Difference Between Objective and Subjective
Subjective vs Objective
In stories, newspapers, and the spoken word, people all over the world are trying to convince you to think as they do. They are bombarding you with facts and figures, opinions and projections. It is up to you to create order within this chaos and find the patterns that will help you to understand what is true, what could be true, and what is outright false. In order to do all this, you need to have a firm grip on what is objective and what is subjective.
Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.
When to Be Objective and Subjective
Objective : it is important to be objective when you are making any kind of a rational decision. It might involve purchasing something or deciding which job offer to take. You should also be objective when you are reading, especially news sources. Being objective when you are meeting and having discussions with new people helps you to keep your concentration focused on your goal, rather than on any emotions your meeting might trigger.
Subjective : can be used when nothing tangible is at stake. When you are watching a movie or reading a book for pleasure, being subjective and getting caught up in the world of the characters makes your experience more enjoyable. If you are discussing any type of art, you have to keep in mind that everyone’s opinions on a particular piece are subjective.
Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective
Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.
Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.
Examples of Objective and Subjective
Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.
Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.
Summary:
1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.
2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.
3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.
- Difference Between Schizophrenia and Psychosis - March 7, 2024
- Difference Between African and Asian Elephants - March 7, 2024
- Difference Between Sunscreen and Sunblock - February 15, 2024
Search DifferenceBetween.net :
Email This Post
: If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.
Thanks for this objective article.
While differentiating between objective and subjective by defining objective as being unbiased, and subjective as being bias is useful, the term bias is itself a very subjective term, and does really give a basis for comparison. A more objective definition of these terms that allow much greater differentiation between the two, is by the number of comparisons an observation has, or has to potential to have. For instance, when you somebody is 5’10”, and you are 5’4″, you would say that person is tall, based on the one comparison (between yourself, and the other person). However, if another person who is 6’2″, you would say he is tall, and the other person is short (relatively). Then, if Shaq comes by, everybody else is short. So, the more you have to compare to, the more objective it is, and the depth of knowledge you have of that particular aspect of reality.
can you please give me the reponse for the hamework cuz i dont know the name of the book thank you for that.
lol what the mess id that who made this vedio i don’t know but thats was something else that did not need to be on the internet so who eva wrote that they need to erase that mess out from the internet okay if you don’t you will be in la la land okay because i am the fbq so don’t play with me if you want some bbq i and a valable okay peace talk to you later peace hala what is up my peoples you i was playin wif you guys wow you can not take a joke aokay bye peace
GOOD POST YO MAAN !!!
For the first time in my life I reached this website which is knowledgeable and according to my taste. I’m enjoying this & will use it for my knowledge improvement.
Very Helpful info
This does NOT really distinguish the two terms “Objective and “Subjective”. So far it looks like one can walk away with this as scientific data: No science then it is not objective. This is completely NOT so! Objective data can come from science but it is not required to come from our senses. Objective statements are true or false independant of any observer. This is a common mistake — to require verification — to those who love science. Jupiter would still be the largest planet in our immediate solar system if no humans ever studied astronomy; we just would not be aware of of it. Putting emphasis on human awareness is irrelevant to anything objective. So to the person who thinks: “well how do we know when something is objective [if we do not use our senses]?” The answer is sometimes you won’t know right then and there! Sometimes you might know immediately. Remember anything objective is independant in its own right. You not being aware of that objective thing does not change something from being objective. The view that we must be aware of something for it to exist and be objective is closer to a psychological view. No academic philosopher [who speacializes in analytical philosophy or a philosopher who is termed as a rationalist] would support that common view taught to millions of people by psychologist, parents, counselors, Oprah, Jerry Springer, Dr Phil, etc.
Being objective is putting the round peg in a round hole and a square peg in a square. It is not really being absolute but being bound and being faithful to accepted rules or guidelines.
Two Chinese would appreciate tea differently. One would say something sweet or the other, bitter. Then if one of them was instead a Japanese, it would be a much more interesting discussion. Much more interesting and maybe even scenic if the other’s a Westerner.
But if they were not to appreciate it but to illustrate the tea’s molecular structure or to simply measure the amount of ingredients, there would be nothing to argue about.
i am chinese and i think your should read some books of zhuangzi who was the talent in chinese
history, in his qiwulun, he said there is no objective because everything is in your mind,if no mind then everything is nothing .so your viewpoint have some in common.
I could relate to this, I usually imagine that we are all locked in some kind of a car(our bodies)….so, we see others such as parents,relatives,friends & other loved ones, each in their own cars…so we interact with them talk,fight,hug and all those things……like how you drive your car & wave your hand to someone passing next to you. BUT, unless you get out of your car & get into his…..you can never be sure if you are in some kind of a “Driving Simulator” program. so all that you saw through the wind shield or the window could a simulation/un-real.
bottem line:
Subjective = everything
we/I/you = may be alone 🙁
I happen to agree and have thought I created the way things seem to me, the way they look, taste, etc and how solid or big or facts etc in the mind. But similarly, reality is subjective because it’s within your perception (try telling that to your objectivist family, they won’t believe you, unless they believe in any secular or philosophical faith). Objective truth is still subjective, because a fact isn’t the same for everyone, and nothing is absolutely true, science can’t prove that anything exists unless you have a pretty good scientist. Heaven doesn’t prove you’re in the real world, and the real world when you’re unplugged isn’t real; the real world is simply when you, the one person in existence, wake up naked on Mars- correct me if I’m wrong but if it seems so real what you hear or see, it’s probably so to you. However, it’s also probably not real at all even if all people are convinced it’s real, as religious agnostic, on the secular side I simply can’t say any of any thing is real or not, it’s unknowable.
Think its a very good explanation of Subjective and objective for someone doesn’t have that much knowledge about it. Thanks for posting.
Roy…wow…just wow…trying to sound smart…
sigh.
ANYWAYS, good job on the article. Concise, helpful, and comprehensive.
Thanks.
Hi again Jonathan,
I hope I did not come across condescending or trying to be the highest IQ in the universe. It is not about being smart but informed. Smart and intelligent or psycho babble words: either to make some one superior or to put someone down (like to tease them). So let’s not use “psychology words” to stroke an ego or demoralize a person. My purpose was to give a proper understanding of the terms which belong to the academic field of philosophy — not any other subject. Thus, I gave an answer you would get if you were to ask an expert in that field. So many people do not respect the field of Philosophy and make stuff up. These people then teach the wrong information to others who could care less about philosophy. As if philosophy is so easy a caveman can do it! (The BS that everyone is a philosopher was probably not started by a legit philosopher.) I know of no other subject that gets disrespected and dumped on as philosophy gets disrespected and dumped on. My answer addressed what I have seen as the most common mistakes people who care less about philosophy make: 1) all knowledge in the universe MUST be science based (i.e. “if it is not a form of science I will not acknowledge it nor will I try to understand it — anything outside of science is garbage”); 2) if we are not aware of anything objective then objective knowledge is impossible; 3) everything is subjective because we all are diferent and experience things differently according to the individual.
4) we must side with what the majority of people think or feel about objectivity and morals (thus the majority rules because of the infamous “we all can’t be wrong” theory.
Objectivity should be free from bias, free from personal opinion or personal belief; objectivty should be honest, truthful, accurate, and specifically detailed without catering to some high authority. In other words, we don’t need the police or some politician or a court judge to MAKE choices for us.
Objective knowledge should be open to all people and if done correctly, people should be given all relevant information in specific detail as to distinguish thigs so unlike things are not confused or substituted as equal. If this is done, all people or most of the people (if they are honest and truthful) should agree with the FACTS of the matter and reach the same exact conclusion. Many people WILL NOT do so because of psychological reasons: many people will not be unbiased they FEEL as certain way; they act as if they are above you and are rulers or Gods –only their feelings matter . Other people like to kiss up to authority and be TOLD what they must do; if you are not an authority in these people’s eyes you are worthless; they would rather be wrong then listen (compare this to Jews and Jesus Christ). Independant thinking is a way to gain objective knowledge. What I mean is a person with no vested interest should call it as he sees it. This is close to impossible when you have so many individuals thinking all things are subjective because some psychologists or some high ranked person in society tells the public — especially children — all things are matters of opinion or under authority: “So either make things up or listen to those people with their foot on your neck — or else . . . .” I suggest no ordianry accountant has this power to influence the public. I suggest no ordianry biologist, chemist, engineer, etc has this power to influence the public. There are only a handful of academic subjects that teach the BULLSHIDO way –that life is what we make it and think about it. Objective knowledge should be all of the relevant facts about a subject without anything else — cut the fat. Wanna be authorities and Kiss ups are raised to do completely the opposite.
My brain hurts. I think some people think too much. I’m 64 and I probably have been thinking for 61 of those years. Right now I just want to stack cans of peas on a shelf.
You’re pretty smart, man, I think thinking for 61 years is enough thinking. I’m 28 years old and like a bit of a read on mythology myself (fiction, with vampires and witches), this’ll sauce the imagination up for sure (just an opinion). The smart thing that should be done is to stack gold in a mansion instead of that sucky stuff, why have peas when you can have a beef Stroganoff with red wine? I’m thinking of esoteric knowledge, charms, superstition, nature, and elves and mythological giants- this is my fave subjectivism, which I know very well can protect a believer from prejudice and from the dissing of thinking. And hippie elbow grease (generally an eco-friendly hippie, the green hippie of forests) is likeable as a way of life in correct thinking of peace- however your peas have their advantages- such as the significance in thought and deed of a beef stew with white wine, peas and vegetables.
I appreciate the extra detail, especially that objective knowledge is not merely scientific facts. However, I’m not overly sure I agree with this statement you made:
‘The BS that everyone is a philosopher was probably not started by a legit philosopher’
Socrates is known to have wandered around and engaged the Ancient Greek public in philosophical discussion, was he not a legitimate philosopher? Admittedly not everybody fully understand the terminology, hence why I’m here to clarify the difference between objectivity and subjectivity! But I think that is a bit of a sweeping statement to make as it then leads to the issue of what is a philosopher? Someone who thinks? Somebody who reasons? Somebody who thinks about those big unanswered questions such as what happens to our consciousness when we die? If God made the universe who made God? I think such questions crossed most people’s minds before the age of 10.
Suzy,
I must apologize to you since I did not respond to this prior to now. I must have missed your post. I do not check replies but I made the mistake of thinking all posts go to the bottom of the page. I have now read this entire page today and noticed things like your post. Almost a year has passed and here I am — Johnny come lately –with a reply. Again I must point out that objective knowledge is often called objective in short. In philosophy where the term originates the term expresses an unbiased statement that is true and accurate without emotion or motive. News reporters sometimes do this: for example, Randy “the Macho Man” Savage was killed in a car crash may 19, 2011. There is just a description of what happened and that is it. Like or not. Love the guy or hate the guy who died. The fact is he died! The reporters who read a teleprompter expressed no bias, no emotive talk and no opinion in the reporting of the news. The statements made across televisions in the U.S. about Randy “the Macho Man” irrefutably true and objective. I could say an objective statement about President Obama — President Obama is the 44th U.S. President and the current U.S. President as of May 21,2011. Pure fact. No bias. No emotions.
Your individual birthday is objective and subjective simultaneously. It applies as true forever and true to you personally. Now Suzy, name ten academic fields that everybody is automatically qualified? Apparently you think have issues with what a philosopher is and you then ask what is a philosopher? Well let me substitute the word “philosopher” with another like “Lawyer”. If you had asked what is a Lawyer the answer would include certain qualifications correct? Is everyone a lawyer? Is everyone an engineer? Is everyone a biologists? Clearly to you and others, everyone is a philosopher as if “Philosopher” has no qualifications like the other fields I mentioned: lawyer, accounting, biologists, etc. Is everyone qualified as a plumber? Your lack of respect for the field of Philosophy should be the question! Where did you get those thoughts? Philosophers have made distinctions from other people even in the ancient times. The distinction is the METHOD of inquiry and discovering answers. Philosophers are specialist in argumentation just as a lawyer is a specialist in the field of law; the plumber is a specialist in plumbing, etc. Argumentation refers to reasoning not DEBATE or DISAGREEMENT. The philosopher uses a method specifically called LOGICAL reasoning more so than the average person because the Philosopher is trained to do so. Furthermore, the Philosopher gets paid to use that METHOD of reasoning. The untrained sapling is unpaid and will make more errors because of the lack of training of course. Would you expect a bum like me to beat a professional NBA star like Kobe Bryant in his craft? Be serious! The answer is a emphatic NO!!!!! Eventhough I can dribble a ball I am no basketball player. Deductive logic is an academic field which the untrained sapling will not find easy going especially if you glance at predicate logic. Predicate logic resembles mathematics! So the average 2 year old or ten year old does not have the qualities that Philosophers have. So no, everyone is NOT a philosopher! Now a days the term is coined for ONLY HUMANS with a PhD degree in the field of PHILOSOPHY. In ancient times before degrees the METHOD of reasoning was the clue. Socrates, Plato, etc had a certain vocabulary, they shared similar knowledge with peers, they knew what fallacies were, etc. The average Joe can also learn this but the average Joe will not be specialized specifically. The average Joe might use deductive reasoning once in a while as opposed to everyday by the philosopher. Now a days Degrees express skill in a specific area. For a philosopher, the degree specifically should express that this person holds a Doctor of Philosopy Degree in the academic field of Philosophy. I want to make clear that every PhD is a NOT a philosopher. I can not say I am a plumber without qualifications. Most fields require something! But it is hilarious that some people think all fields except Philosophy has legit requirements. No one will say “everyone is a physicist” but somehow you figure everyone is a philosopher. “Philosophy, piffft, that is so easy my cat can do it!!!!!!!” Well can you name nine more fields in the same category as Philosophy for me, please? My hunch is you probably can’t do so! No one says accounting is so easy . . . . or biology is so easy . . . . You get the point now.
Other people –not Suzy– seem to have addressed that all people have some sort of bias so no true objectivity can exist. This approach is too extreme and the people misinterpreted the point. The bias has to be relevant to the topic under disscussion!! For example, if you and I are discussing how many terms did Bill Clinton serve as President of the United States we can objectively discuss that. You can not deny OBJECTIVITY about presidential terms to something off topic like “Roy hates sport teams from Boston because he is from New York” so he must be wrong. The bias is not relevant to the topic of discussion. Surely it is foolish to say that Bill Clinton served two terms as President is SUBJECTIVE because Roy has a bias against the Boston Celtics and the Boston Red Sox. Any human being who can count to past three will be able to verify the results of how many presidential terms Bill Clinton served. There is no debating the result — it is TWO objectively! My bias against the NY Mets would not be relevant to the discussion of the objective topic — how many terms did Clinton serve as President. I can be objective at a specific time and place. Granted I might not be always objective about all topics, but people should notice there is a difference between a bias or a vested interest or not. Look for the person’s intentions to get a sense of the character of the individual. Intension comes alot into play in the discussion of morals for instance.
>>1) all knowledge in the universe MUST be science based (i.e. “if it is not a form of science I will not acknowledge it nor will I try to understand it — anything outside of science is garbageâ€)<<
Do many people actually hold this view? There are innumerable statements of fact that are not particularly associated with "science", nor require it, but that are clearly objective: "I have one head." "The sky is often blue." "Bill Clinton is a male." "I am about to post this reply on the internet." "This statement is in the present tense."…etc.
All based on science in some way
To me, science is not a basis of things, but rather an empirical interpretation of the things around us and making use of it to our advantage. 100 years in the future, the facts as we know today might be disproved anyway as science marches on along with time.
For all we know, if science did not exist in the first place, the universe won’t crumble anyway.
I must apologize for many typos in the post prior. Here I will make sense of the errors I made.
ERROR:
4) we must side with what the majority of people think or feel about objectivity and morals (thus the majority rules because of the infamous “we all can’t be wrong†theory.
Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/#comment-23054#ixzz0seZVlwPD
I must appologize for introducing an open parentheses and not closing the parentheses. Here I correct it:
(thus the majority rules because of the infamous “we all can’t be wrong†theory).
ERROR:
Many people WILL NOT do so because of psychological reasons: many people will not be unbiased they FEEL as certain way
Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/#comment-23054#ixzz0seUj1F2J
This should read:
Many people WILL NOT do so because of psychological reasons: many people will not be unbiased because they feel a certain way; they act as if they are above you and are rulers or Gods — only their feelings matter.
[In other words, person A thinks he is superior to the other human being for no legit reason at all; and as a result person A overrides any thing further the other human says or thinks. Thus person A thinks he is in charge and eventually stops further discussion.]
In my view this stops the discussion because the other human being is not beating him senseless for being a bully and disrespectful. Objectively, no one is higher than another in all respects of life. There is bound to be somethings I am better at than you for example. Then of course there are things you will do better than me. We should see each others as equal human beings. But many people refuse to be fair, moral, and treat others as their equal. Then these people claim there is no objectivity. That is because theses people puposely prevent any objectivity.
Can people purposely prevent objectivity? YES! Can objectivity exist to truthful and honest humans with nothing to gain? YES!
Objectively I did make some errors in the previous posting. All who read it should conclude the exact same things if they adhere to facts of grammar and are truthful and honest. No science is required to discover all objective knowledge because somethings are pure semantics.
Roy,
How odd all i wanted was to clarify the diff between objective and subjective. After just a couple lines of your post i thought you were an arrogant ass but in the end I thought your ideas were quite informative, clear, and concise keep it up.
..yah maybe the text doesn’t really elaborate the difference between the 2….need 2 search more…but it helps
heyo. ok so objective sounds to be the more appealing of the two, but I dont know if it is all what it’s said to be. Meaning, the proof of God is not fact, but a belief. Would one not say that is subjective? I don’t believe science can prove everything. I don’t even know why I’m writing this right now because really I just was wondering about the difference between an object and a subject in regards to english, or grammer. Anyway, lately I have been thinking of becoming an english teacher bc most all, if not all, of my english teachers have made such a major impact in my life (and I was a quiet B student, if I was lucky). It’s hard to understand that bc I seem to be more math oriented, but on the emotion side of me, I appreciated my english teachers. That and history. I’m just a little uneasy about reading Roy’s responses bc I agree with the honesty of the objective, but the emotion of the subjective shouldn’t be disregarded either. I also agree with Terrance, and I enjoyed Eds reply, funny. My writing is a bit jumbled, but maybe someone will read it and make a little objective and subjective sense out of it and then they can explain what the object and subject of a sentence is, lol. until next time, live long and prosper (never was much of a star trek buff, just sounds cool..)
Nice guys!!! keep it up,, A healthy subjective debate might have an objective conclusion.. Roy,, u r gr8 mate!! i guess ur objective thinking yielded a subjective response!! guess u were carried away by the emotions because someone called u smart.. a debate on a difference between science and philosophy will open another can of worms so we rather keep it at bay.. Does objective thinking also mean accepting other people’s opinions even if they are different than yours but more practical?
Hi all again,
I I have tried to be clear as possible without trying to sound superior or anything. I would like to know what troubles people who do not understand what I stated “objective” means. Diane, you stated it does not clear up the difference between the two. In what situation would you have doubts? Anyone have any confusing examples between the two? I ask this in order to better describe the distinctions. I can own up to my definition not being clear for now to people who may not be familiar with philosophy. I would like to improve the term definition to give no doubt to anyone who understands english. So I need to know specifically where people go wrong or getting lost.
Perhaps, the confusion is the people we are around and the way they speak. For example, some group of people in the USA might use the term objective in a newer context: something that is always true no matter what circumstances and never changing, for example. This seems plausible why many think there is no such thing as objectivity. Things do change when the relevant circumstances change. Objectivity as I described it has been used in philosophy longer than any of the newer definitions. I think the definition I gave is the original one because philosophers used it most.
In what context do you hear or read the terms objective and subjective?
Again, I do not want people to confuse their ability to know with there being an objective answer. There is either a God (let’s say the christian one for now) or there isn’t. This is a logical law: the law of the excluded middle. It is impossible for there to be a circumstance where God exist and doesn’t exist in the same place and same context. So Objectively God can exist without you being able to prove it. Yes God can be a fact without your knowledge. Like wise the proposition God does not exist might be objectively true as well. You just might not know which one it is. This bothers people who always want SCIENCE to do everything. This is asking for too much. Science is not GOD. Don’t expect it to solve all problems. Science can’t answer many things today so it should be similar to the God example.
The subjective is the emotional side which I never suggested to disregard it. We all use it. However use it wisely! People who exaggerate their emotions often do irrational things. The people who beleive all things are subjective are prone to this. However, notice if all things are subjective we can ignore some of these ideas because they don’t apply in all cases or even most cases. Objective things are true regardless of who we are and what we are going through; thus true for all. Subjective is like being given advice. Objective is like law we must obey. This anaology is not perfect but should hint at the differences. Advice we are not obligated to follow; laws we are obligated to follow even if we are ignorant of the law. I have heard many subjective lovers utter: “All things we think, read or say are subjective because those thoughts or words come from an individual who has personal beliefs, opinions, desires, and thoughts different from everyone else.” Now stop and think. If the previous statement is always true it would be Objective! why? Because it covers all people all the time and is always true forever. Objective covers more ground [most ground or ALL ground], whereas subjective may describe more details about SOME of those same grounds.
The *object of the sentence is answered by asking the question, What? The subject of a sentence, I have discovered on my own, can be found by asking the question, Who?
An OBJECT RECIEVES the action of the verb and the SUBJECT’S DO the action.
Example: Daniel gave it to us.
Who gave?
Daniel
*Gave what?
it
(Gave to whom?
us)
Therefore, ‘Daniel’ is the subject, ‘it’ is the (direct) object and ‘us’ is the indirect object.
By rule of thumb, the sequence of these there are consistent most every time.
i.e.) SUBJECT->VERB->OBJECT, refer to the example, ‘Daniel gave it…’
Please use your own english knowledge to double check this stuff and make a conclusion for yourself. Also if anyone sees any errors in my teaching or examples please dont hesitate to tell me so. Thank you
P.S. I know all of this is a bit of the subject of our Objectivity vs. Subjectivity, but I needed to try and explain it for myself. Until next time ladies and gents…. enjoy happily
Hi Again all,
To Drew,
Since you posted twice I will address you directly. You must have had english grammar in mind when you read the title of the web site. This was a mistake in context. I take it that english might be a second language for you. Your second post refers to a topic in english grammar called “pronoun case”. In that topic, you will learn when to use a pronoun and what instances pronouns can be correctly used in a sentence. There are three cases of pronouns. From reading your post, I infered you did not know the name of the grammar topic is technically called “pronoun case”. You will need to know the grammatical technical terms if you want to teach english grammar. Notice it is spelled grammar and not grammer. Apart from a typo, you are correct about the “objective case “of a verb: the object receives the action of the verb and this the pronoun case when the term WHOM is used over WHO in a sentence. (who vs whom is still largely debated in many instances till this day.) The so called subjective case is actually called the “nominative case”; this term describes when the object is the subject of the verb in a sentence: for example, “the desk was kicked by Jim”. (This is called a passive voice sentence which is awkward in most examples to use in writing. The active voice is more reader friendly and prefered: “Jim kicked the desk” is easier to read.) Your explanations are good, but I am not comfortable about your example because you use a vague pronoun “IT”. You are correct but your example should have been much simpler. If you substitute “IT” for “the cat” your example would still be correct but easier to read: Daniel gave the cat to us. It should be used sparingly because it is hard for the reader at times to refer back to what noun “IT” stands for throughout the sentence. Try to be clear, specific and concise as much as possible in your writing; try to stand clear of avoid awkard constructions, vague pronouns and vauge references. Now that is the grammar side of Drew’s post.
What I typed can be refered to as objective knowledge (objectivity) because it is universally true to all who use english grammar. I did not make up the rules of grammar in the english language and my feelings or opinion have no say in the results. In comparison, a subjective knowledge (subjectivity) claim about the use of english grammar would be that you used “who” in a sentence where you should have used “whom” and then you made a justification for you breaking the rules. In that example, your opinion or choice had an effect on the sentence and it still might be accepted by a majority of people who read your writing. Popularity doesn’t mean it is technically correct though! Subjective often means you the person hold your thought as true, whereas objective often means all people with the proper knowledge should or must arrive at the same answer. For example, multiplying 5 times 5 equals 25 to all who understand multiplication — it is irrefutable.
So in closing, ultimately there is probability to the subjective thought: it is 1 percent to 97 percent; the objective thought is absolute certainty and no chance of error.
Thanks Roy for the helpful corrections. I guess if I want to teach english I will need to know how to spell GRAMMAR (LOL). And yes, for a public school educated student of Friendswood Texas, I’m sorry to say, english was and is my first language to speak. Now I’m tackling another side of me and learning spanish, which is what prompted most of the grammar confusion.
Thanks again,
Drew M
some people really make things hard. too much elaboration will lead us to confusion. concise, direct and simplicity will help much instead.
i guess you have a problem in comprehension read a lot of story books
Hello it has been a while,
I recieved an update that there was a new post here (9-1-10), but it has not posted yet and it is over two weeks later. However, I want to address it because many people are not aware of the mistakes they make. In this case, Dave comments:
” Do many people actually hold this view? There are innumerable statements of fact that are not particularly associated with “science”, nor require it, but that are clearly objective: “I have one head”, “The sky is often blue”, “Bill Clinton is a male”, “I am about to post this reply on the internet”, “This statement is in the present tense”…etc.
Does Dave not know that the context of knowledge that requires verification is science? Science must be observed. If you must use your senses to verify a thought and you utilze that thought from your senses pratically it is science! In other words, I have one head must be observed. It is not a semantic truth like a triangle has three sides”. By definition that is what a triangle MUST be. You having two heads is a scientific claim. You need more than a language to determine its truth. The Bill Clinton example is better. I would hope so that a person named Bill is a male or it can be taken as a sick joke. Bill is usually a male name. We know this how? by the name being applied in history over and over again. Sounds scientific: an observation verified through time. Semantic truths do not require such a method. Objectively, the next two examples are certainly NOT semantic either: “I am about to post this on the internet” nor is “This statement is in the present tense . . ” Both require human observation for us to be aware of them. Semantic truths require no observation; they
only require the user to be familiar with the language and its words. Human awareness has nothing to do with the objective nature of a statement. Either it is objective or it is not objective. That is a semantic notion. What the sentence means literally is scientific. Do not confuse what is objective with what is science. There is over lap though. Some statements seem to be objective and literally true scientifically. Many people might assume both qualities are always present in all or most statements. The terms are independant. I have posted the philosophical definition of “objective” earlier posts above this one and mentioned it as a semantic notion in this post as well. People CAN and DO use the term objectively in their own setting differently as in their neighborhood, culture, etc. This is really a bad thing in a large setting: if I scream out “FIRE” and the people listening take the term “fire” to mean “keep on dancing” where they live . . . 🙂 It is a good policy to define the term specifically as possible so all are on the same page before controversey starts. That means do not assume all people understand the context you in which you use the term. Context makes english a hard language to master.
I LOVED this article. I thought it was freaking fantastic. Good work!
Wow!!! You guys are good readers and great commentators. (is this right? commentators?) Anyway, Roy, whoever you are I think you must have a profession either in something like English, literature, or culture. You know a lot, or I guess it seems like that since I’m a rookie at this kind of philosophy talking. Keep it up! Love this WEBSITE ;-D
Roy, wow just wow. Im a senior in high school and you make the kids in my class seem mature. Agruing about of the internet is going to get anything across. (:
talking about whatever well there are some people who suck up to the authorities…..and again ok let me fix my error i forgot to closed the ) its about giving/sharing ideas who cares how u express it as far as ur audience gets it just sayin dont be uptight grammer grammar its internet …u dont see with ur eyes u perceive with ur mind …. whats object in what terms ,only object i see ..numbers…1+1=2 anythin else its all subjective….even 1+1=2 can be subjective 1+1=1 hahaha how ? well dont know may be in the world where binary doesnt exist or whatever….is there a sound if no one hears it? ..well NO there is something but its not sound ..it is “object” we perceive it as a sound our body is tuned to change that “it” to sound…same way change “it” to that tower we see and on and on ….. everythin is a vibration we perceive it certain way and create our own subjective reality…. we all are one…..
it eliminates confusion in usage of words almost similar in their meanings
Thats are very good for those who are not concept of objective and subjective. and you use easy words. WELL DONE!
Subjective data collection is the process in which data relating to the parents, patients, clients, students,etc, problem or problems or obtained from patient/ client or the patient’s/ client’s history.This information is retrieved from the patients/ clients description of an event or situation rather than from a physical or objectable examination.
Objective data collection is the process in which data relating to the clients problems or obtained through direct physical examination, observation or laboratory analasis.
From a Medical/ Legal office assistant student, could i hand this in for my accessment? Is it any good? Thanks
Hey Shondell,
I stumbled across this website when I heard someone say something of the sort, “The school is a good one because the people there say things objectively rather than subjectively.” Then throughout the rest of the conversation I was thinking to myself, ‘what does that mean’?
Anyway about your medical legal office paper, not to be to direct, but it needs a little work. As I read through it, I had a hard time understanding what you were saying. I noticed the word “or” was used repeatedly throughout and the sentence structure didn’t set quite right in my head. I think it would benefit you if someone who knows grammar well could proof read your paper.
From what I got out of it, the subjective information for a client/patient is greatly based on individual beliefs and circumstances. When you say the subjective material is based on a description, or an individuals memory, rather than a physical or objective (I don’t think objectable is a word) examination, it leaves me with some confusion, but I think I get your point.
Is the objective data the conversation between the client/patient party, or is it simply a diagnosis of the problem?
Well it’s a start, but I think you could go into more detail.
goodluck,
drew
Hi Shondell,
Honestly, I am not sure if the medical field has another context other than the ones described above. If so, this adds to the problem of word definitions because each group might have their own contextual definition of every word or phrase: for example, the word “argument” has a totally different meaning on the street than in a philosophy classroom; the word “fallacy” is often misused because it is used outside of philosophy; the phrase “set this place on fire” has an innocent meaning in a disco which refers to people dancing. Things start getting riddiculous when my word “dog” refers to a “chair” to you. You would think there should be a standard for using words and their meanings since this is all in the English language and not a foreign language! I would understand word confusion if I spoke french and you spoke Latin. Both parties can be native english speakers and our slang makes us different as we were speaking two different languages. So when you use “objective” the way you do in the medical field it makes little sense to someone outside of that group: perhaps that is a purpose for doing so. So to native english speakers, many people would think you are using the terms wrongly when reading your writing. I would further say, there has to be a more appropriate word (or words) you could use to be more specific and accurate than the words you chose. For example, using the words “relative description” when referring to data given by a patient verbally instead of “subjective”. “Subjective” is NOT the best word to use in your context; however, “relative” in your context is more appropriate. In your second case, there has to be a way in the medical field to express that the professional directly observed data or the professional tested the data — “objective” is NOT the best word to express that idea. In conclusion, I do NOT suggest you use either of the words in your assesment unless it is a GIVEN in the field you are specifically in. Even in that case, you still need to seperate that group definition from the average speaker’s use of those same words. Objective is usually taken as independant of a person’s opinion. Subjective is usually taken as an opinion, something that is not a fact or something that is not an absolute.
dealing with objective/subjective in the medical/legal arena does anyone have any ideas about a “Canadian” definition of objective/subjective pain? Pain is subjective-is there a way to prove it objectively?
my son’s school is grading their students on Conduct – not by range of A-C but similar to their academic subjects. Problem here is that they do not have test results or any documentary proof how a student’s Conduct grade results to.
Even if a student got average grade of 90 in all of his academic subjects, when his Conduct rate is below 85 – he will still not be included in a recognition. is rating in school nowadays like this? Isn’t this subjective?
Hello lai,
From what you describe sounds subjective at first glance BUT it probably is not since there are standards the school should be using. The policy can be set by an individual in authority (this is subjective) or historically speaking — meaning these standards were developed by recalling past experiences (this is experimental or scientific). If the school does not allow you to view its procedure on conduct grades then it may be the case of abusive authority and is subjective. Subjective things in the real world outnumber the objective ones in reality because people are opinionated and have biases. Too many people are too emotional and refuse to own up to being irrational at times. People are born in sin — remember that. Authority over rules reason many times in the real world unfortunately. It is not about what is correct or who is correct. It is about who has power or the appropriate resources needed.
all the posts except the first post……are subjective
Prove it by explaning why you think most of the post here are subjective! Your statement is not rationalized and is opinion. Your opinion is subjective perhaps which is what you meant.
For Ron’s post July 3rd 2010 4.07pm
” What I mean is a person with no vested interest should call it as he sees it.”
Shouldn’t that read, ‘ A person should call it as he sees it, vested interests or not.
And this… Bushido is from Bushi = Samurai = warrior…they may have objective one minded policy as to serve the Emperor, which was essentially,win battle for glory of Emperor and family, or die in battle for glory. If defeated in battle,must be glorious and commit suicide. A fair bit of subjectivity crept into their objectivity,or more to the point stupidity. To be so assinine as to commit suicide because of a tempory setback is hard to understand,considering the cost of the community in losing such an accomplished warrior,their ideals of glory in death were surely subjective philosophy.
If you are referring to Bullshido = A martial art based on ridiculous principles.
There is too much subjectivity in arranging a displaced single minded objectivity.
Regards, Jay.
I also think there are forms of Objective Subjectivity. Take art, for example. You can choose to view art in a subjective of objective way, but any decision will be made in a subjective way. I don’t know if it can go the same way for Subjective Objectivity or not, though, since bringing bias into an unbiased environment would seem to automatically make that a subjective thought stream.
You can say “I like the way this painting looks.”, but then take a proverbial step back, and set aside your bias and look at it in an unbiased way. This ultimately simply changes the subset of merits you’re grading by, but the ATTEMPT is a more objective interpretation.
The article says: “Subjective – opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.”
and then: “…whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.”
I think the second statements lead to confusion that influences the assumption of the first.
To say that any marketing presentation is subjective is erroneous.
Many marketing decisions are rooted in statistical evidence, and a marketing presentation would be a proposal to implement said statistics. Usually the suggested implementation is based off of scientific research on how people react to certain elements, shapes, colors and situations. While each of those reactions may be subjective, the most common responses can be studied and proven. With this information a design for any kind of marketing device can be created using well documented proven practices. Now the reactions that those who are being marketed to give to the designed marketing device are indeed subjective, this does not make the design of the device subjective.
For example I am a user interface designer. When I design an interface for an application, I do extensive research to find out how people interact with things. While most of the data that I use to implement a design and layout is based off of subjective reactions, it does not make the data subjective nor does it make the implementation of said data subjective.
this is a common misconception that I deal with regularly. “Well color and design are subjective, so let’s do another iteration with new colors, my wife doesn’t like these”
Even though the colors and positioning used have been proven countless times to provide the intended responses and results.
I agree art, marketing, and design can be subjective, it is not always and should not be lumped into the subjective category.
It would seem to me, then, that there would never be a clearly polarized or “pure” objective or subjective statement or observation. The fact that all information we receive is filtered through our individual thought processes is proof enough that there is no true objectivity. But the fact that we cannot be aware of all things or express all things regardig or pertaining to a particular subject, object, or idea means that those things being expressed or communicated cannot be purely subjective either. Everything sort of floats in between objectivity and subjectivity without ever reaching either side.
Joe,
Your answer is a psychological one which I already addressed as insufficient. To claim there is nothing objective if true would BE the objective statement. You seem as a people person and and were involved or experienced with much psychology; so you know how to tell people what they want to hear. An objective statement is a true statement without bias. For example, “there are 50 states in the United States” or “2×5=10 is a mathematical expression”. No feelings or emotion to those statements. The fact we all think differently and expereince different things causes you to commit a logical fallacy of composition. This is done by you implying we are all different and our thoughts are different; therefore, our conclusion must be like the components of the argument — that all we do is subjective. If any statement is always true under the same circumstance then it is an objective statement. People may not realize that there can be overlap: both subjective and objective at the same time.
Max,
You too offer a psychological explanation that all statements will be subjective which is clearly false. I can make pure objective statements about a painting: The is red paint used in this painting or there isn’t.” The statement doesn’t have to be a critique! The statement in the quotes above has to be true or false. No emotions, no fellings involved, and no negative critque.
Max,
Oopps forgive my typos. My example should read “there is red paint on the painting or there is not.” Sorry for any confusion. If you still think other wise just let me know and if you can please tell me why. I can I will clarify more if I am writing awkwardly to you.
Jay,
To answer your reply the answer is No I meant what I typed because a person with a vested interest is not objective because he may be biased. I would be hard to tell if there is a vested interest. If the person is Objective he will have no vested interest and report the truth. You posted this:
Shouldn’t that read, ‘ A person should call it as he sees it, vested interests or not.
Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between | Objective vs Subjective http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/#ixzz1GMW5634t
Like I said above the answer is no as I already explained earlier above.
Secondly, I used the term BULLSHIDO in the context as a dogma or closely followed principle sort of like a cult. These dogma are usually unchallenged and blindly accepted. The term Bullshido is a mock term as opposed to the legit term Bushido which implies honor and other so called virtues. Bullshido does not have those qualities. Again there is no single minded objectivity. Objectivity should NOT imply personal feelings or opinions or dogmas. An Objective statement has to be true and it is usually the case the statement is generalized — with nothing to do with the speaker.
yo roy
1st of all man i think you are awesome! you gave me entirely a new view about this subject after reading your posts. even though i believe you explained in almost every way possible for everyone to understand, i know some folks out there that are STILL just a tad bit confused (like me). learning from a philosophers perspective can make u see it in a complete different way. now yes i do basically understand the difference betweent the two. yet there are some cases i may come across and i wouldnt know wheter to label it as subjective or objective.for ex: the BIBLE subjectve right?? is it possible for you to recap your lecture and simplify it for us (or just me. i could be the only jackwagon) where we can understand completely and in its entirety the difference betwen the two.
thanks, ya boy PaulStayStuntin
PaulStayStuntin,
Thanks for your comments! I was trying to be specific enough and use easy language for all to understand. I am glad to see some people appreciated my input. The Bible would be a case of OBJECTIVE knowledge: either it is true or it is not. Do not be concerned which value it holds: is the Bible true? or Is the Bible false? Do not be distracted! Had I said “I am six foot, or seven foot tall and I stack a bunch of bannanas” this is STILL either true or false! Excuse my charisma. What many people have trouble with is that You — personally — do not know which value to pick: true or false seems up in the air. Another example is “There is life in another Universe” which is still either true or false! How will I know if it is true or false? Well, you don’t! You are problaly thinking or expressing “What do you mean You don’t,” right? Yes, it does Sound strange you would think I’m on vodka with a spritzer.
To reason consistently one must grant that the knowledge exists independant of us. Consider this claim Paul: “Paul, I have never met you parents so since I never met your parents they can not exist! Only if I meet a person’s parents can they have the permission to exist.” This inference is clearly wrong isn’t it? So your parents existing is independant of my awareness isn’t it? Likewise, eventhough right this moment we have no sure way to say yes or no to life in other universes, there is hope that we will one day detect this. If we had the means this moment we would KNOW if it is true or false right this instant. If I say the Earth is the 9th planent from Sun we have means to resolve this. When we don’t have the means to resolve our lack of ability the subjective minded run and say “there is no truth because [I the all knowing concieted one] do know or have the answer right now. Take notice please of the pattern: if subjective genuis has the means of an answer he will give it. When subjective Genius falls short of the measuring stick things change — no body can do it or nobody has it. Objective knowledge I would say would be similar to deductive reasoning. Subjective knowledge would be like science or Inductive reasoning. Furthermore, the context of both terms (objective and subjective) can co-exist in such a way that something is absolutely true for you — the individual — and true for others as well. Do not think this must be one way or the other way always. In deductive reasoning, we use a METHOD of derriving truths from other truths. These truths are sometimes already known or given to us. We can never use a method of truth that is LESS than 100 percent accurate in deductive logic. When we use a method that is absolute — meaning to say this method is 100 percent correct and not less — we call this method logically VALID. Thus, it is impossible for me to start with truth and end up with falsity while following logic rules. I must have committed a fallacy to start with truth and end up with falsity! In contrast, when I use any method that sometimes gives me the truth [or correct answers] and sometimes this same method gives me FALSITY [the wrong answers] this method is called logically INVALID. Logically invalid means the method is not reliable in logic. Science will take this up as something important though. Science by definition is INDUCTIVE and thus not able to produce a method of truth 100 percent all the time. So when we do not have 100 percent we are best to use probability and go with 95 percent as opposed to 30 percent chance of winning a million dollars for instance. If we do not have 100 percent accuracy, then probability is all we have left. So here I will tie in Objective knowledge with being 100 percent accurate. Subjective knowledge is less than 100 percent accurate. This subjective method might get you over here and there if you are a hustler — but there will be times it WILL fail! It is not 100 percent! If you find yourself in doubt then add more specific details to the sentence. I mean get riddiculous with detail and you will see no one can decieve you. Deception is always a language problem — someone being vauge or witholding information that could change the result. Kill that with rude tactic with excessive specifics like the date, the time, the circumstance, etc and you will see objective statements can never be false. Subjective statements can be true, false or just plain irrational for a human being to make. For instance, I believe the earth is shaped like a triangle! How could I justify that belief? I can’t, but I still believe it anyway! I am entitled to a stupid belief right? I honestly have a problem with that people can hold on to false beliefs, but that is another story. I hope this answers your inquiry. If not, then let me know what specifically as possible is troubling you and I will try to address it better. I do not want to seem like I am rambling or putting people to sleep so I will stop here. Peace.
Subjectiveness is biased, objectiveness isn’t.
In the very first sentence, we have a very subjective, case in point, statement – as is my comment
“In stories, newspapers, and the spoken word, people all over the world are trying to convince you to think as they do. ”
Is this really true?
Is there anybody NOT doing this?
And what do you mean by “think as they do”?
Are you trying to convince me to think as YOU do by accepting this unfounded statement, which is really either just your opinion. Do you really believe your statement?
And is that what humanity is busy doing? Trying to convince somebody to think as they do?
Hmmm……
thanks for adetailed explanation .it hasbeen of great importance to my research
I am a new subscriber. Like the concept. Just think your explanations are to long. Just get to the point.
Roy and Co,
Thanks for all the posts clarifying (or confusing) the subjective/objective defs.
Maybe you can settle an arguement me and a friend were having.
I was saying that comedy was subjective, and he was saying it was objective. And I should clarify, we both must be idiots, because we both meant the opposite of what we were saying.
I was thinking along the lines that comedy was measurable, but after reading this forum and thinking about it, I still think that it is measurable, but it is measureable of the objective opinions of the majority. For example, 0 to no one thinks the holocaust is funny. A very high percentage would laugh at watching someone get hit in the nether-regions. So, could I say there is a subjective scale of comedy on the objective opinions of the majority? Thanks for the any clarification….
Justin,
I would like to comment on your disagreement with your friend about comedy. Sure I think if we could establish an absolute definition of “comedy” then there is pure objectivity in what fits in the comedy classification. However, I am not sure at this point in time if there is an model example of comedy. Let’s assume there is a model definition out there — I am not saying this is it — that has been around since the Greeks were doing their plays. Let’s say the agreed definition was at that time the following: “Professional entertainment consisting of jokes and satirical sketches, intended to make an audience laugh.
2. A movie, play, or broadcast program intended to make an audience laugh.
[ I am not saying this is so!!!! I am giving an example how to argue this] Now we take samples from Justin what he calls comedy and see if it fits within the confines of comedy. The Halocaust does not fit in the definition — it was not intended to make an audience laugh; nor was it a movie, play or broadcast with intent to make the audience laugh. Is the Hangover movie a comedy? I would put it to the test. I would say YES! Is the Thor movie a comedy? I would say NO!!! There has to be some criteria for determining what goes into a comedy in distinction to a tragedy or drama. The hard part is discovering what those qualities are that make something a comedy if there is no criteria already set in place. The comment about comedy being measurable will still make something a comedy or not since one comedy can draw more laughs than perhaps another comedy. Both are comedy but movie A was funnier than movie B. That is more along the lines with being subjective if I say the comedy of Austin Powers is funnier than the Naked Gun movie. So I do not want people to draw the inference that popularity makes something objective or subjective. This is NOT the case. Popularity has nothing to do with objectivity or subjectivity. Jesus Christ is either God or He is not God objectively. The same could be said of the Doomsday date predicted by Harold Camping and Family Radio: May 21,2011 is the end of the world!!!! Now that the date is past we now know it is objectively false. The Jesus Christ example we are still awaiting — its time will eventually come too and then it will be true or false. Right now we just don’t know and we don’t hae enough information to know. Awareness is not apart of objectivity folks. A tree falls in the forrest still makes a noise !!!! Many people who study psychology tend to act as logical people just as some demons act as angels of light. There is a difference between Psychology and Philosophy. Psychology was once called “the school of practical philosophy” going back to the times of Plato who invented the topic of studying the mind. Psychology has been confused with Philsopophy too much which is why people confuse terms. Too bad most people take the Psychologist words over the Philosopher about Philosophical terms. Sort of like going to the car mechanic to have teeth pulled over a dentist.
Thanks! I think I understand what you mean about there having to be a model, defining what a comedy would be. Looks like I lost the arguement!
Subjective means negative while objective refers to positive. A subjective person is biased person while objective person is unbiased. Being objective helps someone to achieve his/her dreams. The objective individual appears to be motivated to attain to where he/she sets the goals. The subjective individual makes decision based on the feelings and opinions of the speaker and not on the facts.
Dr. Wilson Ugwu
how the f do i change the language on my laptop from martion to english
Roy,
Fu*k Off.You know,too much of analysis leads to paralysis and you are paralyzed already.
You seem to me as arrogant and a bad listener.Learn to overcome that and come out of the box and
listen other views.You need to read a lot .. not just philosophy.There are many other learning areas that you need to dig before you can make some sense.You just put all jargon here and you just sound like a confused person who is not clear ,crisp and concise.
Kim,
Your post is full of anger. What specifically did I post to get you to respond like that? Your post is without a justification in it. You are extremely vague about what “jargon” I used and you are vauge about why you are uptight. Was it the part about psychology that hit a nerve? At least you should have given that information. Furthermore, you seem to hate people who go into detail. Why is that? Is it because you refuse to do so? All of a sudden, I am arogant and the next thing associated with that is “a KNOW IT ALL”. How can you arrive at such conclusions? You certainly did not state any reasons why you responded so negatively. Many other readers here have stated that my post were clear. What did you not understand? I specifically stated the definition I gave about Objectivity was from the perspective of Philosophy. I did not force information on anyone. Most people here did not consider the philosophical definition because they did not experience it. I provided a view many did not know existed and I become a “KNOW IT ALL” and “ARROGANT?” Perhaps you are a psychology student or a professional in that field which upset you to become irate and post irrationally. People read or hear the word Philosophy and just start acting the fool I guess. Most people here have psychology experience because they deal with people and their emotions. Pychology is the study of what humans think and human behavior. You don’t have to be enrolled in a University to be a psych major. You just have to know how to snow people over: speak in a nice tone, smile, speak vaguley, avoid saying anything negative and just be happy, happy, happy. Unfortuantely all ideas are not equal. All music is not equal. All art is not equal. For instance, my drawings or paintings would not be likend to ART in any real sense of the term. That is the happy happy happy in you. Psychology and its related fields tend to teach that stuff. The ironic thing is many psych majors, as I call them, are two faced: they are either the happy happ happy type — where the world is just positive and perfect — OR they can be the deliberate Jerk. The diliberate jerk is the kind of person who is purposely negative: i.e., the jerk interviewer who keeps creating interuptions such as taking personal calls in the middle of the interview, won’t smile, speaks in a demeaning tone, criticize irrelevant things, etc. Another form of the deliberate Jerk is the person who irrational blurts negatives and is unphased by anything: you find this type of jerk in the comedy club with the frown on the face, arms crossed, already with an attitude before the show starts. “I will NOT laugh — Nothing will phase me!” This is where you come in Kim: the deliberate jerk who nothing phases and blurts out random negatives. “I am KIM and nothing phases me. All that stuff Roy typed before is all BS but I can’t prove it. All the details Roy typed are worthless because nothing phases me — I’m KIM.”
A rational person would at least mention some details and specifically where my comments were wrong or flawed. But since nothing Phases Kim why were you reading in the first place? Just because I suppose — really rational. How is it you don’t understand what I wrote? You understood. You just dont’ care! You just don’t care why you hate me.
And next batter up, Out of left field (aka outta the blue), “nothing phases me” with
an emotional rant — KIM.
A rational person would state the reasons why they feel a certain way. That might be hard work for someone who hates details and being specifc. So following Fu*k Off should be the justification for the comment. That justification should be full of true statements — not emotional rants just because you have the freedom of speech. I have no doubt you can’t justify your rant.
The happy happy happy people think that all is fine. All ideas are equally good, all the religions of the world are equally true, all things are subject to opinion, etc. This is not taught in lets say math or gymnastics. Where do people get these ideas? We could list every academic subject there is and eliminate those academic subjects that do not push the happy happy happy subjective theory. Is it pragmatic? The answer is Yes, which is why most humans experience it. Is it rational always? No. Authority in the pragmatic world kicks in and overrides reason in many cases. I try to reason with my boss and I upset him: “Roy you are fired!” Regardless of who is right or wrong, I can be fired either way. Authority is a crowd pleaser as well. What Kim here has done is make herself the authority while demeaning me. Typical animal behavior in many species outside of humans; it is called usually the “ALPHA” syndrome such as an “alpha male” dominates the others in its group be it Apes, Wolves, Dogs, etc. In this case it is a female ALPHA who can’t find reason.
i think roy spends too much time on his computer
(HI ROY)
I know you are right on point… (but the way you employ the esoteric lexicon of the English language seems a bit harsh.)
{[Remember:]-> “With great power comes great responsibility.”}
Outstanding content not to mention very easy towards fully understand story. How do I just do receiving agreement towards submit component of this page with my future news letter? Offering suitable consumer credit rating back to you typically the writer not to mention web site link within the web website will not be considered trouble.
Glad you enjoyed my article, it is interesting how as we grow we change and adapt our views as well!
Wow! This could be 1 particular of the most beneficial blogs We have ever arrive across on this subject. Actually Magnificent. Im also a specialist in this subject so I can understand your hard function.
No, the subjectivity of truth and I’m speaking on my own behalf, is not a happy happy kingdom of thoughts, nor is objectivity. Subjective is soft, objective is kind of hard. Soft (subjective) is the better option (just an opinion), quite simply because it’s open to different people arguing over whether it’s chalk or cheese. That in fact is open to a good argument, objective is one view, so with being forced into one opinion it doesn’t make a good argument, don’t make any mistake, subjective is not a happy happy thinking, it’s a soft rationality, or an irrationality. It’s your intuition most of us trust instinctively for one thing, for another, one must trust their perception and their senses, and for a third, viewpoints of the same person can change at a different time and the same person’s view of the truth will vary with time, it ain’t objective. I think objective= negative and subjective = positive, to be agnostic is simply a subjectivist secularisation, atheist is blindly doubting without proof.
Subjective,
Thanks for your input. You were soft and well said in a pragmatic way. Subjective is more people skills. Yes, I can absolutely agree! However, the objective is not necessarily negative. Objective is to report accuracy and truth in the same expression without bias. “Today, September 26, 2011 is not Christmas day” is an objective statement. It accurately denotes the truth value of the expression and is very specific. Subjective issues often times refuses to go into specifics. Subjective is usually pragmatic — the “whatever works” method. In other words, often this means “do anything to get over this situation.” Back in the elementary school days, I remember, all the way up to High school many students “do whatever just to pass with a “C”. When I was growing up, this was labled as “hustling”. This of course hints at being a con or having fake personality. Pragmatics also hints at being a con or having a fake personality due to you want success so badly you will go low as possible to achieve your result. You really don’t care — you just want this over and you want to win. Objectivity is only reporting true and accurate expressions of ideas that are unbiased — “calling it straight!” I do not benefit from uttering the objective statement. As a matter of fact, my existence is independant of the objective statement! If I were never born, the expression “Today, September 26, 2011 is not Christmas day” is true. The fact that people disagree means nothing to objectivity. The objective fact exists independantly of the observer. So why do humans need options to choose from with the expression “Today, September 26, 2011 is not Christmas day”? Subjective as you stated is “open”. The truth value of the expression, however, is not “open”. Either it is true or false — no other options, sorry. Objective statements can also be open: when in fact you have more than one oprtion: “All American citizens can choose to run for President of the United States or choose not to run at all”. True statement, right? It turns out that all literally meaningful sentences are either true or false. I did not make it that way. My existence is not the cause. All literally meaningful sentences just happens to be either true or false; there are no gray areas when literally meaningful sentences are present whether I exist or without me existing. By all literally meaningful sentences I mean sentences that appeal to reality and to human senses: those sentences that can be verified physically. All expressions are not this way by any means. Subjective expressions, from my experience, often hold more weight when they come from a human acting as an authority or a person who thinks he is superior over another human being. For example, my boss likes classical music. If I want to stay employed I too have to listen to classical music without any negative feedback. The higher up can retaliate more and do things the insubordinate cannot. Psychology has it that people only want to focus on positive facts — not the negative facts. There are studies on this. Where people are given negative fact cases and the responses show that people will try to avoid the negative even when it is impossible and intently made that way. People reason better when things are put positively than negatively. People make more fallacies when they have to reason about negative facts. Many people are taught as a child, “if you don’t have anything positive to say than don’t say anything at all.” Negative facts are not welcomed. This is psychology and the start of happy happy happy. It is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. When it is exagerated, then it beomes untruthful and poor thinking results. One can falsely believe all things are positive, all things work out for the good, all negative things can be corrected, etc. So the pragmatic person looks like a nice person whereas the objective person if he utters a negative truth is the “bad guy”. This should not be so.
Hi Roy, I enjoyed your article and wanted to thank you for posting my video. I was wondering why the hits went up so much on that one, and then I saw you had embedded it on your site. Nice idea for a blog site, and I also like how you interact with the comments on your post, both positive and negative.
Thanks for this wonderful site. I really like the way you emphasized your point of view right here.I learned a lot and I obtain much knowledge upon reading this.
i think it is much simpler:
– Objective: if the vast majority of people agree that something is so, it is considered to be objective.
– subjective: if you do not agree with the majority of people on something; others don’t actually enter in your view, your view is independant of others.
————————————————————————————————————–
Subjective is extremely important as all science depends on subjectivity, you must disagree with what we consider to be such and such in order question it.
Objectivity is to find the truth that we all agree or can agree to.
Reality is simply what we all agree to be. We all agree to gravity so it exists and anyone disagreeing would be looked at as mad. Nevertheless we could all be wrong, as a more fundamental truth could make us think that gravity existed when in fact it doesn’t.
Ottjo,
Your definions are technically wrong: you oversimplify the words too much & as a result your view will have so many exceptions to your own defintions:
– Objective: if the vast majority of people agree that something is so, it is considered to be objective.
– subjective: if you do not agree with the majority of people on something; others don’t actually enter in your view, your view is independant of others.
You are taking shortcuts that might work SOMETIMES –not always. Thus, your view is incompatible with the term “Objective” which deals with certainty. You are taking shortcuts as if you are at gunpoint. Why simplify so much to destroy the initial goal ? Agreeing with people doesn’t solve the issue . Objectivity needs no agreement. Psychology has such an impact that most people get this word “objective ” wrong.
Thank you for sharing superb informations. Your web site is so cool. I’m impressed by the details that you have on this site. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for extra articles. You, my friend, ROCK! I found simply the info I already searched all over the place and just couldn’t come across. What a perfect website.
The posts at this site are really wonderful—I’m enriched. Thanks!
I have get very satisfaction by getting the real answer……
thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for your input. You were soft and well said in a pragmatic way. Subjective is more people skills. Yes, I can absolutely agree! However, the objective is not necessarily negative. Objective is to report accuracy and truth in the same expression without bias. “Today, September 26, 2011 is not Christmas day” is an objective statement
Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between | Objective vs Subjective http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/#ixzz1j1LQbBRB
It could be seen as negative that today is not Christmas however.
ahhh yes but, for the “bah-humbug” type, (like myself) it could also be seen as VERY positive thing. lol 😉
This article has it all wrong. Objective is the guidelines laid out in how to apply certain philosophical standards of reasoning such as how to keep a scientific journal, write a research paper, or submit a thesis. Basically a guideline to laying out one’s own thoughts so others may use them in new ways without meddling with personal things.
Objective writing can be false, untrue, not literal at times. It can be hypothetical. It is never positive or negative it is indecisive and because it makes no stance it can be used to see where said stance must be made.
Subjective writing goes on top of the objective ideas using metaphors, similes, other imaginative and personal things. Subjective is often times emotional, but lets remember emotions can be expressed anywhere.
er, now im just more confused than i was to begin with. guess im just too stupid to get it,
Objective: Anything that is no longer open to further analysis i.e givens. For example, 2+2=4.
Subjective: Individuals interpenetration. For example, value, your favorite band, your favorite color, morality, how you see things as an individual.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say but the article made it clear and you just confused the heck out of me.
Kids, what we have learned today: diff b/w subjective and objective.
Let’s just start using our understanding of the terms by putting statements to test.
For example: Dudesowin’s opinion could be subjective and there may be not objective truth in the statement and you don’t need to worry about it.
OR
The author used her subjective understanding when she came up with her arguments for writing the article.
I have used my subjective understanding to view both the arguments in subjective light to find out everything is subjective including this statement.
Mirza and AsfawGedamu
, Love the comments! so true 🙂
Are you going to use dialogue with the example a mere description of your characters possible actions? the propositions you inserted were a little ambiguous to my analytical observations. It’s also possible that it was the same case for other observers
If you haven’t made notifications of this yet, many individuals did not comprehend your definitions for these two devices referred to as “subjective/objective.”the modernized and universal definition of these terms are not as you artlessly suggest, but more like the paragraphical definition above.
of course objective can be hypothetical at times, which is an obvious proposition you stated.but when the objectivity is infected with hypothetical perception, it’s referred to to as subjectivity. idiot
Wow. All I wanted to know was a quick definition of these two terms for an exam. Instead I got this beautiful display portraying a clear picture of what I needed to know. Wonderful. Simply Magnificent. Wish me luck on my exam!!
Honestly, I like this definition waaayyy better than the standard definition from the dictionary LOL!
You understand when you say “Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations” That this is in fact a statement that was made possible by what you were taught, in every possible way. Therefore it is biased towards who taught you to make statements & arrive to the conclusions that you do…. Making its absolutely biased.
Cheyenne,
You commit an elementary reasoning error. Basically what you said is known as “Damning the source”. Google it sometime. You can’t say the people who taught you were biased and that makes you biased. Ultimately you think all people are biased without saying so. Even in the case if I hold biases my statements do not have to reflect my biases! I can without bias say “The New York Giants won Super Bowl XLVI in 2012”. Your argument is psychological and fails. Many people fail to distinguish philosophy and psychology so you made a common mistake committed billions of times by others. Holding biases about the topic may hinder the result of the TOPIC. My bias against the Patriots football team ( I hate Brady!) means nothing if the subject of discussion is religion for example. To point out a flaw like holding any kind of bias is changing the topic. When people have nothing to come back with, they change the topic: politcians do this all the time! The topic is objectivity and you ought to stick to the topic NOT try to kill the origin. You can’t go back in time like the Terminator and kill the source of objectivity. Whether you know it or not Psychology taught you all things are relative and/ or subjective even if you never took a formal psychology course! Psychology is what reality TV is all about: human emotions and humans acting them out; “different strokes for different folks” stuff. Seems to make contagious entertainment but little on intellectual content.
Your argument for “damning the source” is irrelevant because the source was never damned, because the source isn’t stated nor known. Nice try though amateur. Cheyenne is correct, but you have to open your mind a little. A lot of what is assumed to be objective is simply agreed upon by a “mass” of subjective thought – conformity, for better or for worse. For instance, try to argue that Jesus was born in a different month than December, some people will claim you’re damning the source, given your reasoning. Some will claim he was never born, never existed. Saying “The New York Giants won the Super Bowl” is made objective because subjective minds agree to adhere to what the New York Giants are, what the Super Bowl is. Maybe I don’t think it’s all that Super and therefore don’t which to confirm, to allow my own subjectivity to recognize the collective object? I know, I know, my reasoning is faulty. However, it was once objective to consider Earth flat. The New York Giants exist, the Super Bowl is, but both were created by Subjective Minds to begin with. The New York Giants, the Super Bowl, exist because of a collective agreement to view it as an object. Damning the source is more along the lines of the following statement, “you can’t believe anything Roy says because he’s an idiot”.
And hello, everyone is biased – it’s called being Subjective.
“Psychology is what reality TV is all about: human emotions and humans acting them out”
you mean like your use of the exclamation mark or your comment “I hate Brady!”? Here’s a thought, Subjectivity itself is objective. Would you agree? That is given the notion that we both agree that your subjectivity exist..
EXACTLY michael!!!!
Michael Stanton,
I thank you for your input. Perhaps to you I attacked psychology and perhaps you are fond of psychology. I was not attacking anyone nor was I deliberately trying to be rude. I was stating “fact”. Unfortunately, you seem as many other people in the world –fond of psychology. Your approach was like other people who think all is subjective. I am not trying to be a jerk here. I would love to state the argument crystal clear and then you tell me what is incorrect. I claimed Cheyanne used a fallacious argument which is titled “Damming the Source”. I did not make up that name. That happens to be the title of the fallacy she committed. The title “Damming the source” actually can be called another name — the infamous Ad Hom! (The correct classification is Ad Hominem but there are several variations within the class of Ad Hominem so each varaiant has a name.) Thus Cheyanne committed an AD Hom attack saying well the person who taught you was biased and that makes you biased and thus you can’t be objective. My reply was accurate. This is what logicians call an ad hom because she never once addressed the issue but found an excuse to blow the entire thing off and “walk off” as if she won. This is a big habit for those who are emotional and yes I think this is encouraged by psychology. Secondly, outside of philosophy most people define Ad Hom incorrectly. I gave the name of the fallacy specifically and I encouraged her to research the fallacy to get my being out of the discussion: meaning to say I gave evidence that is independant of ROY. This is NOT subjective. The fallacy is probably older than all of us combined. Emotional people incorrectly think an Ad Hom must be insulting or offensive to another person. This is Not so in philosophy. Emotional people have trashed the legit term which refers to the status of an entire argument to mean something else — any sentence where you offend someone is an Ad Hom to psychology majors. This infection spread because psychology is a more social subject then philosophy. To be clear, a single statement can’t commit a fallacy. So no she does not have to agree for this is not subjective. She ranted which is emotional. I did not fault her for being emotional. Her reasoning is what I critiqued, not her person! Deductive logic is about correct reasoning not purposely offending humans. It might come across that way to other humans, but the topic is what should be at hand. Put emotions aside and deal with the topic as much as possible.
Now to your input and reasoning, Michael: “Your argument for “damning the source” is irrelevant because the source was never damned, because the source isn’t stated nor known.” This does not over rule the fallacy claim! Who says the actual source needs to be mentioned? There is no requirement to have a photograph or signature of the source! Would you say x is not a number in algebra because the x is not named specifically? No! You can say x is a number in algebra because you can solve for x! There is no need to say what the name of the source is with damning the source because no matter who it is the fallacy is still committed. The result does NOT change and would not change had Cheyanne mentioned the name Bradley out of the blue. So mathematically the argument would go like this: I would say x is an absolute number; Cheyanne comes out and states that the person who taught me math is biased so x is not an absolute number! Notice Cheyanne never mentions anything about numbers themselves. This would not fly in math would it? The topic is about numbers and she goes to the source — the person who taught me numbers and tries to terminate everything in the topic. I ask you how is her strategy relevant to the topic?
IT ISN”T! This is not about me versus her. With no names included the reasoning steps she took are universally wrong in deductive logic. So for you to say she was correct needs justification. Anyone who sides with that type of reasoning has erred no matter what the name of the human who reasoned like that is. You commit another mistake yourself with the next sentence: “A lot of what is assumed to be objective is simply agreed upon by a “mass” of subjective thought – conformity, for better or for worse.” This shows me you do not know the correct definition of the term “objective”. This puts you in the mass majority who side with psychologist who focus on feelings over fact. You continue: “Saying “The New York Giants won the Super Bowl” is made objective because subjective minds agree to adhere to what the New York Giants are, what the Super Bowl is. Maybe I don’t think it’s all that Super and therefore don’t which to confirm, to allow my own subjectivity to recognize the collective object?”
So are you saying that there is no physical football team on the planet earth named the “New York Giants”? Do you deny that there is a sport with the name “Football” in America which is not soccer? Surely these things can be verified! There happens to be a championship game in the sport which is called “theSuper bowl” this has nothing to do with Roy the person. These are objective statements which are independant of the speaker thus they are OBJECTIVE. The statements are true and accurate and do not change value from true to false. If you thing they do then you must not be specific enough. 200 years later perhaps there will be no super bowl anymore but nothing changes the truth value of the statement “in 2012 the New York Giants won the super bow.” Subjective statements flip flop from true to false and vice versa. By the way you confuse popularity with objective:However, it was once objective to consider Earth flat.” Objective statements do not change value when you are specific enough!!! The mass of people did BELIVE that the earth was flat and that was a POPULAR myth that was never true and is still NOT true as we know today.
Subjective minds create all things, Michael? What subject did you learn this from? I can guess it was NOT math, physics, music, literature, writing, sport, arts, etc. If I named every academic subject I would rule out the majority and be left with only a few that teach and preach subjectivity. Psychology seems to really really desire agreement and conformity where philosphy does NOT NEED agreement. As long as you can justify your claim — no matter if it is a positive claim or a negative claim — you have reason to believe it and then the belief is called “Rational”. Otherwise, the belief is “irrational”. Even I hold irrational beliefs. I did not say all people who hold irrational beliefs should be executed! It is not that serious. Irrational beliefs ought to be minimized if we desire to grow intellectually. Emotions often get in the way of correct reasoning. Finally Michael, you proved my view that most emotional people are totally wrong about ad homs: “Damning the source is more along the lines of the following statement, ‘you can’t believe anything Roy says because he’s an idiot’.” See this is NOT A FALLACY because there is no authentic argument. That is what we call –in my neck of the woods — an INSULT. When you say ROY is an idiot there is no argument! That is called an insult only! Sure you can make it into an argument! You can call me ugly and a host of negative things, but those are NOT arguments and thus THEY ARE NOT Fallacies. INSULTS are NOT AD HOMS! I wish emotional people stop getting this WRONG. An AD HOM actually and originally refered to an ARGUMENT. Then the violator ties the argument with the attack of the person. So to say “you can’t believe anything Roy says because he is an idiot” boils down to Roy is an idiot AND an idot is not a believable person. Therfore Roy is not a believable person. Needless to say the argument is UNSOUND! (That is good news to me, whew!)
I must apologize to those who take offense to my tone. Secondly, there are some typos which I am now aware of but could not correct them. My tone is something I am trying to improve. However, my details in the writing is what should be understood. I have no problem taking critique. Be brutal if you wish, but be truthful: meaning the statements ought to be true not emotional rants alone. I am not trying to out shine any human or out shine all humans as if I am perfect. I am not perfect and do make mistakes. The best I can do is ask one to show my errors and then I take it upon myself to make the improvements. In my neck of the woods, this is taking responsibility and a sign of maturity. One of the slogan purposes in life is to not make the same mistakes as you used to. I think you will all agree that you encountered this learning proces in your lives: make a mistake, someone like a parent or a teacher corrects you, then you learn to avoid or minimize that mistake which was corrected. This is not about ego. Learning is the key to dialouge. This does not mean I am always correct nor do I believe I am always correct. The justification in beliefs helps one to get closer to truth or arrive at the truth. I happen to use deduction more seriously than many others who I have claimed too emotional.
Roy wrote ” My reply was accurate. This is what logicians call an ad hom because she never once addressed the issue but found an excuse to blow the entire thing off and “walk off” as if she won”
You’re entire premise of belief is based on subjective thought without any mutual consensus. You even take a person’s name to imply the gender of a person just as you (subjectively) imagined yourself being right when you describe a tree by its “fruit”. Wrong again bro. 😉
The truth is, there is no labels & no formalities that extend beyond ones own imagination. Gaining consensus is only reafirming your own personal (subjective) beliefs.
Cheyenne,
Never once did you show a flaw with anything I wrote. You simply deny what I wrote is accurate. I showed you and gave illustrations what the error in your reasoning was. You don’t address any of my actual claims and show anything is in error with examples. You can’t just claim somone is wrong and “just walk off” as you DID something. You did not do anything yet! This is psychological and you are mixing feelings with rationality. This is why so many people are infected with “all is subjective” thinking. Do You believe that without any mutual consensus something can’t exist? Do You believe no facts exist because there is no agreement? These are not things you would bring up, let’s say, in MATH would you? 5+3 = ” well it depends?” You claimed this: “The truth is, there is no labels & no formalities that extend beyond ones own imagination.” Is 5+3 subjective? Is President Ronad Reagan being dead subjective? Is THAT my imgination?? I tell you if you see the real President Ronald Reagan walking around — not an imposter– then your imigination is at work! So according to Cheyenne there is no such thing as death or people who have died? Even if we take what you say as “the Real truth” THAT would be an absolute statement and that would be a NON SUBJECTIVE statement!!! In other words Cheyenne made an objective statement, if this is always true: “The truth is, there is no labels & no formalities that extend beyond ones own imagination.” If there are no false instances of your statement it is objective and factual, period. Subjective statements are those that flip flop from true to false periodically and are not absolute.
Roy, don’t waste your time with these people; you can’t convert them to sound logicians in a day. Most of the people here are what’s wrong in America, and this incoherence of thought is going to end up biting them in the rear. I’ve already given up on this country and am awaiting its soon and final destruction. Trust me, economic collapse is around the next corner, just ask the law of exponents for a second opinion.
dear idiotic roy, please shut up…… 🙂
Roy you have a chip on your shoulder, the way you try to put your argument across fails!
It fails because regardless of the content in contention, you have “made a basic error” in that you have rudely conducted your counter argument purely on the basis of a difference of opinion and without provocation. Had you of been polite, your arguments would have been that much stronger. Doubtless you do not accept that you have been rude? But that Roy is for others to judge?
Now what’s that you were saying about psychology Roy?
Cheyenne, splendid synopsis, many thanks.
William,
I am in hope that you are sincere with your input. I hope and take your input as advice to improve oneself. I am getting that my tone is at fault. If that is your message, I thank you for it. If my interpretation is incorrect still let me know. I take your input as “Roy you too have issues. Your tone is often inappropriate and defeat your purpose of your argument because you push people away.”
I hear you William. My tone is something I must work on. My social skills are not the best. My lack of social skills or people skills seems quite objective from what is displayed so far. However, emotions are not the point of anything discussed. We all arrived here about a topic that we know was not emotional: the difference between objective and subjective. The claims and examples I have given had nothing to do with me being rude or being offensive. True I did not take account that others would feel a certain way but that is why I gave clear examples. Not one person claimed my examples were wrong and was able to show it wrong. People calimed things but were not able to do so consistantly without exeptions to their reasoning. I gave clear cases where the truth value of objective statements do not change and no one showed otherwise. There is no exception to the examples I gave to prove objective statements are not subjective. You should be able to see I have some experience with this topic and I did not just make these things up on the spot. My experience allowed me to use the paradigm cases which no one could refute. Paradigm cases are cases where the truth value can’t be soundly refuted! The psychology mentions I gave were to refelect why many people reason poorly. No one here would claim that in math there are subjective values. In music there is no such thing a a subjective “C note”. Either it is a C note being palyed or it is not a C note. Surely it is not up to the listener if I actually press a C note. I can rule out many academic subjects that do not preach all is subjective. Psychology happens to be one! I did not insult the subject, I stated a claim that I have seen over and over. You can tell a tree by its fruit. The same errors go unchecked and get spread like a disease. These errors are unjustifiable intellectually but people draw to them because they are POPULAR! As to your claim about my arguments, William, in deductive logic persuasion is NOT the goal to strive for. In Rhetoric, persaussion IS THE GOAL, not truth in reality. In rhetoric, no matter if you are wrong or correct the goal is to persaude only. In the cases where the argument is actually wrong, the goal is still persausion; persuasive effect allows one get over on people! In deductive logic, I submit to you that, accuracy is more important because we want to achieve soundness in deductive logic. Soundness is when our premises and conclusions are in true in reality. Rhetoric and logic can overlap but they are not the same subject. One can use fallacies and persaude. In logic you can’t get to first base if there is an error without making an effort to fix it. So now we arrive at a cross road: persausive argument or accurate and sound argument. I have seen accurate arguments fail simply because the average Joe or Sue claims “it boring” and then dissmiss the subject entirely. The psychologist always have a window to jump out when they want to exit. Deductive logic attempts to close exessive windows: psychologists create windows just in case. . .
I disagree William, Roy was sticking to the topic, refuted multiple posts that had been supported either subjectivity or psychology, subjectivity is more suited for assumption, rumor, not “Truth” Objectivity is the pursuit of truth, reason, rationality.
I suppose a good example between Objective and Subjective topics is religion is a subjective one, can’t touch it, taste it, see it, it is never the same for multiple people, where as Cheynne had not stuck to the topic and wandered into the “realm of psychology”
Rationality is subjective. For example, it’s “rational” for me to buy diapers for my children. If you don’t have children; why would you buy diapers? Therefore it’s subjective based upon the individuals’ circumstance.
Objectivity is not open for further analysis. For example, 2+2=4, 2 inches is smaller than 4 inches, supply and demand, and earth’s gravity.
Rationality is subjective. For example, it’s “rational” for me to buy diapers for my children. If you don’t have children; why would you buy diapers? Therefore it’s subjective based upon the individuals’ circumstance.
Objectivity is not open for further analysis. For example, 2+2=4, 2 inches is smaller than 4 inches, supply and demand, and earth’s gravity.
Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between | Objective vs Subjective http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/#ixzz2kBLTF7R4
Kyle, you can’t be serious with this statement? when you say that “rationality is subjective” what you are doing is effectively predicating the property of “subjectivity” to the term “rationality.” My question to you is on what grounds are you assured that such a predication is justified? Is your grounding “objective” or is it “subjective?” and if the first, then you have basically committed the error of inconsistent logic, for obvious reasons. Secondly, to compare the first statement, “rationality is subjective” to the second one, regarding buying diapers for your children, makes no comparable sense: the second statement is not saying “rationality is SUBJECTIVE”, what it’s asserting is that the objectiveness of rationality with respect to buying diapers for my children is contingent on the object against which my rational decision is to be made. in your example, that would be the existence of “children” Objectively, to buy diapers for children that do not exist is not rational, unless the rational decision against which one chooses to buy diapers is contingent on some other claim which is independent of one’s having children, and in that case, the full assertion of the sentence should capture such a contingency. Unless you did not mean what you said and what was said was intended to be subjectified to the tortures of multiple entendres?
Roy is much more accurate and clear in his explanations than anyone could hope to be. You are guilty of a playground mentality by both seeking solidarity with empty suit Cheyenne and dismissing out of hand Roy’s detailed photograph of how things are simply because you cannot counter his substantive, well-fortified and objective position.
In some cultures nodding your head means no, and rotating it from side to side means yes.
Michael,
All that would prove is that subjectivity and objectivity exists! This is not a war. It is not me vs the world. We can all agree there are clear things that are subjective. I have given clear examples of objective that have not been addressed correctly. This should not be attempts to trumph one another: I have 5 dollars and you have 7 dollars so you are better than me. If you can point an error I will consider it. The same should go vice versa. Truth and accuracy should be important here as well not just the persassive power of the argument or how people percieve my tone. As you can see I make typos here and there so I know not to be big headed. I might even misspell words. It is about learning and growing not bashing other people. I had no intent to bash people. I do so without being aware. My tone needs work and I will work on it. Besides that what about the message and the facts I claim? Subjective minds do not over rule factual content. I never address how people feel about the topic. I address the topic. To ask how people feel about the effects of nuclear technology is not the same topic as “should we use nuclear technology? What are the pros and cons.” The navy currently has nuclear submarines. Do you think the navy cares if sailor Roy feels a certain way about being on a ship powered by nuclear power? I can answer that emphatically –NO! They will careless about my feelings and put me on that sub regarless. The important issue is not my feelings towards this or that. The navy has bigger matters to worry about. Should I take that view point as offensive? No I do not. I take factual statements differently than subjective ones. Fact is what is NOT subjective when defined correctly. The common refutations then becomes “Who says what is a Fact and what is not?” Well a definition of the term fact that that holds the test of time would suffice. One definition that does not flip flop. The actual words do not matter how you define FACT but whatever that is should not violate consistancy or else it is worthless. Emotional people think subjective minds create fact and that different subjects will offer different solutions. This violates consistancy. Surely the real worl does not operate this way: I murder my brother and get arrested for murder; I defend myself in court and tell the judge and jury “Well my definition of murder is not your definition . . . There is no such thing a murder because all is subjective”. I am no gambling man but this would not pass for any person: the police who arrest me for murder this fails, to the judge and jury this fails! The problem with subjectivity is it is like a flip flopping politician: once he was for abortion now he is pro life; then he goes back to pro choice and so on. Unless the room temperture is just right you don’t know if this is wrong or correct. Objectivity eliminates flip flopping. The issue with objectivity is two fold: tone (emotional consideration of others) and your personal awareness. You might not be aware which truth value a statement holds. Nonetheless there is a truth value — you just don’t know it right then and there.
Everything is subjective….There is nothing in this world called objective. The things you percieve as ‘Facts’ are not necessarily percieved by anyone else…For example, You say a certain colour, and you called it Blue (Because you were told since your childhood that such shade is called Blue) now how can you decide that the other person’s eye are seeing the at particular color exactly in the same way as you are seeing it….Yes the other person is also calling it blue, but is it really similar sensation of color for both persons?..Cant be proved. So nothing is objective , everything is subjective in reality.
I agree. I’ll even go as far, as to say that not everyone would call it blue or any other label. Not everyone does what they are told or taught & that is a great thing about ‘what some may describe as’ free will.
Mahmood,
You must be kidding me. I addressed this poor response long before you came to the party. You are late to the party! Scroll up and read. You must address the refutation to claim I am wrong. You can’t just say some one is wrong and walk off like Cheyanne. You must be able to clarify and justify your responses. You proved and showed nothing. You just make statements because you can! Know the difference between reason and emotional beliefs please. Your claims prove absolutes exists! If you are right then “ALLTHINGS ARE SUBJECTIVE” is the absolute and objective statement!!!!
The only cop out here is if your claim is false some of the time. This can’t be true because you claim all is subjective. Look up contradiction! Either way you are wrong intellectually ; and you learned that from where?
The reason why there is no absolute that carries past one’s own self described absolute is
I’ll help you with this one. 5+3 = ”8” You claim this: The truth is, there is no labels & no formalities that extend beyond ones own imagination.
@Mahmood.
I agree with what you have said & believe the same way.
But I don’t know if your views are a subject of philosophy or if you have to be a philosopher to talk about all this.
Now, can you prove all the examples that Roy has mentioned in this article as subjective in some form(example : “The New York Giants won the Super Bowl” – is subjective – how??).
If your(our!) claim is correct then it must apply to all known facts , or at least to the examples discussed in this thread.
If you can do that, that will be really something…..
The new york giants is a name that was given by somebody that has also been labeled (whoever the person that gave the new york giants its name). Both are subjected to the name that was given to them in birth. They did not give themselves their own label, therefore they are only subjects of the opinion by which & who has labeled them. Of course whoever had this initial opinion could find some deciples to also believe in this personal opinion & they could even act quite formal about it. In which case they may kick & scream while crying that what they have called something is in fact what they have called it. However, if you leave it up to the labeler & dont think for yourself then they might be quite pleased with you. It is no more than the oldest form of teaching (labeling with formalities or better known as dictation). It does not mean it is the correct or right way to teach nor does it mean it is the incorrect or wrong way. It shall be left up to each and every one of US to decide for our own individual likings. =)
Cheyenne,
You still ignore the fact that names can be arbitrary and subjective but once something is named then it has history! Thus, it has factual relevance. At some point in time the football team was named. It does not matter how many times the name changed it was NAMED and that is fact. Facts are statements that are forever true. Opinion and otherthings can change. You have never adrressed any of my claims yet. Each time you go off an something else. Now please address after a thing is named how is it subjective? Numbers were named ! So is the sum of 5 and 3 equal to 8 or not since the numbers were named?? According to Cheyenne there seems to be nothing factal?? So is it subjective that most of the entities that have posted replies above are human beings? Did a non human post anything on this website?? Is a person’s mother being a woman subjective tooo?? How far can you go with this inconsistant belief and nonsense. I mentioned already if there is no false instance of any statement then that statement is ABSOLUTE. You seem to have a universal statement Cheyenne if you are correct. Then you claim nothing is absolute!! Let’s say you win Cheyenne how do you avoid the inconsistancy you created??? Address these things Cheyenne. You are simply restating things differently and you’re not bringing anything new to the table so far. You play dodge well though:)
“once something is named then it has history! Thus, it has factual relevance. ”
I don’t agree, what has been named by another does NOT have any factual relevance to me. None whatsoever. There is no label in this world that I agree with as having any real forever lasting meaning or having any meaning at all to me, other than to help you get by with what you want to think, so you cope with whatever lie you want live with in life. Just because a human can make a barking sound which appears identical to what you hear from the dog, (which we as people can do with our words & definitions towards each other as well, im sure) only has the appearance of being identical, it does not mean the human is actually saying the exact same thing as the dog nor do they feel to have the exact same meaning for whatever is said or not said. We can echo what someone else may or may not be trying to get across, Yes. In which case you’ll never know except for what you think you know from your opinion. Opinion’s are usually shaped from birth, by the opinion & from the one that has taught you of what an opinion is, in their most honest opinion.
Cheyenne,
You still go off the topic and insist on telling your opinion. The topic is NOT about any opinion at all. Because you disagree with something doesn’t mean anything alone. You are making yourself the authority over others and being dictator like. When will you address the issue at hand instead of changing the subject? When will you address that if you are correct then your claim is an absolute? Cheyanne, come on is your claim that all knowledge is subjective ever false? If the answer is “NO” then your claim would be an absolute! Yet you claim there are no absolutes. Which is it, absolutes or no absolutes?
Fact: The New York Giants are indeed NFL team
Fact: The did indeed win the Super Bowl in 1987, 1991, 2008, 2012. These *facts* can be verified and are not subject to opinions on whether or not they won, thus they are not subjective, meaning, your world veiw that everything is subjective and nothing is objective is naive
‘The New York Giants’ is a made up name. As much as the idea for the ‘sport’. It was made up by the mind that imagined it in the first place. To agree or not agree, with whatever someone makes up, doesn’t make it a fact. It means you agree with what they made up. Its all subjective. If your facts come from stuff that is made up. Then the truth for you is subjective. That is a ‘matter’ of fact.
@arjun…Thanks for your reply….
My point is that the writer who claimed that ”
Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.”…Now here the key words are “Facts” and “Third Parties”…..My opinion is that the word “Facts” is vague and ambiguous. F
Fact is something that actually exists…Something that IS there…regardless of observer…Once it is decided that something is there, a rational mind comes forward and try to know it quantitatively and qualitatively. A true ‘Fact’ is both quantitative and qualitative….Quantitative knowledge is gain through comparison, for example 5+3=8 , it involves comparison. because we have divided something in 8 equal parts and than we say it is equal to five plus three….But this is not the whole picture. this 5+3 will not be equal to 8 if all those parts are not equal and same….And there is nothing equal and same in the world. (At least i have not seen yet)….So this ‘objective’ knowledge is based on mathematical assumptions…And mathematics is the knowledge of relationships between the things, not the knowledge of things itself….Qualitatively everything is different and unique…And we can percieve “Facts” qualitatively, only in the mirror of our own selves (Subjectively).
Mahmood,
You again failed at your refutation. Your argument is close to Cheyenne’s and fails because of basic errors. Your definition of “fact” is wrong and you probably learned that from science. A “FACT” is an expression of an absolute truth value which corresponds to human senses and our world (reality). So facts do not need confirmation nor do they need agreement. Only a scientist or science lover would confuse “FACT” with ther personal AWARENESS. For instance, if I state there is life on Jupiter, the scientists would ask “How do you know?” which is not the point. Do you see asking for sense verification satisfies personal awareness? Personal awareness has nothing to do with the issue at hand : the issue at hand is the statement uttered is true or false regardelss of my awareness or your awareness. I gave this next example higher on the threads but you tell me if this is not clear: Harold Camping and “Familty Radio” spent significant amounts of money to tell the world was comming to an end on “May 21, 2011” many month prior to dooms day. How do you know if it is true or false if you are a scientist? Does the claim the end of the world is May 21, 2011 have no truth because you are not personally aware of it? Is it Foolishness to say Roy can’t have a cat because I am not aware of it? Furthermore, also Roy is being a jerk not to let you into his house to conduct a scientific study so there will be no way to confirm anything. What do you do? All meaningful sentences (those that appeal to our senses) are either true or false whether you like it or not. Your awareness is not needed for a black hole to form in our galaxy or the birth of a new star. These things can happen regardless of human awareness. So the statement is not true because you don’t know about it? Nonsense! Astronomers can find out afterwards just like we found out on May 12 that the world DID NOT END as predicted by Harold Camping. Thus his statement was false. The claim did not all of a sudden become false one day out of the blue. I say the claim was true or false the second Mr. Camping uttered the claim, but we were not aware of the truth value until the time passed which was May 12, 2011. Do you see the difference between personal awareness and fact? A fact is forever true when you are specific enough, period. If the claim is not true 24/7 365 days a year, it is NOT a “FACT” regardless who utters it! People in Authority do not have God like power to “MAKE” anything a FACT by speaking the thing into existence: first came the word FACT and then it was so. WRONG way to think. Respect authority but don’t over do it as if they are GOD. Where do you get facts mirror stuff from??? Is saying “Whitney Houston died in the year 2012” subjective?? Is Whitney Houston’s death a fact?? With my definition it is a fact only in two cases where the truth is 24/7 365 :
a)there is no evidence of her being alive. (In other words, there is no counter example.) AND [notice the “and”]
b) all the evidence points to her death. (Here is where science comes in.)
Notice, please that the evidence is present in only one direction — not two or three. The cases are combined and not to be seperated. Facts are always true when specific enough. If you find one that varies from true to false you might misread, misheard, misunderstood, misinformed, or you were not given enough details. Kill people with extreme details and it is hard to deceive!
I once had a legal custody battle.
The mother was a known liar and had previously been laughed out of court on a separate matter. She had subjectively claimed that she had been raped by her previous boyfriend. this information was not allowed to be entered into the current court case.
the mother talked to the psychologist and informed her that i had hit the child. the psychologist then claimed i had hit the child, the lawyer for child claimed after talking to the mother that i had hit the child.
After 2 years we finally had our day in court after i was not allowed to see him for this period of time, the first court hearing the judge determined on the balance of probabilities that i had in fact hit the child.
The psychologist the lawyer for the child and the child mother all claim that i had hit the child. This information is their subjective opinion as none of them witnessed the event. however because the judge has made a ruling saying i hit the child based on the information from these three parties, the information has moved from being subjective to objective and proven based on three people evidence that did not see any event.
The child cannot remember being hit now. so this information is sticking with the court.
Three people can say something even though it is incorrect and subjective and then be proven to be objective.
I just stumbled upon this discussion and have to admit that I have thoroughly enjoyed the banter. I am in no position to add my perspective as my educational background involves very little of either philosophy or psychology. Business and accounting were the order of the day when I was in school. However, I will say that in my career I have personally seen people lose years of their life to time spent in prison because they believed that just because someone wearing a suit in D.C. said something was illegal didn’t make it illegal for them. Like I already said I lack understanding on the topic of subjective vs. objective, but it seems to me that this would be an example of a subjective perspective being dangerous and having dire consequences. I could be way off base, but I’m hoping this will elicit some feedback and spark further discussion.
Josh,
Your view expresses a practical view because you have used your senses to determine that politicians can place their values over the average person. Does that make law making subjective? Well, yes. Does that make the lawmakers superior? NO! This goes on to another issue — that of who has authority and power. The more resources and the more that individual has access & control over those resources the more power that individual has. So this brings up savage like behavior: in apes this is called the ALPHA male. The strongest APE usually wins. This has nothing really to do with intelligence, schooling, upbringing, etc. All that matters is the Alpha males wins at any cost that benefits him. This pattern found in humans and other animals are factual and absolute. We have historical and sensory evidence to prove such is the case — and that can’t be erased. I would say that a condition NOT subjective to any of you would be this: if Roy were King, he would do things differently than if Josh were King We can probably agree whoever is King would make at least one different rule from other Kings. Either the claim is true or false and is not subjective — and as always your agreement is not relevant to the claim.
Roy is King, just like you say, an absolute Authority (a King with the muscle to prove it) over all. Everything, nothing, something & anything can’t deny their King because its been said with or without agreement. Sorry but words are just words & they’re completely meaningless upon the end of each of our current flesh, that’s being objective.
Here’s your mathematical equation. #1 stays the same as #2 and so forth & beyond, as much as #1 ever could be. #1 Eats #2. Therefore #1 stays alive from the taking the so called life from #2. However since #2 also has eternal life no differently than #1, It has never changed within itself. Some may describe this temporary change by showing it was nothing more than some other language thats explaining the exact same thing. #1 or #2. Your first or second language & so forth. Life =Death=repeat after me 1, 2, 3, 4 what are we fighting four, for.
Everything Is Subjective, By Being Absolutely Objective Towards All We’re Subjected To.
Time is subjective yet when it is trying to be described with eternity, its attempting to describe objectivity with subjectivity (is time really unmeasureable & forever, if it is labeled to be known & understood)
We’re subject to all the different objects that things happen to, which in turn creates many different views to what really has happened. Especially when someone other than that perticular object is the subject that we’re focused on, which is the subject or ‘object’ that it has happened to. I conclude that, that means we’re all in the same boat. The labeled & those that think they are the actual labelers yet they never named their own selves no less.
Cheyenne,
When will you address that there are absolutes? If you are correct then you are making an absolute such as saying “we are all in the same boat”. That acknowledges there are absolutes! I never did deny that some things are subjective. I know many things are subjective and I know there are absolutes ( the objective). Many things in the practical world are subjective because we often have to deal with a person in charge. However all things are NOT subjective. Many of the things you claim are subjective are examples of vague details. Try giving or getting more information about the subject! Time is NOT relative when you specify hour, minute, and second!!! The more specific you are you will see there are more absolutes than you ever thought were just hanging around.
You’re on the right track Roy but you need to think even deeper. Take any word for example. The word “race” is a man-made word, yes & so is the word “human”. Many of these ‘humans’ are the only beings out there that act like they are the masters of all life, they wish they could define the meaning to every word out there for all other life especially the lives they label as ‘human’. Going beyond your individual self is asinine & a weak attempt at tyranny. There is no real Authority in the world that stems from man-kind. Man kind is a very limited being & it shows in their very brief history.
There is no one word that all life, let alone all humans agree with for its meaning. Semantics is one of those words. I’m glad to be one of the many that don’t agree with any dictionary definition for any word out there. Everyone wants to make something up apparently, especially the achievement of having other’s see it ‘their’ way. There is no compromise in the so called ‘place’ where all life goes after their final moments here on earth or elsewhere & there’s no need or care to agree nor disagree with what i have to say because i really don’t care what anyone has to say, including myself. 😉
Roy,
I am sorry you find it difficult to exist, intellectually, in what is an absolutely uncertain (pun intended) dichotomy. Everything is both objective and subjective. Everything. And yes, that is both an objective and subjective statement. Einstein started to bridge the gap. I am sure you can too. Best of luck to you.