Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
A N Other

Objectivity

20 posts in this topic

Objectivity does not mean, it seems, the same thing in popular usage as it does to an Objectivist. The ordinary citizen thinks "objective" means unaffected by individual experience and interpretation. "Objective" means , to them, everybody, if they really "fessed up", would say: yes, that is what X really means or that is what's true; "true" being, most often, only vaguely defined . Objective means (in the common vernacular) that which everyone would admit is true, even if they held a different position in public, for some reason.

Objectivity, to an Objectivist, is a matter of the intersection of empirical data, of experience, and reason, a faculty of human consciousness. It has nothing, on the face of it, to do with consensus; if four different observers looked at the same phenomenon and were scrupulous in method and reached different conclusions as to causes and effects, a combination of further observation and further thought would prove one or some right; but all would have been objective in their work.

In looking at the thread elsewhere on the topic " Are Professional Athletes Economically Productive?", among others, I am concerned about the use of the word "objective".

Maybe I misunderstand the connection between the popular use and the philosophical use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that if a concept is "objective", that is not the "end of the story"; a concept could have been reached in a way that makes it "objective", in the sense that Objectivism requires, and still fall short of the claim to truth we seek; so that being objective by itself is not enough to claim to be knowledge. A concept must be both objective and "true". So truth is not simply a matter of being objective but of being objective plus...what? Am I wrong here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that if a concept is "objective", that is not the "end of the story"; a concept could have been reached in a way that makes it "objective", in the sense that Objectivism requires, and still fall short of the claim to truth we seek; so that being objective by itself is not enough to claim to be knowledge. A concept must be both objective and "true". So truth is not simply a matter of being objective but of being objective plus...what? Am I wrong here?

The way I look at it is that the "objective" is the state of reality. "Truth" is the conscious recognition of that state. Conceptual knowledge is the form of that recognition. The best way to obtain truth is via an objective epistemology; one based on reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "popular" usage of 'objective' tends toward a description of the metaphysical, in my experience. In other words, the general usage of it is used to describe existents and their degree of adherence to reality, or in the case of 'subjective,' adherence to consciousness. In a way this is a philosophical use of the term, though wrong.

But Ayn Rand made it clear that 'objectivity' is actually a prime component of epistemology, not metaphysics. Existents aren't objective or subjective, they just are. It is our means and methodology of grasping them which could be objective or subjective.

...if four different observers looked at the same phenomenon and were scrupulous in method and reached different conclusions as to causes and effects, a combination of further observation and further thought would prove one or some right; but all would have been objective in their work...

In this example, I don't think your final thought would be correct, that despite different conclusions they were all still being objective. (Maybe they could be described as 'rational,' however...) Assuming that their different conclusions are indicative of a contradiction (that is, the causes and effects they surmise can't all be true in some fashion) then all but at most one of these observers haven't properly applied logic to the case at hand. To the degree that logic was incorrectly applied, and wrong conclusions were reached, that person wasn't being 'objective.' If they went back, fixed their logical errors, and reached the proper conclusions (i.e. the one that did not contradict reality) then that would be being objective.

The use of logic is critical to the execution of an objective conceptual process. Logic is the methodology of Objectivist epistemology, and is implicit in the concept of 'objectivity.'

It seems that if a concept is "objective", that is not the "end of the story"; a concept could have been reached in a way that makes it "objective", in the sense that Objectivism requires, and still fall short of the claim to truth we seek; so that being objective by itself is not enough to claim to be knowledge. A concept must be both objective and "true". So truth is not simply a matter of being objective but of being objective plus...what? Am I wrong here?

By reference to the requirement of logic above, if a concept has been determined objectively, than that is, indeed, 'the end of the story,' as far as being true is concerned. The method of logic rules out any contradictions, and thus the concept will be an accurate description of reality. It might not be utterly comprehensive, but it would still be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken "objectivist" (in the generic sense) to mean one who is more attached to facts and strict logic than to emotional crapdoodle, introspection, naval gazing and wishful thinking.

Am I off by much?

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To return to the original post and to put it briefly and hopefully not cryptically for what you are looking for, the "objective" used as the "consensus" means collective subjectivism, which is not objectivity. Many people can agree on the truth in a consensus because they are being objective, not the consensus itself. Objectivity make consensus possible. "Unaffected by individual experience and interpretation" is ambiguous and inadequate: it may mean group think (collective subjectivism) or it may mean determined by reality rather subjectivism.

Don't confuse the variations in emphasis: objectivity -- the process of 'being objective', 'the objective' -- what is regardles of anyone's feelings or wishes, or the specialized use in the "objective-intrinsic-subjective trichotomy" (which as a special case involves the objective replacing the intrinsic in the problem of universals that is properly understood as epistemology rather than metaphysics).

Objectivity and truth (correspondence between thought and reality) are related but the not the same concept.

Objectivity is also not "tending towards" or "more rather than less attached" to anything.

It also has nothing to do with an 'end of a story'. There is always more knowledge to be gained in a wider context of more information (but which does not contradict what you already know), and an objective process may even be wrong if you make an innocent error or oversight -- we are not infallible even when following the best methods.

See the Ayn Rand Lexicon, OPAR and IOE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken "objectivist" (in the generic sense) to mean one who is more attached to facts and strict logic than to emotional crapdoodle, introspection, naval gazing and wishful thinking.

Am I off by much?

I think you meant 'objective' rather than 'objectivist'. Aside from that, it's not a matter of being "more attached" to facts, etc., but of actually doing it. Introspection may be fully objective like any other kind of thought process and subject matter. Naval gazing may be fully objective if you're looking at your naval and not confusing it with something else in a fog of asparagus smoke. Wishful thinking and emotional crapdoodle generally mean not objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken "objectivist" (in the generic sense) to mean one who is more attached to facts and strict logic than to emotional crapdoodle, introspection, naval gazing and wishful thinking.

Am I off by much?

ruveyn

As usual, yes you are. Experiencing emotion, introspecting and wishful thinking can be either objective or not depending upon the mental processes. Being 'attached to facts and strict logic' can be non-objective also, as any rationalist like you can attest to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken "objectivist" (in the generic sense) to mean one who is more attached to facts and strict logic than to emotional crapdoodle, introspection, naval gazing and wishful thinking.

Am I off by much?

I think you meant 'objective' rather than 'objectivist'. Aside from that, it's not a matter of being "more attached" to facts, etc., but of actually doing it. Introspection may be fully objective like any other kind of thought process and subject matter. Naval gazing may be fully objective if you're looking at your naval and not confusing it with something else in a fog of asparagus smoke. Wishful thinking and emotional crapdoodle generally mean not objective.

I have taken "objectivist" (in the generic sense) to mean one who is more attached to facts and strict logic than to emotional crapdoodle, introspection, naval gazing and wishful thinking.

Am I off by much?

ruveyn

I think you either need a new radiation lab, a new radiologist, or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you either need a new radiation lab, a new radiologist, or both.

Could you explain that? TIA.

They, along with your neurologist, haven't found your mind for you . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you either need a new radiation lab, a new radiologist, or both.

Could you explain that? TIA.

They, along with your neurologist, haven't found your mind for you . . .

I have studied the scans carefully. It doesn't show up. So either my mind is immaterial/non-physical or it does not exist.

Fortunately I have a brain that serves me well. I can't miss what I either never had or could not find.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you either need a new radiation lab, a new radiologist, or both.

Could you explain that? TIA.

They, along with your neurologist, haven't found your mind for you . . .

I have studied the scans carefully. It doesn't show up. So either my mind is immaterial/non-physical or it does not exist.

It isn't material. Your brain, not consciousness, is material. You have finally caught on.

As for the "or does not exist", giraffes don't show up on your brain scans either. But it doesn't mean they don't exist. Why, there could be one right now hiding in the aparagus smoke (they are also very quiet) -- just the kind of thing that can give you nightmares. But don't dwell on it.

Fortunately I have a brain that serves me well. I can't miss what I either never had or could not find.

The monster giraffes will find you, you don't find them. They come out late at night with the trolls. It's the non-material ones you have to worry about. And your radiologist can't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

The monster giraffes will find you, you don't find them. They come out late at night with the trolls. It's the non-material ones you have to worry about. And your radiologist can't help.

Neither can the philosophers. Three thousand years and they are still running around in circles. Not a good track record.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The philosophers are responsible for the ethereal giraffes. They infected you, too, but you don't realize it as you reject them while adopting their sophistry. That's how insidious they are. They're even worse than ethereal giraffes hooked on dried asparagus stalks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The philosophers are responsible for the ethereal giraffes. They infected you, too, but you don't realize it as you reject them while adopting their sophistry. That's how insidious they are. They're even worse than ethereal giraffes hooked on dried asparagus stalks.

Philosophers bounce off me. By and large I have relegated them to my background noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The philosophers are responsible for the ethereal giraffes. They infected you, too, but you don't realize it as you reject them while adopting their sophistry. That's how insidious they are. They're even worse than ethereal giraffes hooked on dried asparagus stalks.

Philosophers bounce off me. By and large I have relegated them to my background noise.

How can you possibly think that your thinking runs independently of philosophers/philsosophy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:"I have studied the scans carefully. It doesn't show up. So either my mind is immaterial/non-physical or it does not exist. "

Is there information in your brain? Have you been able to see this non material information in your brain? No? Does this mean it doesn't exist? Perhaps it is hiding in your mind? If you find the information, you will have found your mind, because without a mind, you can have no information..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The philosophers are responsible for the ethereal giraffes. They infected you, too, but you don't realize it as you reject them while adopting their sophistry. That's how insidious they are. They're even worse than ethereal giraffes hooked on dried asparagus stalks.

Philosophers bounce off me. By and large I have relegated them to my background noise.

How can you possibly think that your thinking runs independently of philosophers/philsosophy?

How is possible? By being perverse and refusing to address the issue. His posts on such matters are "background noise". He prefers trying to annoy people by nihilistically thumbing his nose at those who point out the fallacies while he pretends he has no mind and no characteristic ways of thinking echoing some hodgepodge of unidentified philosophy -- like his Rationalistic sophistry and evasion wallowing in dogmatic skepticism when it suits his purpose. He thinks this makes him superior as a result of his asparagus addiction. He's slogans are transmitted to the Forum directly through his VPN -- Virtual Philosophy Network -- without ever identifying his virtual mind. Ethereal giraffes at least have an excuse, and ostriches know they have their heads in hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for not having read ALL of the obove; I will. But I ran across a usage of "objective" in the liner notes of a CD that illustrates what I take to be the common or "pop" sense of "objective". Writing about Horowitz's late sense of music the writer says "...He felt that what made these composers classical was not a prudish detachment or "objectivity" but rather an intesity and purity of expression where every note matters, every note has meaning." I'm not a music critic; I only know what I like and haven't thought about all that that pasage says or implies, but I like the expression of what, I think, is the usual meaning in usage of "objective".

So a work of art, for example, could be objective in the philisophical sense, in the Objectivist sense, and also be the center of raging controversy with diverse opinions and judgements surrounding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0