[OT] Objectivity

[Glok]

I was just thinking about objectivity as an ideal..

Something we ALL end up striving for is an objective view, it is the 'holy grail' of perception to many people. But.. it always comes with the caveat that you must ignore your own perception in favor of the overall perception, even when that is what everyone striving for an objective view must do. That strikes me as a little strange.

If you must by definition ignore your personal perception to view something in a certain way, and every single other being with a point of consciousness has to do the same, doesn't that make that view false?

Is objectivity false by definition? O_o

[L0KI]

Perception is a point of view. I perceive this thread to be a bit of a waste of time, and a needless discussion. :lol:

However, avoiding any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking - looking at it objectively; I have come to the conclusion that the thread starter strives to be objective, therefore has confused Perception and Objection, making them one in the same. I can also say objectively that the thread starter has thought about this too deeply. This is not an opinion, it's fact.

Objectivity applies to a measurement having sufficient supporting evidence.

A perception doesn't need proof.

Sure, they overlap. That doesn't mean objectivity is false. :wtf:

[Jaeon]

Better stop taking those drugs lol...

Depends on what the subject is about... your questions reminds me about philosophy classes, where everytime you tried to go deeper on a subject, you would always be confronted with ramifications to other related things...

In an example, lets say you want to be objective about humans reaction to death.

You have to consider the sociological, philosophical, antropological, psycological and other aspects that define the human being as a whole, to make a proper objective statement about how humans react to death.

Also, there isn't a universal truth to things, as each person has their own views and feels differently. So in the end, if you want to be purist, you can never be objective in a deeper level, since there is so much to consider.

hmmmm... was i objective enough? guess not heh lol

[Riddle]

Dude it's only bloody Friday!

Get in game and kill more, think less :)

on a side note it is impossible to obtain true objectivity for anyone, as like the holy grail it can never be found.

A human being has a point of view simply by virtue of being a human being, to deny this, to see reality as it truly, is is to deny your very existence.;)

[CMaster]

Its a classical philosophical question, that has often been attempted to be tackeled many a time. The general answer is that true objectivity is impossible to determine and quite possibly doesn't even exist. It is impossible to seperate yourself entirely from your perception - you have to know that the issue you want to be objective about exists, so you need to perceive it and the details about it. In doing so, you almost certainly warp it.

Scientifically even, most measurements are relative to some degree. All velocities and momentums are relative - there is no such thing as absolute speed. All units are calculated as relative to something, even if that ultimate source is a constant. And then all these measurements are perceived through human senses and brains - how may that change things.

Ultimatley the only thing you can KNOW is your own existence. Everything else is a perception collected through your senses that may or may not be "real".

[Dribble Joy]

Define false. From what perspective are you judging it false? Surely by doing so you are being subjective?

'False by definition.'

Both these words are non-objective, in order to define something or find it false, you need a base set of principles and assumptions. By doing so you are viewing subject to one or more of these.

[Glok]

Hey I played 8ish hours yesterday... admittedly only csting things.. I better set up my HC PE and go exploring. :o

That's what I was pointing at, that objectivity is an unattainable goal, even if a noble one. Does being noble make it worth it though?

edit:

Surely by doing so you are being subjective?

'False by definition.'
Surely! :(

[Dribble Joy]

That's what I was pointing at, that objectivity is an unattainable goal, even if a noble one. Does being noble make it worth it though?

Again, subject to your opinion on the matter :p.

What objectivity and philosophy (philosophy of all types, physics (science in general) social etc.) allow us to do however is deconstruct the nature of things in order to reconstruct them in new ways to find solutions to problems where current theories reach a 'dead-end', or fail in some manner. Not all these reconstructions work of course, a look at political systems throughout history is testament to that.
Of course you could also argue that those didn't 'work' because of a failure to apply the 'correct' principles and assumptions, most notably those concerning human nature.

[Glok]

Rabbi got it right I think, I'm too wound up in it to look at objectivity objectively. :lol:

Maybe the problem with looking at things objectively (too much anyways) is that we assume we are making it better for those after us by doing so. But if those after us place their personal desires aside just like we did, to make things better for those after them who is benefitting? Does anyone truly benefit aside from the last generation of us who finally decide 'fuck it!' and just indulge themselves in personal pleasure to our extinction?