Is there such a thing as true objectivity or are we all stuck in our own paradigms?

Question

It's all good and well saying that (the use of) language is governed by the rules of logic ...But there is nothing logical about emotions. So in how far has/does subjectivity (emotional input) affect reasoning?
And how is true objectivity obtained other than through something like dissocociation?

oops, meant to type dissociation ...

Answer 1

It is impossible to be truly objective.

It is quite possible to realize that your objectivity is subjective.

Answer 2

yes, there is nothing logical about emotions, and there is nothing logical about language too.

Derrida says rightly that a language just serves the purpose of DIFFERANCE, that is differing and deferral.

to explain, suppose u say "it is raining". U say it is raining because it is not drizzling or showering or that u don't have a thunderstorm. now, can u define exactly what is raining? No, but we can say that raining is the downpour of water from the clouds which is not drizzling,. Thus the meaning of raining depends on the concept u have of drizzling, right? Thus, the meaning is difference.
now, u search the dictionary for the word 'rain', and it will explain it in terms of many other words, using the provisions of language. thus if u r a complete beginner to the language u'll have to keep on checking the dictinary, andf u would end without knowing. So there is a constant deferral of meaning going on.

now comes the rule of metaphor. A metaphor is something that is not meant literally. But a peep in to thne etymologies of all our words show that they were derived from some other word, which in turn was derived from some other. So the whole language is full of maetaphors with no natural linkage to the idea that we have. That is all the signifiers are arbitrary.


according to me, there are different satndpoints, but an overarching objectivity, a condition which needs a thorough comprehensive view of the world as we have achieved in the technologiocal world. Till then there is only relativism, but a tolerant relativism that doesn't sink into justifying all injustices.(injustice too is decided by7 where u stand- remember the Italy-Australia game in the pre-quarters).

Answer 3

The basis of the scientific method is rooted in attaining objectivity. And the use of mathematics as a descriptive tool, notably in physics is certainly the best method we have for approaching a state of objectivity. Unfortunately, as can be seen throughought the history of science, scientists, like anyone else, are subjective creatures (the 19th century discovery of canals on Mars springs to mind as an example of a scientist wishing something to be so, and so seeing what he wanted to see rather than what was really there). Intellectual snobbery, competition and results based funding, among other factors, undermine scientific objectivity.
I suspect that someone would need to be omniscient and omnipresent (ie// God!) in order to achieve true objectivity.
I think a bigger problem, which is highlighted in certain questions on this site, is that everyone is willing to give their opinions and state it as bald fact, so that start, for example, with a question as seemingly simple and verifiable as "How many centimetres are there in an inch?" and you end up with twelve different answers, at least half of which were just numbers plucked out of memory without bothering to check.
We're all just animals (albeit smart ones) with needs rooted in eating, sleeping and f***ing. Our most basic senses can be easily fooled. Trust can be breached. We pick up wrong signals from people. How can we possibly construe ourselves as objective? And given the above, how could we possibly achieve dissociation?
This is my sincere, conceited, subjective, opinion on the subject. And if I look back at this next week, I'll have changed my mind. And thats my prerogative as a selfish SOB.

Answer 4

You assume that paradigms are by definition not objective, and that all emotions are not logical.
That no being the case, the question fails on its face. There can be no correct answer, only a wide variety of opinion.
Maybe if you narrow the scope to a specific concept or a particular paradigm, the possibility of objectivity could be analyzed.
;-D Hang in there.

Answer 5

This is really a multi-part question which require a multi-part answer. If I miss anything out, my apologies in advance.

First thing is that in order to be objective we need to have something real out there to be objective about. That is to say that the world cannot be made up of psychological states. This was David Hume's stance who rejected the possibility of justifying belief objectively concluding that all reality was simply a state of individual consciousness.

In contrast to this it can be argued that if this were the case, given that it is only possible to be aware of one's own consciousness, then how can I have created a world in which music exists when I myself am completely unmusical? How can colour exist when I am colour blind?

Now given the fact that I am aware of the existence of colour, and can to an extent even appreciate the distinctions others make on the basis of the concept of colour, I cannot be completely locked in my own paradigm.

If we accept that science is progressive in nature then we must accept that it is possible for individuals to adopt new paradigms. (Thomas Kuhn Structure of Scientific Revolutions)
So, it follows, that if we accept the existence of a "real" world we can, at minimum appreciate that different people have different views about the nature of that world, and may even come to be convinced by their view.

Okay - so we've now got to the point where there is inter-subjectivity.

To take the leap to objectivity we need to show that we can demonstrate evidence to support, or more importantly, refute a given proposition. Nothing can be proved, whether scientific or metaphorical, however scientific statements are falsifiable. For example the statement that water boils at 100 degrees celcius can be disproved by taking our bunsen burner and beaker of water to the top of Mount Everest and measuring the temperature at which it boils there. In effect this is the real world biting back and challenging our preconceptions.

It gets a bit trickier when we come to purely metaphysical preconceptions. Say I believe in the existence of God and you do not. I cannot prove that God exists, but equally you cannot prove S/He does not. Either position might be correct and what each of us believes boils down to our emotional response to a world with(out) a God. Despite this I do believe that we can fruitfully discuss metaphysical questions, and by our mutual criticism of the others position we may come to a point which is closer to rationality than either of us previosly were at.

So that's it really. We can never be truly objective, and even if we could we would have no idea that we were so doing. (Karl Popper Reason and the Aim of Science, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach)However through mutual discussion, if you like association rather than dissociation, we can at least learn from others mistakes, and are not simply forced to repeat them.

Answer 6

It's interesting to note the number of people here quick to say there's no such thing as objectivity - one can't help suspecting their words seem suspiciously like attempts to make an objective statement.

Yes it is possible to make mistakes in one's judgements about reality but that does not entail all judgements about reality are mistaken. Indeed unless it is possible to make correct judgements about reality, the concept of 'mistaken judgements about reality' loses its meaning.

One final point - I would question whether 'there is nothing logical about emotions'. Actually emotions contain judgements about the world and, except in pathological cases, follow the rules of logic - they're not just randomn reactions. Thus if one was talking to someone about their emotions, we might ask 'Why do you feel that? and we would expect to receive a reason for their feeling that way. For example, if someone said they were scared, we would expect there was in principle a reason why they were scared (even if that were on an unconscious level). It wouldn't be enough for them to say 'I'm scared because canaries are yellow' - unless there was some reason to explain why the person saw the yellowness of canaries as a threat.

Answer 7

There is true objectivity but we can't see it because we're all stuck in our own paradigms, that's how I'd put it. As for your question "So in how far has/does subjectivity (emotional input) affect reasoning?" I say it varies a lot, but maybe everything we say and do is affected somewhat by our emotions or point of view.

Answer 8

Well, this is a light little subject for a Tuesday afternoon. I'll have a go and then check out Hair and Make-up...!

I think that true objectivity is an unobtainable state. Each of us crosses so many categories in terms of gender, culture, experience, language, temporal positioning... true objectivity is to stand outside/disassociate from of all these experiences.

Equally, language is a tool with which to try and express ourselves, but each language has cultural biases and shortcomings which we are both constrained and influenced by. We cannot step outside of who we are and what we experience and we experience both sensually and emotionally.

Answer 9

Some people are ignorant and don't know it. Others are at least wise enough to realize that they are ignorant.

It's the same with being objective. You are right, your world is colored by your past experiences and knowledge, your perspective. Being aware of this fact helps you to be more objective, but I doubt that anyone is completely objective.

A skitoma is the phenomenon where I can see your tiny flaw, but cannot see my own major malfunction. We all have them.

The Bible states that I can see the speck in your eye, but I cannot see the log in mine.

I think the only answer is to tap into an all-knowing truth. Then, you have a standard to compare everything to.

The Apostle Paul stated, "Follow me as I follow Christ". In other words, God is your standard, not his representative, not a preacher, not another person, but God himself. Christ was God, and Paul can only be followed if he continues to follow Christ, and you cannot know if Paul is following Christ unless you use Christ, not Paul, as your standard.

Answer 10

We should be objective.Objectvity is best.It is easy to say but difficult to practice.Most people are subjective.Unless you are able to control emotions and personal preferances you cannot be objective.In the real world 100 percent objective or sbjective is not possible.Those who are successful use a mix,more objectivity and little subjective.Objective nature is rather inheritted or in bulit.Training can improve a little bit.That is all.

Answer 11

Complete objectivity is impossible since we are all "prisoners of the self", the ego. Everything we experience or try to judge is filtered though our subjective consciousness. Subjectivity doesn't - as you state - involve only the emotions; it affects our thinking/logic as well.
Of couse, all of the above is just my subjective opinion.