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.
Search DifferenceBetween.net :
(124 votes, average: 4.52 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
: If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.
188 Comments
Leave a Response
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,
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.
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”
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.
Guys,
one thing that is definitely objective and not subjective is that you are winding Roy up….
“The sun shines in the daytime” maybe both subjective or objective depending on where you are. As is “the sun shines in the nightime” may also be subjective depending on where you are.
But in fact the sun always shines 24/7. So all the comments are objective. It is a fact. It is just our viewpoint of the facts that change, so our view point is subjective not the action.
So Roy, your basically right!
Objective becomes subjective when you take something in, look at it then give it meaning. As soon as you begin to thing about anything,to give it meaning it becomes subjective.It becomes your reality. “Your Reality”. Every thing you see, taste, or feel is basted on your subjective reality. The number one, which some people would claim is an objective absolute is based on other peoples subjective reality. The problem begins when I am willing to do anything to force you to except my Reality. AS fare as I’m concerned when someone claims there is a “one” and you have to except that no matter what. We have a problem. Then I no longer have to subjectively look at the number one. Learning stops Sorry if I am missing the argument but I wanted to express my subjective reality.
PTdoug,
Expressing your feelings is what subjective things are about which make them sort of biased. There is nothing wrong with venting per se. However, the subject was never “let us vent our emotions about such and such”. The objective does not become subjective ever. Both can be present independantly at the same time. The issue with most people who think “all is subjective” is admitting where did you get this belief from. Were you born with that belief? I doubt it! I claim that most people learned such a thought from authortities such as a parent, a teacher, firefighter, police man, any one a child might admire. Since you were taught as a child to listen to authorites and respect authorities when you hear them speak their words hold more weight than Joe Blow off the street. Being that authorities deal with humans they tend to have to know psychology. So the culprit for teaching allis relative and subjective is Pyschology as a subject. You certainly won’t find a math teacher say that multiplication is subjective. You won’t find a mucic teacher that says that the C note is subjective and what ever you like it to be. So you like most people from childhood do what you are told and nothing more (with this topic at least). Even if you take religion such as Chrisitianity there is no subjectivism about what the ten commandments express. You, like millions of people who do what they were told, confuse reality with your emotions or desires. Your agreement is NOT needed for something to be a fact. Who cares if you disagree with anything? That does not address the issue. If I oppose abortion for instance, then it is not enough to say I disagree with abortion. I should have true reasons that lead to my conclusion. If I use false statements, then there is a good chance the reasoning will go wrong. So true statements are required as reasons –not you feelings. You ignore the obvious fact that if you claim is true then the claim is an absolute and not subjective. It is not subjective because there is one answer for all. there is no false instance. Thus, you make no intellectual sense for you disprove your claim “all is subjective”. I say if your claim is true then the result doesn’t support your position AND if your claim is false that “all is subjective,” then your position is again defeated. You are wrong in either case logically. Your statement, “Objective becomes subjective when you take something in, look at it then give it meaning. As soon as you begin to thing about anything,to give it meaning it becomes subjective” appears to be a result of that authority raised background: “Sit down and listen, boy . . . !” Being that there is no authority in your view, YOU put YOURSELF in charge as the authority! Can you provide any evidence for the claim “Objective becomes subjective when you take something in, look at it then give it meaning. As soon as you begin to thing about anything,to give it meaning it becomes subjective?” I don’t know what it would take to prove that claim and chances are you don’t either. You are simply trained to think that way and you can’t rationally defend it. You do what you are told to do as a good boy should. As an adult, there is more room for independence and a wider range of views.
I have googled for this difference many times but did not come across a page that explains it with this much clarity. Good job and thanks:)
Both Object and Subject exists.
All objects are the product of Subjects. There is no way Object can come to existence without Subject been the producer. For instance, the New York Giant (object) came to existence after we (whoever thought of, confirmed, supported or participated it) agreed its creation. Our imaginative thinking (Subjective) originated this object, the New York Giant.
Yes. The name New York Giants was made up. Whoever made up or agreed with this name & meaning, further progressed that imagination. Much like the actual names of ‘the people’ or ‘person’ that made up the name ‘The New York Giants’. All those that followed suit with the imagination of ‘their’ parents for those creators names…. IE; the Governent, friends & so on, are just furthering that lie or more politelty said, the subjective imagination of whomever started it.
Mustafa,
Another classic mistake. This is a psychological view which makes no sense ultimately. For instance, on the Science Channel on Time Warner Cable (Channel 111 in NY) there is a series called “Life After People”. In this series scientist predict what would happen if all humans left the planet and live elsewhere to prevent extinction. According to Mustafa there would be nothing in existence on the planet one the last human left or died from the Earth!!! We know this to be blatantly false. Think about it, did dinosaurs come after the human race or before? Here is your claim:”There is no way Object can come to existence without Subject been the produer.” So if there were no humans around I suppose the dinosaurs could not have existed?? All of the dinosaur fossils are man made?? Also consider astronomy: black holes can’t possibly exist with Mustafa’s theory since no human has witnessed nor a camera has witnessed a real black hole in action. There is not one astronomer or scientist that will claim we have live photos or live video of a black hole! So there is no witness. Clearly this busts holes in your psychological theory. There is no way to scientifically deny ALL dinosaur fossils. So there is no way humans created a name before humans existed. Dinosaurs predate humans unless you have some evidence . . . ? Thus your claim : [Dinosaurs] “(object) came to existence after we (whoever thought of, confirmed supported or participated it) agreed its creation. Our imaginative thinking (Subjective) originated this” [DINOSAURs]? Clearly this is NOT TRUE correct?
Dinosaurs, Black holes, Fossils was labeled (made up) through the imagination of a being that also labeled themselves human. No matter how you look at it, the name comes from one that either is trying to teach others to believe in what they have made up by calling it the same name or label as they wanted you to, or they’re following the teaching of the one that has taught them that name or label that was made up. Either way its all made up & understanding this is genuine and actual Intelligence & not just second hand Intelligence such as what every human has when they believe whats been made up with artificial Intelligence.
Natural Intelligence, brings to light the fraud man has made intelligence to be.
Roy
” So if there were no humans around I suppose the dinosaurs could not have existed?? All of the dinosaur fossils are man made??”
Are we (Humans) the only imaginative thinkers out there? No!
Prior to the Dinosaurs there must have been an another entity or thinker. You can call it “Creator” if you want to. It is because of this THINKEr who (subjectively) thought of dinosaurs that DINOSAURs (now an object) came to existence.
The dinosaur fossils are not man made but, for sure they were made. The question here is not who made it but, it is what happened before they were created? Probably some thinking had taken place. This thinking or mental work (subject) is what produced the dinosaurs or fossils (object).
Interesting point Mustafa. In the begining what is seen as an object is trying to be described as being objective, yes? Whatever it is, it is there, no? Well then we give it a subjective word or label to describe that object, in the hopes that the word becomes as objective as what is said to be there in the first place, an object which is now also a label. The target is to bring the subjective word to have as much objective meaning to itself as we wanted the object to have, hence the word ‘human’. US, you, me, I, we etc…This is an attempt at trying to leave no argument or dissent from anything that would say otherwise. It’s Tyranny in word play, as opposed to Free thought. Which is exactly why I don’t agree with any definition in the dictionary for any word. I can easily find the opposite to be true for anything said to be good or bad, right or wrong. Ugly or beautiful, retarded or normal.
Cheyenne,
I can see where you are coming from but you are not fulfilling your ideas. Humans give names to things in order to speak about them. You seem to be taking authoritative power too strong as if there is a person force feeding the public to subjectiveness. Definitions have several purpose, not just one. One important purose of a word and its definition is to make a distinction between things: we don’t want people thinking about a cat when we really mean dog; we don’t want people to think “let us party hard” when they hear the scream “FIRE”. Definitions should isolate things so people can think the right object at the right time. There are good definitions and BAD definitions: bad definitions don’t really distinguish anything and are TOO Vague. In Deductive logic we want to give ALL the relevant DATA needed. In other words, shame on you if you have more information and you aren’t stating that information. There ought to be a law: no with holding information I know you have access to!For instance, if I know you witnessed a crime and you purposely refuse to say anything — this is a BAD thing and not because I feel a certain way. Good reasoning has nothing to do with the emotions of the person which this is called “Objective”. I simply state all relevant facts to correspond to a conclusion. We need words to discuss things easy. We need definitions that people can all be familiar with so you understand me. For example, a dangerous situation arises if some one asks you to pass the bread and you pass them a poisionous serpent. So you are going TOO extreme to say you don’t trust any definition even in the dictionary. Some definitions regardless if they are in the dictionary or NOT in the dictionary are BOTH good and BAD. The good defintions are full of specific details which you SHOULD not have a problem with. Consider the defintition of a circle. What objections do you have? You can’t keep running “the MAN” is holding you down in society and keeping you in low places. Because a human made the term up there is no just cause to attack the source because this is like flipping a random coin: sometimes you will be correct and there are times when you will be incorrect. Bad definitions do appear in authority sources and in dictionaries. The dictionary is NOT a parent to tell you what to do; the dictionary is only a GUIDE to suggest alternatives to you when selecting words. Deductive reasoning limits or eliminates the incorrect answers you can give. This is why deductive reasoning is important. In practical terms Validity has a history: we know such and such leads to a false conclusion because the pattern has repeated many many times. We also know correct reasoning patterns have ONLY true INSTANCES as opposed to instances where the solution is 50/50. If there are no false instances, we can conclude certainty not MAYBE. Your views would be better presented if you come down from the extreme thoughts you have about all is subjecive. Your thinking is inconsistent with your beliefs right now because so many humans have run this argument BEFORE you, so you are running game. You are against authority but then you do exactly what the authorities told you to do. Hard to argue for something you are a victim to. If all is subjective then why kiss up to authority? The only solution to that is you are aware of BULLIES. Bullying someone has nothing to do with intelligence however. The MAN is a bully is that your whole point on everything? (The MAN, is a metaphor of course for some metaphysical being that prevents success). So to you there is always a BULLY and the fact that there is a BULLY makes all subjective? Is this an accurate interpretation of what you are trying to express Cheyenne?
Roy Said “Consider the defintition of a circle. What objections do you have?”
I have no agreeance nor objection. You may be able to explain yourself better in some other language that says something completely different yet you picture it being that exact same object.
In reality it is meaningless to me. All of your definitions & this is the kicker. Yes all of what you picture my definitions as being. I don’t define things. I believe in freedom. Change happens with everything
Mustafa,
You are trying to make a case which you already know to be false.
Here is your extraordinary claim: “Are we (Humans) the only imaginative thinkers out there? No!”
I would like to know which ones you refer to. Name three!!! You already cop out by saying “call it the creator if you want to.” This last statement clearly means YOU can’t name another life form with imaginative thinking besides humans! Now you try to play “well it is possible role”. Do you not see you went from a specific claim [Humans are not the only imaginative thinkers] to a claim which you could not provide a single example or proof and YOU ARE NOW expressing this: it is possible that there are other life forms that can produce imaginative thinking besides humans. Going from a specific to a vague is a no no when you have detailed information. Slick move, but not good enough. Your argument is not original and has been around for ages. It has been refuted several times. Yet you still want to go with it? At least be imaginative yourself instead of rehashing an ancient argument which is not intellectually sound.Your argument is the rehashing of Designer argument which ultimately violates logical laws and commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. Any Atheist would point this out in this form of the argument all you did was change some words around to disguise it. This is why I specifically ask you to name the other entities. YOU CAN’T!! You Knew this before writing your comment. Secondly, I am not aware of a single rational human that puts the human brain or the same level as a squirrel or an single cell organism. Thus, the evidence around you clearly displays humans are the top of the intellectual chain then you go off into some possible life form out there somewhere theme. Deductive reasoning goes from What we know to what we are trying to prove. You skipped steps and violated intellectual concepts that have been in place for thousands of years. Practically speaking, deduction is the recognition of argument patterns. Because there is a LACK of imagination in argument forms, logicians can tell if an argument is sound or not sound very quickly. People are running the same lame excuses and patterns of reasoning: the bus made me late, the dog ate my homework, etc. The reasoning patterns are not SUBJECTIVE nor do the rules of deduction change depending on the topic of the argument. The reasoning patterns are known to exist because they have been repeated thousands and thousands of times. If you were a street hustler you would be “running game.” Sophistry is one way to say it: being a con man is another way to say the same thing. You should not run with an argument you know has flaws. You too are making a claim that is absolute then claim all is subjective simultaneously. You make the absolute claim that an imaginative thinker [A SUBJECT] must exist, without an imaginative thinker present nothing [the OBJECT] would exist, then you conclude that a non human life being able to have imaginative thinking ability POSSIBLY exists (NOT MUST exist, which then would be consistent with the other claims.) This is independant of me. These facts I wish you would address. These facts are evident and NOT OPINION. Facts are satements that are forever true. If you can come up with counter examples I would love to see them but do not include what people BELIEVED to be FACT like people BELIEVED the EARTH was Flat. I refer to actuall facts by the definition I gave which is accurate — not emotional nor pyschological.
Also you got to remember Mustafa. What a human calls a human, (themselves i hear) have not been around that long. They label or name things after the ‘thing’ named, had already been around. It’s why you still hear of ‘us’ finding new species to label. Even though they had been around for much longer than that shiny new label its given. All things have been around for much longer, than this self appointed identity maker that wants to come along & place names upon all life. ‘Dinosaurs’, that name came from a human that came along and named it such a thing after the effect. When what you may call a dinosaur was walking the earth, there was no one here that labeled it such a thing at that so called time. It was made up later & apparently with the intent to try to act like it was so smart, that you hopefully wouldn’t figure that out lol. Labels and names in the begining were mostly used for ‘itself’ to identify with. Not others that looked like itself but individually for itself (the first so called human) only to try to identify such a thing to itself & later to other so called humans. Which meant later when other things appeared to be around, that looked shockingly similiar to itself, it thought that ‘we’ must also recieve a name. ‘Human’ was born, the name. The name did NOT come before the one that thought of such a name for itself. It wasn’t really a gamble now was it? Because that same yearning that ‘it’ had is the same yearning all ‘humans’ have in seeking its own understanding to the world around it. It was the first one & go on trying too learn everything anew like it had to, especially after it already has something in place that you will sorta understand.. Think about it, the Dinosaur was doing what humans call ‘walking’ upon what they NOW call ‘the earth’. Now obviously what you may or may not call ‘ The Earth’ was around way before what came along and labeled it such a name lol. ‘Humans’. We do our best at figuring shit out but we are not the smartest crayon in the box.
Wow for someone who believes they are so intellectual, you sure are off base when making a statement that all things are subjective. My 9 year old daughter knows that there are objective items out there how can you not see that? What a waste of brain matter.
Josh, if all life knows that all life is “making a statement that all things are subjective” wouldn’t that mean that all life is objective in knowing all life is subjective……… I don’t think anyone, including your dumbass daughter knows anything more than you do, or i DO.
Havent you guys got day jobs?….
Original writer writes. ” It is up to you to create order within this chaos and find the patterns that will help you to understand what is true” Yep. It is up to each and every one of us. All 7 Billion+ of us. There is no wrong answer. There is only ‘YOUR’ answer. Peace
Well put and clarifying. I would say that we could think of subjective as someone trying to subject you to their opinion and objective they can point you to an object or source for understanding.
Cheers!
Chris,
I would say “NO” to the objective being able to point to something or point to a source. Objective in the philosophical sense refers to a true statement regardless of your awareness. Your awareness is not important. Thus the proposition “there is life on Jupiter” is either true or false even if I have no evidence or source. All objective propositions do not conform to science right then and there as in the Jupiter example. Your definition seems to point to science is objective or if something is objective then science must be involved to prove it. Proof is not AWARENESS. Propositions are true or false in their own right and do not need your awareness to be true or false. I explain this bad pattern of reasoning way above this. You have to go back almost a year worth of input to read the common poor reasoning patterns and poor definitions of “objective” so many humans are infected with.
Yep, awareness is not important. Your idea that something can be true or false, is only what you wish were true or false, it isn’t anything more than you or ‘someone’ saying it is. What you say is nothing but meaningless babble & gibberish to me. Doesn’t mean you have to know what i know is true. Because even though what you say is meaningless gibberish, i’m very happy that you are free to make up whatever truth’s & lies you like, along with what truths & lies are to you. Be free to do so cus you should be & are. Also what you claim is life may or may not be a claim that only you make but that doesn’t really matter. It does not mean anything is true nor false. Again it’s meaningless to me. Nor anything at all really to anyone, other than to yourself & its only there to help you ease your own conscience in the lack of understanding that things are not always what you say they are. Feeling in control helps you feel at ease & i want to see you feel at ease. All the way down to your most passionate ‘truths’ that you hold personally or collectively. Therefore your claim is void from having any bearing on true or false beyond your own self or selves. As a human, the human race or some rooster that happens to still have his head etc….
Your post is a psychological rant. You might as well say all things are meaningless! I wrote extesively way above, if you scroll up a few months, about a person who is being a deliberate “jerk”: one who instigates looking for trouble, i.e., a racist cop who pulls you over for no legit reason and dreams of “finding something” to bust the driver. Another example would be the jerk drill Sergeant who walks around dorms with white gloves looking to find dust. The Bible indicates Satan seeks trouble acting as a lion roaming around seeking whom he may devour. I have given a few examples of what you ar doing. You make no sense saying there is no “right” or “wrong”, no “true claims” or “false claims” and then you disagree with me; and then say there is no objectivity. I mentioned previously on more than one instance you destroy your own position by acting against it. Psychology has done a number on your thinking — and not in a good way.
O Roy, Have you not looked up above at a couple of your 600+ word arguments that you’re having with people on their different opinions from you. All the while you keep claiming ‘but what i write is not an opinion, its fact for everyone wether you like it or not’….. I take back what i said earlier about Roy is king. But rather, Roy is king of psychological rants.
I call Cheyanne’s post rants simply because this person confuses the right to think independantly and free speech with rational thinking. The point I make is not an authoritative one. I do not speak as a King looking down on servants. If that is what you think then that is still YOUR psychological issue. Furthermore, Cheyanne, you have no legit justifications for what you think. Either way you have psychological issues: either you think all humans speak from authority or you think your right to think differently is challenged; both are psychological in nature and not rational –as “rational” defined within psychology itself.
The topic of the forum here was NEVER “let me express myself no matter what nonsense I decide to come up with because I CAN!” Your ability to speak and write does not equal “all sentences are of equal value”. Cheyenne, you seem to think since all humans have a right to express themselves all expressions must be equal value. [This is almost in line with one who believes all humans have equal rights so every thing we do as humans must be equal.] To bad that most sane persons value true statements over false statements which busts a hole in your position. A sign of an over emotional person is that they confuse object A for another object. Sort of like a child that knows what the word cat refers to an animal and each animal seen must also be a cat as well. No one here questions your existence, your human rights, your freedom of speech or your freedom to think of what you wish. However, as a human being, and not a beast, your thoughts ought to be justifiable if you are to be taken seriously. A sense of humor is one thing that often plays on over exaggeration but soon the joke is over. You persist as to kill humor and then become annoying instead of humourous. A comedian who kills a joke is not well received. If you are not trying to be humorus, at least you can try to make better distinctions and stay on a topic without resorting to your right to hold an opinon and express yourself. If the topic were “Morality” you would still enter your opinion –just because. This is a bad thing to do: it shows you don’t pay attention, and it might show you could careless (“I don’t care” so it doesn’t matter attitude). If the topic were addition, you should not just throw in your two cents –about whatever you want — just because you can. Stick to the topic! I doubt you would say all things are subjective if the topic is Math. If anything you stated had absolute truth would prove there are things that are objective. You saying all is subjective means sometimes you are wrong and sometimes you are correct about all things. So if I asked, “Were your parents ever human beings?” you would not be able to say “they were always human” since that is not objective and nothing is objective. Thus, there were a time when you parents were not human beings. You know that is not correct, right? I could go on about your gender as well: “Were you ever a man?” At some point you had to be a man and then another point you must have transformed into something else such as a woman or a hermaphrodite because nothing is objectively true. Makes no sense and I am sure you are aware of this.
discrepancy + or -……………… = Popularity. I love you. No matter what & im not a guy nor a girl. Bro.
This formula is non-understandable. I have no clue, of it’s significance or logic but it’s most assuredly, from my subjectivity, a comical insertion
….. lol The joke appeared with your post…..Bro
Respected Manisha:
Honestly speaking your article is one of the most profound one I have ever read. I always had difficulty in differentiating between Subjective & Objective statements but after reading your article I have a clear cut knowledge to easily differentiate between them.
In a nut shell, you have proficiently justified your subjective article on objective grounds.
The following text is how my facebook friend tried to prove that everything is subjective. I’m not sure where he made a logical fallacy. Is he right? or is his argument valid? can any one give me a hand please?
! ……… On Some Maths ………….!
I was once discussing with some university students (on the area of ‘objectivism vs subjectivism’.
I told them, ‘everything is subjective (including this one), and this is the only objective thing’. I thought my idea was not clear (because of their silence), and took second chance to say, ‘the only objective thing is that everything is subjective’.
One of the smart students challenged me, ‘for example, there is some objectivity in natural sciences –as it depends on natural objects and scientific methods.’
‘First, natural science is not based on objectivity; it is rather based on hypotheses. Hypothesis is assumption. Assumptions are based on postulates. A postulate has nothing to do with objectivity. It has to do with some convenience in order to deal with some logical reasoning.’ I replied.
‘But it uses scientific method’, another student argued.
‘Scientific method is all about reasoning. Reasoning is logic. Logic is about the way we use to communicate via language. Language uses words. Words are meaningful sounds. Human beings assign some specific meanings to sounds to make words. So, words do not have their own real meanings. Therefore, ‘scientific method’ is just a way of arguing. What differs natural science from the social one is, it focuses on some seemingly ‘tangible’ things. Yet, the game is all same’. It was my response.
‘For example, mathematics is believed to objective. Accordingly 1+1= 2. Isn’t this objective?’ The first student argued and the others turned to me.
‘First, mathematics is not natural science. It is known as formal science, because it doesn’t deal with the natural phenomena. It is about language (mathematical language). Second, like words, numbers are also nonsense. They are rules of games, simply playthings, conventionally agreed for convenience.
‘1+1=2, this is true for the purpose of convenience only. Let me prove it from two aspects; one from the THING (physicalor material world).
1+1 is not two but one plus one, as it is. It is impossible to sum them up to one unit; as they are two different things, entities. We have to possibilities: either 1 (first one) and 1 (the second one) are one and same OR they are different.
Here comes the logic: if they are ONE and same. Then, there is no need to add (or make summation) them together, because they are already one. Then ‘they’ becomes ‘one’. One is one. It is one. So, 1+1=1.
But if they are different, they cannot be added, because they are different. In mathematics, we cannot add one sheep and one goat. By the same logic, we cannot add one sheep with another sheep, because it is ‘another’ as it is different in many aspects (in color, size, age, orientation etc.). Therefore, 1+1 = 1+1 (not 2).
That is NO TWO THINGS are identical in the world. Everything is unique to its own right, impossible to ADD except for the sake of an ASSUMPTION.
Secondly, from the NO-THNIG (metaphysical or spiritul world); all is ONE- the same radiant energy field. Therefore, 1+1 is ONE and only ONE because ALL is ONE.
Hence numbers (and words) are only useful, utilitarian yet without any objectivity.
Yes, everything is subjective including this one.
It is so!!!
Asfaw Gedamu,
Your post has already been addressed if you were to review the previous posts. In a nutshell you make no sense intellectually because you DO make absolute statements– those by the way are objective. You claim like many others who study psychology that all is relative. Have you no idea how many times this poor reasoning was used? It is like saying to your Boss or Supervisor at work “traffic made me late”. The child to his teacher: “My dog ate my homework.” At least think of something NEW for goodness sake. Here you are saying all is relative and all is subjective and you make these claims: “That is NO TWO THINGS are identical in the world. Everything is unique to its own right, impossible to ADD except for the sake of an ASSUMPTION.” You mean that [the quoted material from you] is not absolute and Objective?? Give me a case where it is false please. This shows your view of Logic as a legit and unique subject is not correct. Your view of deduction is so poor you can’t see you contradict yourself by taking a subjective and relative approach. Everyone and his Mother and Brother who argues “All is Subjective” commit fallacies — with no exceptions and no doubt. Please explain how your comments are subjective since all is subjective, right? Do you not see that if your comments are subjective then there will be instances where Your comments are WRONG? An absolute claim is forever true: for example, All trees are plants. There was a person not so log ago posted the same psychology stuff named Cheyanne. Scroll up and read those posts and read the responses. Your math example show you lack proper conceptual understanding as well. I want to make this point again as I did with others who use emotions to think: when you say all is subjective then your statement is absolute because you are making a universal claim! If all is subjective then there should be no case where you make a universal claim whatsoever, period. To say all is subjective means that truh values will change forever and never be predictable. That is, there will be days you mother will not be a woman; there will be days that you will be nonliving and likewise you will be living on other days. There will be days scientific research is worthy and there will be days scientific research is worthless. There will be days the sun will rise and there will be days the sun won’t rise — that day has not happened yet by the way. You would then have to admit all humans are not humans some of the time and furthermore that knowledge is possible for any living species because there are no absolutes and things keep changing. This reasoning is old and fallacious. This is an issue with Psychology which is propbably where this poor reasoning sample comes from (and it spread like wild fire). You would need to really learn logic properly which would take some time. You confuse Psychology with Philosophy which is so common it is like saying “If I had a nickel for each person who thought or heard the idea “all is subjective” like you, I would be a multi- millionaire — or perhaps a billionaire.”
Asfaw Gedamu,
I have made a few typos in my last post. I want to clarify that humans would not be able to know much of anything if all things like KNOWLEDGE was subjective. Education therefore would be a joke or just entertainment to keep one busy. Your reasoning was NOT valid nor was your reasoning sound. You mistakenly think all reasoning is LOGIC. This is not true at all. Where did you get that from in the first place? Again you confuse Psychology with Philosophy as if they are the same thing. There are MANY types of reasoning — not just one or two. All types of reasoning are NOT related to the academic subject of Logic at all. The academic subject of Logic actually has a curriculum like any other subject like Medicine, Law, Accounting, Biology,etc. You seem to think because you are human you are logical magically? Well why can’t I be a lawyer automatically without going to Law School? You have issues with your assumptions and thinking. Your reasoning is NOT logical, but emotional. You were correct about Science – that it is not objective. However, you couldn’t justify why to the other people. This means you need more time to think about the things you are attempting. Concepts might seem easy but if you do so seriously you will see they can be quite difficult. You r view of language probably needs to change because that is subjective. You take it as an absolute by defining words which you the subjective guy should not be doing at all. Objective truths are absolutes — there is no such thing as a real exception. An exception would prove a claim incorrect. People use the term as a shortcut to save time or they are lazy or too arrogant to take the time to explain things they way they should. Sciences require experiments. This is why they can never be absolute and objective. I do not need to put my dog under any experiment to find out if she is an animal. This is a neccessary truth that requires no science or experiment.
Roy,
do you have a blog? I would love to read more from your perspectives.
….or subjectivism. lol
“Every artwork is subjective”. But define “art”. And I think “every” is a bit of an exaggeration, ie: a dancing step.
Since this argument is being made subject to a lengthy lapse of time (euphemism mind you, so don’t dispute the figurative language *cough* roy)) I would like to ask a simple question that applies to every individual deliberately at “dispute.” WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!! Excuse the obscenity I used, but sometimes the diabolical side of my dialect gets the best of me, when idiots like most of you are, confront me with fallacious narrative.IT is absurd how much of the shifting definitions inputted for “SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE” there are. from my subjective standpoint, this “objective” article is much more reliable than apparent subjectivity described in redundant paragraphs. The paragraphical explanation above is way more accurate than anyone on here.Not to mention, the probability that the article was developed by a collaborative group of specialists, knowing the correct data to present
the analogies presented on this chat, have no relevance or correlation to any subjective or objective thoughts. All that is valid here lays within my suggestions presently.In several subjective viewpoints, all of these documented collaborative propositions (paragraphs) are so funny to listen too, when you realize…..how illogical they are, more so there lack of valid data.
This recursive look into the subjective nature of objectivity was, as always, profoundly entertaining. But I think the whole “God” solution was pretty weak…
The video reasons that man’s knowledge is subjective and only God’s knowledge is objective, and man must look to God to establish objective truths., including the objective truth of mans own reality.
As any attempt to find true objectivity within the human experience just leads to an infinite recursive loop of subjective thinking.
I agree with the problem, but not the solution
If man’s knowledge is subjective, then man’s knowledge of God is subjective.
Since there is no evidence that God exist apart from man’s subjective knowledge.. all arguments to the contrary, also being subjective, then man can only experience God as subjective.and any knowledge of God must also be subjective.
Thus, the view of God as the source of ultimate objective truth..is also subjective. And if ultimate objective truth is subjective.. then subjectivity becomes the ultimate objective truth.
( If it is a fact that there is no ultimate objective truth apart from subjective thought.. then the fact that there is no ultimate objective truth apart from subjective thought becomes an ultimate objective truth within a subjective thought) this is the nature of recursive loops.. they keep swallowing themselves to become the thing that swallowed the thing that swallowed the thing…….
If we require objectivity to establish a subjective reality… but our concept of that objective, is defined within that subjective reality. ..then there is no real foundation for order at all except what we have created subjectively.
Then what? Are we sailing a sea of chaos in a ship we have constructed from a subjective belief that ships exist.
What happens when the 100th monkey gets it.
Thank you!
I normally use the word ‘Fair’ to illustrate the concept of ‘Subjective’ as in: Ask any two people getting divorced or two business partners fighting for control or dividing a business. Each has there own personal definition of what is ‘Fair’ and most of the time they are miles apart!
I copied the 3 paragraphs: Definition of Objective and Subjective /
Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective / Examples of Objective and Subjective
To use as great, concise statements to clarify and enable someone to easily understand the difference between ‘Objective’ versus ‘Subjective’
I did attribute the 3 paragraphs to this webpage using the full URL of this webpage as an active link in my membership site.
I will probably use them as well on my blog, with an active link (Direct link in body of post without any ‘nofollow’ crap) in a blog post in a few days.
Thank you, Scott Casey
The first logical person, on this discussion, to represent no stereotypical moral. I appreciate the rational input scott (Y)
Scott,
If you used the original author’s definitions above in the article, then you ill not look so bright to people who actually know the difference! Using the given definitions allow too many exceptions to the rule for the definitions to be taken seriously by peole who actually can make distinctions. You might want to think about what you associate with your name.
Roy, When you say to Scott “You might want to think about what you associate with your name.”
I’ll gladly point out the obvious by adding what Michael so eloquently said:
” WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!!”
You see, there is nothing that is objective in a name to oneself. Did Michael give him or herself their name? No, it was made up by whomever gave them their name. Which is the same on down the line to whatever name made up & given to those that made up & gave him or her the name Michael. All of us have been subjected to someone else placing a label upon them no differently than how a rock is labeled a rock by someone that also didn’t even name themselves their own name anymore than that rock did. Being defined by someone else & NOT believing in that definition is how you come to understand the truth. Which is; that, that wishes to be seen as objective is merely making it all up & subjecting you to it’s made up subjective labels & definitions. So I repeat again… “WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!!”
An objective view of reality is reality as it is without the bias of any opinions or limited viewpoints. According to Nietzsche no one can ever give a truly objective perspective because everyone has some sort of bias belief or assumption. We are not omnipotent beings and can therefore never know reality objectively.
‘If you are discussing any type of art, you have to keep in mind that everyone’s opinions on a particular piece are subjective’
Interesting analysis,
I can argue with questions:
If everyone agrees what a particular piece of art means does that mean those people are still subjective, have created an objective truth collectively to satisfy their understanding or have just understood collectively what the artist intended for out of the meaning of the artwork.
michael,
I see another psycho lover in the mist (namely, you)! Why did you even bother to post this psycho rant:
” . . . WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!! Excuse the obscenity I used, but sometimes the diabolical side of my dialect gets the best of me, when idiots like most of you are, confront me with fallacious narrative.IT is absurd how much of the shifting definitions inputted for “SUBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE” there are. from my subjective standpoint, this “objective” article is much more reliable than apparent subjectivity described in redundant paragraphs.”
This is what happens when you read too much psychology: you lack critical thinking skills. The typical “So what ?” belief (but YOU chose the obscene way to put it) when you have nothing relevant to add to the discussion. You agreeing with the original post in the article shows you lack the proper skills to think independantly and make proper distinctions. You did not address one point which you disagreed with: that would be the rational thing to do.
The author of the article said this:”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.” And then goes on to give silly examples:”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.”
If anything the author said were OBJECTIVE then finding an exception to anything said would be impossible. I can name exceptions to each: How does one look up MORAL objectivity using science or math? To say that all objectivity comes from science and math is absurd alone: for Science is only probable with its results; this process is INDUCTIVE reasoning which is WHY experiments or TESTS are required in the first place. I do not need a single experiment (or test) to prove your mother, Michael, is (or was) a human being. See how you lack thinking skills? On the other hand, Math alone shares some common things with Logic but they are NOT EQIVALENT: there are times where math just does its own thing. Math can’t deal with semantic issues such as contraposing a proposition like “No s are non-p” which is debatable and NOT certain; furthermore there are mathematical equations that yield a WRONG type of answer named “extraneous roots” which occurs with some quadratic equations: extraneous roots are NOT the solution to the original quadratic eqaution and STILL are possible. If math were CERTAIN having a non solution as a possibility would NEVER HAPPEN. You would not have two possibilities if there is a CERTAIN answer or solution. So at times Math is certain and some times it is not certain.
About me bringing up morals as an exception to the author’s definition, You (can do a psycho rant and likely will) say “Morals don’t exist” but then where is your proof or justification? You must understand anyone who makes a claim has the burden of proof. Psycho lovers have the tendcy to make the “other guy” ALWAYS have the burden of proof while you sit back as royalty. No! You make a claim, then YOU BACK IT UP! Had I said there is a God, I must offer a reason. Had I said there is no God, I must offer a reason. Either way my claim requires justification. You claim Morality does not exist, prove it. (I did not make the claim they did, but gave an exception to the rule given).
My main point of my first post is to dismiss the myth that the author claims: “scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data” is FALSE.
This foolishness will have people thinking Science is objective; that science is like a GOD and perfect, which it is by definition NOT perfect or certain. Science is not certain and thus can’t be objective wholly; there can be certain claims made within science such as H2O is Water based on definition. If experiment is needed it is NOT Deductive. Deduction is CERTAIN, if done correctly. Know the difference.
I have been reading your post, first off calm down there is no need to prove you are angry. We are all different with different perceptions of what is true or not. Whether science is not completely objective we can all agree that there are certain facts like H2O exists, that pretty much all of us have bones, that their is gravity on earth, that we need fire to be warm well for most of us. Anyway I have a philosophy which I would like to share which some might not agree with but I respect that. I do not start calling people fools just because I do not think they are as smart or as dumb as me or even agree with me. As long as there is respect that is all I need. I believe quite firmly: That truth (Objectives) always exists whether we know it all, partially or not at all and that is to with the basic understanding of a situation and or anything that exists. Much of world’s problems that have and probably will continue is fundamentally caused by a non mutual understanding and respect of differences physically and communicatively.
You’re wrong here. With an assumption that “we can all agree that there are certain facts”. What one person or many people call something is irrelevant. Whether its H2O, bones, gravity or what makes a good or bad guy, it’s all subjective. Those that believe a particular word describes whatever they claim they’re describing can believe that. But there are those that do not believe what you claim. They do not care what you have to say & they have every right to call whatever you call one thing, something else & be just as right as you ever will be.
And I doubt Roy was angry. He or she was simply stating what they know, just like you & anyone else.
When I use these terms I would usually say that a subjective opinion is a personal opinion; one that may well vary a great deal between individuals. An objective opinion is one that is derived using some sort of accepted or standard methods such as the scientific method. An objective opinion can be wrong but only because the standard method has been applied incorrectly or not comprehensively enough.
PS I am an academic who has published in some of the worlds foremost scientific journals so if you dont like my definition you can KMA.
WASTEMAN!!!
I think the difference is that everyone who has wrote a sentence on this website are dumb for wasting their time. this took me 45 seconds to write.