blue you mean your truth correct??? The truth doesn't exist as an objective reality, objective observation is impossible, becasue nothing is unaffected by the observer.Perspective creates perception and perception creates experince..the experince that perception creates is what you call truth. Truth is actually what you experince.Everything else is what someone else has experinced and has told you about, in other words it has nothing to do with you....Objective reality is a oxymoron....As Hyper fondly called it subjective jibberish.....

I want to add my two cents on "subectivity vs. objectivity."

I thought I knew what these meant, but never fully understood the concept until my first semester in nursing school. We called it "signs and symptoms." A symptom is subjective data provided by the patient; i.e. "My leg hurts. or My heart stopped." Signs however, are objective data such as blood chemistry, an EKG or an MRI.

This helped me not only in understanding physiology, but also in my perceptions and judgements in the other sciences.

Might be a ramble, but I hope this post is useful.

Ultimately EVERYTHING is subjective. And all subjective reality IS REAL.

Objective reality DOES NOT exist.

Conscious and sub-conscious reality’s agreed upon by a certain group of entities can exist, but again this is subjective to the group of entities creating that specific reality and their underlying beliefs about reality.

Consciousness creates reality.

Consciousness creates physical reality. Physical reality does NOT create consciousness. Consciousness is the prime mover, so to speak. And consciousness is multi-dimensional.

See my more in depth-topic on the matter:

The Universe as a Hologram....Does objective reality exist???

The only way that a person can be objective, is if they are seerving as an arbitrator bewteen two or more sides, without bias or consideration.

By consideration, I mean that the arbitrator has NO vested interest in the outcome, one way or the other. Anything else would be 'subjective'.

Still, when two sides are equally correct and viable, how does the arbitrator make a decision? It is often up to the persuasiveness (or subjectivity, if you will) of the parties involved.

Just a thought.

Regards, PA

PA, I think you are absolutely right. We are inherently subjective beings, and language certainly acts as a barrier to understanding the true meaning of something, or objectivity.

However that is not to say that objectivity doesn’t exist. It just means we can’t observe it. People seem to feel that truth must be objective or subjective, however I think it is both. I can realise that everything I see and experience will be subjective. However that is not to say just because I don’t experience or observe something that it doesn’t exist.

To use an old analogy, ‘If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?’

Even science is subjective, based on our observations of the world and our theories of physics. Remember at one point we believed the world was flat...

I think we have opinions rendered from personal experience. Therefore something objective is still considered through the subjective overlay of one's personal understanding and observations of what ever presents itself .

JMPD: "The only way that a person can be objective, is if they are seerving as an arbitrator bewteen two or more sides, without bias or consideration.
By consideration, I mean that the arbitrator has NO vested interest in the outcome, one way or the other. Anything else would be 'subjective'."

- This is the definition of the "disinterested observer" and not the objective arbitrator

- Objectivity does not exist. You cannot observe something without influencing it.

You mean people back then did...we don't LOL

Well ‘we’ as in those who know better. I’m sure if you find a remote enough tribe somewhere they won’t have any idea about the world being round.

We only know this because we have better techniques of observing the physical world. Subjectivity/perception is relative to an observer whereas objectivity is not.

I know lol

There are tribes that dont know much and are not aware of many great things...they even made a movie on it..The Gods Must Be Crazy !! its funny one of the tribe finds a coke bottle and they all think it's from the Gods and worship it

For those of you who haven't heard of or seen this movie...look it up here it's a classic http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/

What I don't understand is how and why some people today don't believe man landed on the moon...but that's a different issue

Problematic is that we can never arrive at the true (objective) nature of things from without (paraphrasing Schopenhauer). We are pure consciousness (within, The Self or Selves) and all we have are our perceptions, our unique idea-realities, which are inherently subjective and relative.

To put it bluntly, these people are idiots. Being "Objective" and then calling your opinion better than a "Subjective" opinion is inherently "Subjective" because you've already put your opinion into it. The human cannot be entirely "Objective" because of the fact that we have emotions and do not always do a mathematical calculation of statistics or the situation. However, I believe all can aspire to be more objective. Case closed.

Science, through an objective and approved method known as the Scientific Method, is meant to compile observations and theories into accepted fact so the human may learn and progress, defining the world as accurately and objectively as possible.

If God is omnipotent, then God is also objective unless God chooses one thing over the other, and in turn, has an opinion. Man is modeled in the likeness of God, therefore it is likely God (Assuming he exists although this is not my believe) has an opinion. Subjective.