How can one ever become entirely objective? If we are brutally honest, we have to admit the unpleasant truth about ourselves, in that we all have prejudices. We all have proclivities. We all choose favorites. How then may we be truly objective?
What if objectivity is illusory? After all, how can we know it is real? We can only imagine what things appear like through different eyes, but we can never actually experience that detachment.
What is your opinion?
2007-03-30 08:29:20 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You are referring to purist objectivity. With this kind of objectivity, no one is objective for more than a few seconds. This kind of objectivity is really about agreeing to what you are taught and then stating clearly that you are agreeing with it. That's it. In reality, even empirical data and senosory input is highly subjective, but it does not mean that these are completely non-quantifiable either. The notion of "closed-case" scenarios, which supposedly limit outside influences in order to objectively measure phenomena is also philosophically flawed, because only relative variables can be excluded. The scientific function of objectivity is utilitarian in its basis -- because more scholars have stated that they agree with others, the data or idea becomes conventionally accepted. Even this is far from objective truth in the philosophical sense. That notion of objective truth does not seem to have any practical application. Only when we begin to evaluate the usefulness to the greatest number or people, do we communally or temporarily see that an objective notion or position is true for the people involved or which are most affected or benefited by the notion and / or position.
2007-03-30 08:54:30 · answer #1 · answered by dreamelixir4453 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not believe we can ever be completely objective. Pure science is probably the closest the world will get to objectivity, that is, biology, chemistry and physics, since they are based on things that should always happen. However, even the things we choose to test in science are subject to personal bias.
Perhaps subjectivity is not such a bad thing. Without it we would never have art or music, philosophy or history... any of the artistic subjects. How dull would that be! Long live subjectivity!
2007-03-30 08:35:33 · answer #2 · answered by dawn h 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps the only answers to questions are questions?
Perhaps communication is flawed?
Perhaps questions are flawed as a result of flawed communication?
Perhaps objectivity is just a word?
Perhaps the concepts of right, wrong, good, evil and all other absolutes are completely flawed? Perhaps these are created off the back of flawed communication?
Perhaps humans have not evolved as far as they think, and are no 'better' off than before?
This site asks for 'answers', but do answers not imply a 'right' and is 'right' not an absolute. Does absolute exist?
Surely all of this is flawed if it comes off the back of flawed communication. Can an 'answer' exist in something that is flawed?!
If 'but words are all we've got' is something you want to justify your use of something flawed with, then surely you must understand the limitations?
If you understood what you were using, would you get passionate and emotional?
Put a question mark in front of everything. I don't do absolutes. Or do I?!
2007-03-30 09:36:15 · answer #3 · answered by LB 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First and foremost, you're enticing an argument already about the nature of objective truth; yourself, myself, ourselves, they, he,she etc. all fall to subjective category. Our proclivities, your proclivities, their proclivities is subjective.Anything regarding first, second, third person singular or plural is subjective.
Objectivity is the LEARNED truth consensus to everyone.Fields of Sciences, Mathematics, English etc, or not to mention moral laws. The fundamental principle invoked on this is, everyone learns the same truth, and agrees on the same truth.
2007-03-30 09:05:26 · answer #4 · answered by oscar c 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When you look at it from another perspective, put yourself in someone elses place by considering the situation and circumstances, then try to see it from another point of view. Compare how you see it
with how they(or anyone else) could, and understand why you think and feel about it the way you do, and how they would. Then look at it objectively, or with objectiveness.
2007-03-30 09:51:32 · answer #5 · answered by Gary B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. there is not any such difficulty as complete objectivity. Who determined on the guidelines that govern technology anyhow? human beings did... how accessible. convinced, maximum learn methods are meant to be thoroughly bias loose. yet lets be sensible... there is constantly some thanks to regulate an effect, or interpret that effect in a biased way.
2016-12-03 01:02:16 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
great question. i sdont believe in objectivity because as u state the objective can be duisproved, tampered with or argued. there is no absoult either. as for the opposite of objectivity what is that naive reality? there is no suuch thing as that either. there has to be a balance of both.
2007-03-30 15:44:04 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We don't have to admit the truth of ourselves to be objective, we have to admit the truth of what we have under consideration and admit to its ramifications. If anything, we must admit the truth TO ourselves which may shake your personal foundations. I know it did in me.
2007-03-30 11:00:34 · answer #8 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oblectivity is neither consciousness alone or existence alone it is a relation of consciousness to existence
The philosophy of objectivism is the achievement of Ayn Rand. It is this that you want to know and if you read it you will know how you know it.
2007-03-30 08:47:48 · answer #9 · answered by Micheal A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you concentrate on one at a time and don't compare two, objectivity is possible.
2007-03-30 11:46:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋