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.
186 Comments
Leave a Response
Thanks for this objective article.
While differentiating between objective and subjective by defining objective as being unbiased, and subjective as being bias is useful, the term bias is itself a very subjective term, and does really give a basis for comparison. A more objective definition of these terms that allow much greater differentiation between the two, is by the number of comparisons an observation has, or has to potential to have. For instance, when you somebody is 5’10″, and you are 5’4″, you would say that person is tall, based on the one comparison (between yourself, and the other person). However, if another person who is 6’2″, you would say he is tall, and the other person is short (relatively). Then, if Shaq comes by, everybody else is short. So, the more you have to compare to, the more objective it is, and the depth of knowledge you have of that particular aspect of reality.
can you please give me the reponse for the hamework cuz i dont know the name of the book thank you for that.
lol what the mess id that who made this vedio i don’t know but thats was something else that did not need to be on the internet so who eva wrote that they need to erase that mess out from the internet okay if you don’t you will be in la la land okay because i am the fbq so don’t play with me if you want some bbq i and a valable okay peace talk to you later peace hala what is up my peoples you i was playin wif you guys wow you can not take a joke aokay bye peace
GOOD POST YO MAAN !!!
For the first time in my life I reached this website which is knowledgeable and according to my taste. I’m enjoying this & will use it for my knowledge improvement.
Very Helpful info
This does NOT really distinguish the two terms “Objective and “Subjective”. So far it looks like one can walk away with this as scientific data: No science then it is not objective. This is completely NOT so! Objective data can come from science but it is not required to come from our senses. Objective statements are true or false independant of any observer. This is a common mistake — to require verification — to those who love science. Jupiter would still be the largest planet in our immediate solar system if no humans ever studied astronomy; we just would not be aware of of it. Putting emphasis on human awareness is irrelevant to anything objective. So to the person who thinks: “well how do we know when something is objective [if we do not use our senses]?” The answer is sometimes you won’t know right then and there! Sometimes you might know immediately. Remember anything objective is independant in its own right. You not being aware of that objective thing does not change something from being objective. The view that we must be aware of something for it to exist and be objective is closer to a psychological view. No academic philosopher [who speacializes in analytical philosophy or a philosopher who is termed as a rationalist] would support that common view taught to millions of people by psychologist, parents, counselors, Oprah, Jerry Springer, Dr Phil, etc.
Being objective is putting the round peg in a round hole and a square peg in a square. It is not really being absolute but being bound and being faithful to accepted rules or guidelines.
Two Chinese would appreciate tea differently. One would say something sweet or the other, bitter. Then if one of them was instead a Japanese, it would be a much more interesting discussion. Much more interesting and maybe even scenic if the other’s a Westerner.
But if they were not to appreciate it but to illustrate the tea’s molecular structure or to simply measure the amount of ingredients, there would be nothing to argue about.
i am chinese and i think your should read some books of zhuangzi who was the talent in chinese
history, in his qiwulun, he said there is no objective because everything is in your mind,if no mind then everything is nothing .so your viewpoint have some in common.
I could relate to this, I usually imagine that we are all locked in some kind of a car(our bodies)….so, we see others such as parents,relatives,friends & other loved ones, each in their own cars…so we interact with them talk,fight,hug and all those things……like how you drive your car & wave your hand to someone passing next to you. BUT, unless you get out of your car & get into his…..you can never be sure if you are in some kind of a “Driving Simulator” program. so all that you saw through the wind shield or the window could a simulation/un-real.
bottem line:
Subjective = everything
we/I/you = may be alone
I happen to agree and have thought I created the way things seem to me, the way they look, taste, etc and how solid or big or facts etc in the mind. But similarly, reality is subjective because it’s within your perception (try telling that to your objectivist family, they won’t believe you, unless they believe in any secular or philosophical faith). Objective truth is still subjective, because a fact isn’t the same for everyone, and nothing is absolutely true, science can’t prove that anything exists unless you have a pretty good scientist. Heaven doesn’t prove you’re in the real world, and the real world when you’re unplugged isn’t real; the real world is simply when you, the one person in existence, wake up naked on Mars- correct me if I’m wrong but if it seems so real what you hear or see, it’s probably so to you. However, it’s also probably not real at all even if all people are convinced it’s real, as religious agnostic, on the secular side I simply can’t say any of any thing is real or not, it’s unknowable.
Think its a very good explanation of Subjective and objective for someone doesn’t have that much knowledge about it. Thanks for posting.
Roy…wow…just wow…trying to sound smart…
sigh.
ANYWAYS, good job on the article. Concise, helpful, and comprehensive.
Thanks.
Hi again Jonathan,
I hope I did not come across condescending or trying to be the highest IQ in the universe. It is not about being smart but informed. Smart and intelligent or psycho babble words: either to make some one superior or to put someone down (like to tease them). So let’s not use “psychology words” to stroke an ego or demoralize a person. My purpose was to give a proper understanding of the terms which belong to the academic field of philosophy — not any other subject. Thus, I gave an answer you would get if you were to ask an expert in that field. So many people do not respect the field of Philosophy and make stuff up. These people then teach the wrong information to others who could care less about philosophy. As if philosophy is so easy a caveman can do it! (The BS that everyone is a philosopher was probably not started by a legit philosopher.) I know of no other subject that gets disrespected and dumped on as philosophy gets disrespected and dumped on. My answer addressed what I have seen as the most common mistakes people who care less about philosophy make: 1) all knowledge in the universe MUST be science based (i.e. “if it is not a form of science I will not acknowledge it nor will I try to understand it — anything outside of science is garbage”); 2) if we are not aware of anything objective then objective knowledge is impossible; 3) everything is subjective because we all are diferent and experience things differently according to the individual.
4) we must side with what the majority of people think or feel about objectivity and morals (thus the majority rules because of the infamous “we all can’t be wrong” theory.
Objectivity should be free from bias, free from personal opinion or personal belief; objectivty should be honest, truthful, accurate, and specifically detailed without catering to some high authority. In other words, we don’t need the police or some politician or a court judge to MAKE choices for us.
Objective knowledge should be open to all people and if done correctly, people should be given all relevant information in specific detail as to distinguish thigs so unlike things are not confused or substituted as equal. If this is done, all people or most of the people (if they are honest and truthful) should agree with the FACTS of the matter and reach the same exact conclusion. Many people WILL NOT do so because of psychological reasons: many people will not be unbiased they FEEL as certain way; they act as if they are above you and are rulers or Gods –only their feelings matter . Other people like to kiss up to authority and be TOLD what they must do; if you are not an authority in these people’s eyes you are worthless; they would rather be wrong then listen (compare this to Jews and Jesus Christ). Independant thinking is a way to gain objective knowledge. What I mean is a person with no vested interest should call it as he sees it. This is close to impossible when you have so many individuals thinking all things are subjective because some psychologists or some high ranked person in society tells the public — especially children — all things are matters of opinion or under authority: “So either make things up or listen to those people with their foot on your neck — or else . . . .” I suggest no ordianry accountant has this power to influence the public. I suggest no ordianry biologist, chemist, engineer, etc has this power to influence the public. There are only a handful of academic subjects that teach the BULLSHIDO way –that life is what we make it and think about it. Objective knowledge should be all of the relevant facts about a subject without anything else — cut the fat. Wanna be authorities and Kiss ups are raised to do completely the opposite.
My brain hurts. I think some people think too much. I’m 64 and I probably have been thinking for 61 of those years. Right now I just want to stack cans of peas on a shelf.
You’re pretty smart, man, I think thinking for 61 years is enough thinking. I’m 28 years old and like a bit of a read on mythology myself (fiction, with vampires and witches), this’ll sauce the imagination up for sure (just an opinion). The smart thing that should be done is to stack gold in a mansion instead of that sucky stuff, why have peas when you can have a beef Stroganoff with red wine? I’m thinking of esoteric knowledge, charms, superstition, nature, and elves and mythological giants- this is my fave subjectivism, which I know very well can protect a believer from prejudice and from the dissing of thinking. And hippie elbow grease (generally an eco-friendly hippie, the green hippie of forests) is likeable as a way of life in correct thinking of peace- however your peas have their advantages- such as the significance in thought and deed of a beef stew with white wine, peas and vegetables.
I appreciate the extra detail, especially that objective knowledge is not merely scientific facts. However, I’m not overly sure I agree with this statement you made:
‘The BS that everyone is a philosopher was probably not started by a legit philosopher’
Socrates is known to have wandered around and engaged the Ancient Greek public in philosophical discussion, was he not a legitimate philosopher? Admittedly not everybody fully understand the terminology, hence why I’m here to clarify the difference between objectivity and subjectivity! But I think that is a bit of a sweeping statement to make as it then leads to the issue of what is a philosopher? Someone who thinks? Somebody who reasons? Somebody who thinks about those big unanswered questions such as what happens to our consciousness when we die? If God made the universe who made God? I think such questions crossed most people’s minds before the age of 10.
Suzy,
I must apologize to you since I did not respond to this prior to now. I must have missed your post. I do not check replies but I made the mistake of thinking all posts go to the bottom of the page. I have now read this entire page today and noticed things like your post. Almost a year has passed and here I am — Johnny come lately –with a reply. Again I must point out that objective knowledge is often called objective in short. In philosophy where the term originates the term expresses an unbiased statement that is true and accurate without emotion or motive. News reporters sometimes do this: for example, Randy “the Macho Man” Savage was killed in a car crash may 19, 2011. There is just a description of what happened and that is it. Like or not. Love the guy or hate the guy who died. The fact is he died! The reporters who read a teleprompter expressed no bias, no emotive talk and no opinion in the reporting of the news. The statements made across televisions in the U.S. about Randy “the Macho Man” irrefutably true and objective. I could say an objective statement about President Obama — President Obama is the 44th U.S. President and the current U.S. President as of May 21,2011. Pure fact. No bias. No emotions.
Your individual birthday is objective and subjective simultaneously. It applies as true forever and true to you personally. Now Suzy, name ten academic fields that everybody is automatically qualified? Apparently you think have issues with what a philosopher is and you then ask what is a philosopher? Well let me substitute the word “philosopher” with another like “Lawyer”. If you had asked what is a Lawyer the answer would include certain qualifications correct? Is everyone a lawyer? Is everyone an engineer? Is everyone a biologists? Clearly to you and others, everyone is a philosopher as if “Philosopher” has no qualifications like the other fields I mentioned: lawyer, accounting, biologists, etc. Is everyone qualified as a plumber? Your lack of respect for the field of Philosophy should be the question! Where did you get those thoughts? Philosophers have made distinctions from other people even in the ancient times. The distinction is the METHOD of inquiry and discovering answers. Philosophers are specialist in argumentation just as a lawyer is a specialist in the field of law; the plumber is a specialist in plumbing, etc. Argumentation refers to reasoning not DEBATE or DISAGREEMENT. The philosopher uses a method specifically called LOGICAL reasoning more so than the average person because the Philosopher is trained to do so. Furthermore, the Philosopher gets paid to use that METHOD of reasoning. The untrained sapling is unpaid and will make more errors because of the lack of training of course. Would you expect a bum like me to beat a professional NBA star like Kobe Bryant in his craft? Be serious! The answer is a emphatic NO!!!!! Eventhough I can dribble a ball I am no basketball player. Deductive logic is an academic field which the untrained sapling will not find easy going especially if you glance at predicate logic. Predicate logic resembles mathematics! So the average 2 year old or ten year old does not have the qualities that Philosophers have. So no, everyone is NOT a philosopher! Now a days the term is coined for ONLY HUMANS with a PhD degree in the field of PHILOSOPHY. In ancient times before degrees the METHOD of reasoning was the clue. Socrates, Plato, etc had a certain vocabulary, they shared similar knowledge with peers, they knew what fallacies were, etc. The average Joe can also learn this but the average Joe will not be specialized specifically. The average Joe might use deductive reasoning once in a while as opposed to everyday by the philosopher. Now a days Degrees express skill in a specific area. For a philosopher, the degree specifically should express that this person holds a Doctor of Philosopy Degree in the academic field of Philosophy. I want to make clear that every PhD is a NOT a philosopher. I can not say I am a plumber without qualifications. Most fields require something! But it is hilarious that some people think all fields except Philosophy has legit requirements. No one will say “everyone is a physicist” but somehow you figure everyone is a philosopher. “Philosophy, piffft, that is so easy my cat can do it!!!!!!!” Well can you name nine more fields in the same category as Philosophy for me, please? My hunch is you probably can’t do so! No one says accounting is so easy . . . . or biology is so easy . . . . You get the point now.
Other people –not Suzy– seem to have addressed that all people have some sort of bias so no true objectivity can exist. This approach is too extreme and the people misinterpreted the point. The bias has to be relevant to the topic under disscussion!! For example, if you and I are discussing how many terms did Bill Clinton serve as President of the United States we can objectively discuss that. You can not deny OBJECTIVITY about presidential terms to something off topic like “Roy hates sport teams from Boston because he is from New York” so he must be wrong. The bias is not relevant to the topic of discussion. Surely it is foolish to say that Bill Clinton served two terms as President is SUBJECTIVE because Roy has a bias against the Boston Celtics and the Boston Red Sox. Any human being who can count to past three will be able to verify the results of how many presidential terms Bill Clinton served. There is no debating the result — it is TWO objectively! My bias against the NY Mets would not be relevant to the discussion of the objective topic — how many terms did Clinton serve as President. I can be objective at a specific time and place. Granted I might not be always objective about all topics, but people should notice there is a difference between a bias or a vested interest or not. Look for the person’s intentions to get a sense of the character of the individual. Intension comes alot into play in the discussion of morals for instance.
>>1) all knowledge in the universe MUST be science based (i.e. “if it is not a form of science I will not acknowledge it nor will I try to understand it — anything outside of science is garbageâ€)<<
Do many people actually hold this view? There are innumerable statements of fact that are not particularly associated with "science", nor require it, but that are clearly objective: "I have one head." "The sky is often blue." "Bill Clinton is a male." "I am about to post this reply on the internet." "This statement is in the present tense."…etc.
All based on science in some way
To me, science is not a basis of things, but rather an empirical interpretation of the things around us and making use of it to our advantage. 100 years in the future, the facts as we know today might be disproved anyway as science marches on along with time.
For all we know, if science did not exist in the first place, the universe won’t crumble anyway.
I must apologize for many typos in the post prior. Here I will make sense of the errors I made.
ERROR:
4) we must side with what the majority of people think or feel about objectivity and morals (thus the majority rules because of the infamous “we all can’t be wrong†theory.
Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/#comment-23054#ixzz0seZVlwPD
I must appologize for introducing an open parentheses and not closing the parentheses. Here I correct it:
(thus the majority rules because of the infamous “we all can’t be wrong†theory).
ERROR:
Many people WILL NOT do so because of psychological reasons: many people will not be unbiased they FEEL as certain way
Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/#comment-23054#ixzz0seUj1F2J
This should read:
Many people WILL NOT do so because of psychological reasons: many people will not be unbiased because they feel a certain way; they act as if they are above you and are rulers or Gods — only their feelings matter.
[In other words, person A thinks he is superior to the other human being for no legit reason at all; and as a result person A overrides any thing further the other human says or thinks. Thus person A thinks he is in charge and eventually stops further discussion.]
In my view this stops the discussion because the other human being is not beating him senseless for being a bully and disrespectful. Objectively, no one is higher than another in all respects of life. There is bound to be somethings I am better at than you for example. Then of course there are things you will do better than me. We should see each others as equal human beings. But many people refuse to be fair, moral, and treat others as their equal. Then these people claim there is no objectivity. That is because theses people puposely prevent any objectivity.
Can people purposely prevent objectivity? YES! Can objectivity exist to truthful and honest humans with nothing to gain? YES!
Objectively I did make some errors in the previous posting. All who read it should conclude the exact same things if they adhere to facts of grammar and are truthful and honest. No science is required to discover all objective knowledge because somethings are pure semantics.
Roy,
How odd all i wanted was to clarify the diff between objective and subjective. After just a couple lines of your post i thought you were an arrogant ass but in the end I thought your ideas were quite informative, clear, and concise keep it up.
..yah maybe the text doesn’t really elaborate the difference between the 2….need 2 search more…but it helps
heyo. ok so objective sounds to be the more appealing of the two, but I dont know if it is all what it’s said to be. Meaning, the proof of God is not fact, but a belief. Would one not say that is subjective? I don’t believe science can prove everything. I don’t even know why I’m writing this right now because really I just was wondering about the difference between an object and a subject in regards to english, or grammer. Anyway, lately I have been thinking of becoming an english teacher bc most all, if not all, of my english teachers have made such a major impact in my life (and I was a quiet B student, if I was lucky). It’s hard to understand that bc I seem to be more math oriented, but on the emotion side of me, I appreciated my english teachers. That and history. I’m just a little uneasy about reading Roy’s responses bc I agree with the honesty of the objective, but the emotion of the subjective shouldn’t be disregarded either. I also agree with Terrance, and I enjoyed Eds reply, funny. My writing is a bit jumbled, but maybe someone will read it and make a little objective and subjective sense out of it and then they can explain what the object and subject of a sentence is, lol. until next time, live long and prosper (never was much of a star trek buff, just sounds cool..)
Nice guys!!! keep it up,, A healthy subjective debate might have an objective conclusion.. Roy,, u r gr8 mate!! i guess ur objective thinking yielded a subjective response!! guess u were carried away by the emotions because someone called u smart.. a debate on a difference between science and philosophy will open another can of worms so we rather keep it at bay.. Does objective thinking also mean accepting other people’s opinions even if they are different than yours but more practical?
Hi all again,
I I have tried to be clear as possible without trying to sound superior or anything. I would like to know what troubles people who do not understand what I stated “objective” means. Diane, you stated it does not clear up the difference between the two. In what situation would you have doubts? Anyone have any confusing examples between the two? I ask this in order to better describe the distinctions. I can own up to my definition not being clear for now to people who may not be familiar with philosophy. I would like to improve the term definition to give no doubt to anyone who understands english. So I need to know specifically where people go wrong or getting lost.
Perhaps, the confusion is the people we are around and the way they speak. For example, some group of people in the USA might use the term objective in a newer context: something that is always true no matter what circumstances and never changing, for example. This seems plausible why many think there is no such thing as objectivity. Things do change when the relevant circumstances change. Objectivity as I described it has been used in philosophy longer than any of the newer definitions. I think the definition I gave is the original one because philosophers used it most.
In what context do you hear or read the terms objective and subjective?
Again, I do not want people to confuse their ability to know with there being an objective answer. There is either a God (let’s say the christian one for now) or there isn’t. This is a logical law: the law of the excluded middle. It is impossible for there to be a circumstance where God exist and doesn’t exist in the same place and same context. So Objectively God can exist without you being able to prove it. Yes God can be a fact without your knowledge. Like wise the proposition God does not exist might be objectively true as well. You just might not know which one it is. This bothers people who always want SCIENCE to do everything. This is asking for too much. Science is not GOD. Don’t expect it to solve all problems. Science can’t answer many things today so it should be similar to the God example.
The subjective is the emotional side which I never suggested to disregard it. We all use it. However use it wisely! People who exaggerate their emotions often do irrational things. The people who beleive all things are subjective are prone to this. However, notice if all things are subjective we can ignore some of these ideas because they don’t apply in all cases or even most cases. Objective things are true regardless of who we are and what we are going through; thus true for all. Subjective is like being given advice. Objective is like law we must obey. This anaology is not perfect but should hint at the differences. Advice we are not obligated to follow; laws we are obligated to follow even if we are ignorant of the law. I have heard many subjective lovers utter: “All things we think, read or say are subjective because those thoughts or words come from an individual who has personal beliefs, opinions, desires, and thoughts different from everyone else.” Now stop and think. If the previous statement is always true it would be Objective! why? Because it covers all people all the time and is always true forever. Objective covers more ground [most ground or ALL ground], whereas subjective may describe more details about SOME of those same grounds.
The *object of the sentence is answered by asking the question, What? The subject of a sentence, I have discovered on my own, can be found by asking the question, Who?
An OBJECT RECIEVES the action of the verb and the SUBJECT’S DO the action.
Example: Daniel gave it to us.
Who gave?
Daniel
*Gave what?
it
(Gave to whom?
us)
Therefore, ‘Daniel’ is the subject, ‘it’ is the (direct) object and ‘us’ is the indirect object.
By rule of thumb, the sequence of these there are consistent most every time.
i.e.) SUBJECT->VERB->OBJECT, refer to the example, ‘Daniel gave it…’
Please use your own english knowledge to double check this stuff and make a conclusion for yourself. Also if anyone sees any errors in my teaching or examples please dont hesitate to tell me so. Thank you
P.S. I know all of this is a bit of the subject of our Objectivity vs. Subjectivity, but I needed to try and explain it for myself. Until next time ladies and gents…. enjoy happily
Hi Again all,
To Drew,
Since you posted twice I will address you directly. You must have had english grammar in mind when you read the title of the web site. This was a mistake in context. I take it that english might be a second language for you. Your second post refers to a topic in english grammar called “pronoun case”. In that topic, you will learn when to use a pronoun and what instances pronouns can be correctly used in a sentence. There are three cases of pronouns. From reading your post, I infered you did not know the name of the grammar topic is technically called “pronoun case”. You will need to know the grammatical technical terms if you want to teach english grammar. Notice it is spelled grammar and not grammer. Apart from a typo, you are correct about the “objective case “of a verb: the object receives the action of the verb and this the pronoun case when the term WHOM is used over WHO in a sentence. (who vs whom is still largely debated in many instances till this day.) The so called subjective case is actually called the “nominative case”; this term describes when the object is the subject of the verb in a sentence: for example, “the desk was kicked by Jim”. (This is called a passive voice sentence which is awkward in most examples to use in writing. The active voice is more reader friendly and prefered: “Jim kicked the desk” is easier to read.) Your explanations are good, but I am not comfortable about your example because you use a vague pronoun “IT”. You are correct but your example should have been much simpler. If you substitute “IT” for “the cat” your example would still be correct but easier to read: Daniel gave the cat to us. It should be used sparingly because it is hard for the reader at times to refer back to what noun “IT” stands for throughout the sentence. Try to be clear, specific and concise as much as possible in your writing; try to stand clear of avoid awkard constructions, vague pronouns and vauge references. Now that is the grammar side of Drew’s post.
What I typed can be refered to as objective knowledge (objectivity) because it is universally true to all who use english grammar. I did not make up the rules of grammar in the english language and my feelings or opinion have no say in the results. In comparison, a subjective knowledge (subjectivity) claim about the use of english grammar would be that you used “who” in a sentence where you should have used “whom” and then you made a justification for you breaking the rules. In that example, your opinion or choice had an effect on the sentence and it still might be accepted by a majority of people who read your writing. Popularity doesn’t mean it is technically correct though! Subjective often means you the person hold your thought as true, whereas objective often means all people with the proper knowledge should or must arrive at the same answer. For example, multiplying 5 times 5 equals 25 to all who understand multiplication — it is irrefutable.
So in closing, ultimately there is probability to the subjective thought: it is 1 percent to 97 percent; the objective thought is absolute certainty and no chance of error.
Thanks Roy for the helpful corrections. I guess if I want to teach english I will need to know how to spell GRAMMAR (LOL). And yes, for a public school educated student of Friendswood Texas, I’m sorry to say, english was and is my first language to speak. Now I’m tackling another side of me and learning spanish, which is what prompted most of the grammar confusion.
Thanks again,
Drew M
some people really make things hard. too much elaboration will lead us to confusion. concise, direct and simplicity will help much instead.
i guess you have a problem in comprehension read a lot of story books
Hello it has been a while,
I recieved an update that there was a new post here (9-1-10), but it has not posted yet and it is over two weeks later. However, I want to address it because many people are not aware of the mistakes they make. In this case, Dave comments:
” Do many people actually hold this view? There are innumerable statements of fact that are not particularly associated with “science”, nor require it, but that are clearly objective: “I have one head”, “The sky is often blue”, “Bill Clinton is a male”, “I am about to post this reply on the internet”, “This statement is in the present tense”…etc.
Does Dave not know that the context of knowledge that requires verification is science? Science must be observed. If you must use your senses to verify a thought and you utilze that thought from your senses pratically it is science! In other words, I have one head must be observed. It is not a semantic truth like a triangle has three sides”. By definition that is what a triangle MUST be. You having two heads is a scientific claim. You need more than a language to determine its truth. The Bill Clinton example is better. I would hope so that a person named Bill is a male or it can be taken as a sick joke. Bill is usually a male name. We know this how? by the name being applied in history over and over again. Sounds scientific: an observation verified through time. Semantic truths do not require such a method. Objectively, the next two examples are certainly NOT semantic either: “I am about to post this on the internet” nor is “This statement is in the present tense . . ” Both require human observation for us to be aware of them. Semantic truths require no observation; they
It is a good policy to define the term specifically as possible so all are on the same page before controversey starts. That means do not assume all people understand the context you in which you use the term. Context makes english a hard language to master.
only require the user to be familiar with the language and its words. Human awareness has nothing to do with the objective nature of a statement. Either it is objective or it is not objective. That is a semantic notion. What the sentence means literally is scientific. Do not confuse what is objective with what is science. There is over lap though. Some statements seem to be objective and literally true scientifically. Many people might assume both qualities are always present in all or most statements. The terms are independant. I have posted the philosophical definition of “objective” earlier posts above this one and mentioned it as a semantic notion in this post as well. People CAN and DO use the term objectively in their own setting differently as in their neighborhood, culture, etc. This is really a bad thing in a large setting: if I scream out “FIRE” and the people listening take the term “fire” to mean “keep on dancing” where they live . . .
I LOVED this article. I thought it was freaking fantastic. Good work!
Wow!!! You guys are good readers and great commentators. (is this right? commentators?) Anyway, Roy, whoever you are I think you must have a profession either in something like English, literature, or culture. You know a lot, or I guess it seems like that since I’m a rookie at this kind of philosophy talking. Keep it up! Love this WEBSITE ;-D
Roy, wow just wow. Im a senior in high school and you make the kids in my class seem mature. Agruing about of the internet is going to get anything across. (:
talking about whatever well there are some people who suck up to the authorities…..and again ok let me fix my error i forgot to closed the ) its about giving/sharing ideas who cares how u express it as far as ur audience gets it just sayin dont be uptight grammer grammar its internet …u dont see with ur eyes u perceive with ur mind …. whats object in what terms ,only object i see ..numbers…1+1=2 anythin else its all subjective….even 1+1=2 can be subjective 1+1=1 hahaha how ? well dont know may be in the world where binary doesnt exist or whatever….is there a sound if no one hears it? ..well NO there is something but its not sound ..it is “object” we perceive it as a sound our body is tuned to change that “it” to sound…same way change “it” to that tower we see and on and on ….. everythin is a vibration we perceive it certain way and create our own subjective reality…. we all are one…..
it eliminates confusion in usage of words almost similar in their meanings
Thats are very good for those who are not concept of objective and subjective. and you use easy words. WELL DONE!
Subjective data collection is the process in which data relating to the parents, patients, clients, students,etc, problem or problems or obtained from patient/ client or the patient’s/ client’s history.This information is retrieved from the patients/ clients description of an event or situation rather than from a physical or objectable examination.
Objective data collection is the process in which data relating to the clients problems or obtained through direct physical examination, observation or laboratory analasis.
From a Medical/ Legal office assistant student, could i hand this in for my accessment? Is it any good? Thanks
Hey Shondell,
I stumbled across this website when I heard someone say something of the sort, “The school is a good one because the people there say things objectively rather than subjectively.” Then throughout the rest of the conversation I was thinking to myself, ‘what does that mean’?
Anyway about your medical legal office paper, not to be to direct, but it needs a little work. As I read through it, I had a hard time understanding what you were saying. I noticed the word “or” was used repeatedly throughout and the sentence structure didn’t set quite right in my head. I think it would benefit you if someone who knows grammar well could proof read your paper.
From what I got out of it, the subjective information for a client/patient is greatly based on individual beliefs and circumstances. When you say the subjective material is based on a description, or an individuals memory, rather than a physical or objective (I don’t think objectable is a word) examination, it leaves me with some confusion, but I think I get your point.
Is the objective data the conversation between the client/patient party, or is it simply a diagnosis of the problem?
Well it’s a start, but I think you could go into more detail.
goodluck,
drew
Hi Shondell,
Honestly, I am not sure if the medical field has another context other than the ones described above. If so, this adds to the problem of word definitions because each group might have their own contextual definition of every word or phrase: for example, the word “argument” has a totally different meaning on the street than in a philosophy classroom; the word “fallacy” is often misused because it is used outside of philosophy; the phrase “set this place on fire” has an innocent meaning in a disco which refers to people dancing. Things start getting riddiculous when my word “dog” refers to a “chair” to you. You would think there should be a standard for using words and their meanings since this is all in the English language and not a foreign language! I would understand word confusion if I spoke french and you spoke Latin. Both parties can be native english speakers and our slang makes us different as we were speaking two different languages. So when you use “objective” the way you do in the medical field it makes little sense to someone outside of that group: perhaps that is a purpose for doing so. So to native english speakers, many people would think you are using the terms wrongly when reading your writing. I would further say, there has to be a more appropriate word (or words) you could use to be more specific and accurate than the words you chose. For example, using the words “relative description” when referring to data given by a patient verbally instead of “subjective”. “Subjective” is NOT the best word to use in your context; however, “relative” in your context is more appropriate. In your second case, there has to be a way in the medical field to express that the professional directly observed data or the professional tested the data — “objective” is NOT the best word to express that idea. In conclusion, I do NOT suggest you use either of the words in your assesment unless it is a GIVEN in the field you are specifically in. Even in that case, you still need to seperate that group definition from the average speaker’s use of those same words. Objective is usually taken as independant of a person’s opinion. Subjective is usually taken as an opinion, something that is not a fact or something that is not an absolute.
dealing with objective/subjective in the medical/legal arena does anyone have any ideas about a “Canadian” definition of objective/subjective pain? Pain is subjective-is there a way to prove it objectively?
my son’s school is grading their students on Conduct – not by range of A-C but similar to their academic subjects. Problem here is that they do not have test results or any documentary proof how a student’s Conduct grade results to.
Even if a student got average grade of 90 in all of his academic subjects, when his Conduct rate is below 85 – he will still not be included in a recognition. is rating in school nowadays like this? Isn’t this subjective?
Hello lai,
From what you describe sounds subjective at first glance BUT it probably is not since there are standards the school should be using. The policy can be set by an individual in authority (this is subjective) or historically speaking — meaning these standards were developed by recalling past experiences (this is experimental or scientific). If the school does not allow you to view its procedure on conduct grades then it may be the case of abusive authority and is subjective. Subjective things in the real world outnumber the objective ones in reality because people are opinionated and have biases. Too many people are too emotional and refuse to own up to being irrational at times. People are born in sin — remember that. Authority over rules reason many times in the real world unfortunately. It is not about what is correct or who is correct. It is about who has power or the appropriate resources needed.
all the posts except the first post……are subjective
Prove it by explaning why you think most of the post here are subjective! Your statement is not rationalized and is opinion. Your opinion is subjective perhaps which is what you meant.
For Ron’s post July 3rd 2010 4.07pm
” What I mean is a person with no vested interest should call it as he sees it.”
Shouldn’t that read, ‘ A person should call it as he sees it, vested interests or not.
And this… Bushido is from Bushi = Samurai = warrior…they may have objective one minded policy as to serve the Emperor, which was essentially,win battle for glory of Emperor and family, or die in battle for glory. If defeated in battle,must be glorious and commit suicide. A fair bit of subjectivity crept into their objectivity,or more to the point stupidity. To be so assinine as to commit suicide because of a tempory setback is hard to understand,considering the cost of the community in losing such an accomplished warrior,their ideals of glory in death were surely subjective philosophy.
If you are referring to Bullshido = A martial art based on ridiculous principles.
There is too much subjectivity in arranging a displaced single minded objectivity.
Regards, Jay.
I also think there are forms of Objective Subjectivity. Take art, for example. You can choose to view art in a subjective of objective way, but any decision will be made in a subjective way. I don’t know if it can go the same way for Subjective Objectivity or not, though, since bringing bias into an unbiased environment would seem to automatically make that a subjective thought stream.
You can say “I like the way this painting looks.”, but then take a proverbial step back, and set aside your bias and look at it in an unbiased way. This ultimately simply changes the subset of merits you’re grading by, but the ATTEMPT is a more objective interpretation.
The article says: “Subjective – opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.”
and then: “…whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.”
I think the second statements lead to confusion that influences the assumption of the first.
To say that any marketing presentation is subjective is erroneous.
Many marketing decisions are rooted in statistical evidence, and a marketing presentation would be a proposal to implement said statistics. Usually the suggested implementation is based off of scientific research on how people react to certain elements, shapes, colors and situations. While each of those reactions may be subjective, the most common responses can be studied and proven. With this information a design for any kind of marketing device can be created using well documented proven practices. Now the reactions that those who are being marketed to give to the designed marketing device are indeed subjective, this does not make the design of the device subjective.
For example I am a user interface designer. When I design an interface for an application, I do extensive research to find out how people interact with things. While most of the data that I use to implement a design and layout is based off of subjective reactions, it does not make the data subjective nor does it make the implementation of said data subjective.
this is a common misconception that I deal with regularly. “Well color and design are subjective, so let’s do another iteration with new colors, my wife doesn’t like these”
Even though the colors and positioning used have been proven countless times to provide the intended responses and results.
I agree art, marketing, and design can be subjective, it is not always and should not be lumped into the subjective category.
It would seem to me, then, that there would never be a clearly polarized or “pure” objective or subjective statement or observation. The fact that all information we receive is filtered through our individual thought processes is proof enough that there is no true objectivity. But the fact that we cannot be aware of all things or express all things regardig or pertaining to a particular subject, object, or idea means that those things being expressed or communicated cannot be purely subjective either. Everything sort of floats in between objectivity and subjectivity without ever reaching either side.
Joe,
Your answer is a psychological one which I already addressed as insufficient. To claim there is nothing objective if true would BE the objective statement. You seem as a people person and and were involved or experienced with much psychology; so you know how to tell people what they want to hear. An objective statement is a true statement without bias. For example, “there are 50 states in the United States” or “2×5=10 is a mathematical expression”. No feelings or emotion to those statements. The fact we all think differently and expereince different things causes you to commit a logical fallacy of composition. This is done by you implying we are all different and our thoughts are different; therefore, our conclusion must be like the components of the argument — that all we do is subjective. If any statement is always true under the same circumstance then it is an objective statement. People may not realize that there can be overlap: both subjective and objective at the same time.
Max,
You too offer a psychological explanation that all statements will be subjective which is clearly false. I can make pure objective statements about a painting: The is red paint used in this painting or there isn’t.” The statement doesn’t have to be a critique! The statement in the quotes above has to be true or false. No emotions, no fellings involved, and no negative critque.
Max,
Oopps forgive my typos. My example should read “there is red paint on the painting or there is not.” Sorry for any confusion. If you still think other wise just let me know and if you can please tell me why. I can I will clarify more if I am writing awkwardly to you.
Jay,
To answer your reply the answer is No I meant what I typed because a person with a vested interest is not objective because he may be biased. I would be hard to tell if there is a vested interest. If the person is Objective he will have no vested interest and report the truth. You posted this:
Shouldn’t that read, ‘ A person should call it as he sees it, vested interests or not.
Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between | Objective vs Subjective http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/#ixzz1GMW5634t
Like I said above the answer is no as I already explained earlier above.
Secondly, I used the term BULLSHIDO in the context as a dogma or closely followed principle sort of like a cult. These dogma are usually unchallenged and blindly accepted. The term Bullshido is a mock term as opposed to the legit term Bushido which implies honor and other so called virtues. Bullshido does not have those qualities. Again there is no single minded objectivity. Objectivity should NOT imply personal feelings or opinions or dogmas. An Objective statement has to be true and it is usually the case the statement is generalized — with nothing to do with the speaker.
yo roy
1st of all man i think you are awesome! you gave me entirely a new view about this subject after reading your posts. even though i believe you explained in almost every way possible for everyone to understand, i know some folks out there that are STILL just a tad bit confused (like me). learning from a philosophers perspective can make u see it in a complete different way. now yes i do basically understand the difference betweent the two. yet there are some cases i may come across and i wouldnt know wheter to label it as subjective or objective.for ex: the BIBLE subjectve right?? is it possible for you to recap your lecture and simplify it for us (or just me. i could be the only jackwagon) where we can understand completely and in its entirety the difference betwen the two.
thanks, ya boy PaulStayStuntin
PaulStayStuntin,
Thanks for your comments! I was trying to be specific enough and use easy language for all to understand. I am glad to see some people appreciated my input. The Bible would be a case of OBJECTIVE knowledge: either it is true or it is not. Do not be concerned which value it holds: is the Bible true? or Is the Bible false? Do not be distracted! Had I said “I am six foot, or seven foot tall and I stack a bunch of bannanas” this is STILL either true or false! Excuse my charisma. What many people have trouble with is that You — personally — do not know which value to pick: true or false seems up in the air. Another example is “There is life in another Universe” which is still either true or false! How will I know if it is true or false? Well, you don’t! You are problaly thinking or expressing “What do you mean You don’t,” right? Yes, it does Sound strange you would think I’m on vodka with a spritzer.
To reason consistently one must grant that the knowledge exists independant of us. Consider this claim Paul: “Paul, I have never met you parents so since I never met your parents they can not exist! Only if I meet a person’s parents can they have the permission to exist.” This inference is clearly wrong isn’t it? So your parents existing is independant of my awareness isn’t it? Likewise, eventhough right this moment we have no sure way to say yes or no to life in other universes, there is hope that we will one day detect this. If we had the means this moment we would KNOW if it is true or false right this instant. If I say the Earth is the 9th planent from Sun we have means to resolve this. When we don’t have the means to resolve our lack of ability the subjective minded run and say “there is no truth because [I the all knowing concieted one] do know or have the answer right now. Take notice please of the pattern: if subjective genuis has the means of an answer he will give it. When subjective Genius falls short of the measuring stick things change — no body can do it or nobody has it. Objective knowledge I would say would be similar to deductive reasoning. Subjective knowledge would be like science or Inductive reasoning. Furthermore, the context of both terms (objective and subjective) can co-exist in such a way that something is absolutely true for you — the individual — and true for others as well. Do not think this must be one way or the other way always. In deductive reasoning, we use a METHOD of derriving truths from other truths. These truths are sometimes already known or given to us. We can never use a method of truth that is LESS than 100 percent accurate in deductive logic. When we use a method that is absolute — meaning to say this method is 100 percent correct and not less — we call this method logically VALID. Thus, it is impossible for me to start with truth and end up with falsity while following logic rules. I must have committed a fallacy to start with truth and end up with falsity! In contrast, when I use any method that sometimes gives me the truth [or correct answers] and sometimes this same method gives me FALSITY [the wrong answers] this method is called logically INVALID. Logically invalid means the method is not reliable in logic. Science will take this up as something important though. Science by definition is INDUCTIVE and thus not able to produce a method of truth 100 percent all the time. So when we do not have 100 percent we are best to use probability and go with 95 percent as opposed to 30 percent chance of winning a million dollars for instance. If we do not have 100 percent accuracy, then probability is all we have left. So here I will tie in Objective knowledge with being 100 percent accurate. Subjective knowledge is less than 100 percent accurate. This subjective method might get you over here and there if you are a hustler — but there will be times it WILL fail! It is not 100 percent! If you find yourself in doubt then add more specific details to the sentence. I mean get riddiculous with detail and you will see no one can decieve you. Deception is always a language problem — someone being vauge or witholding information that could change the result. Kill that with rude tactic with excessive specifics like the date, the time, the circumstance, etc and you will see objective statements can never be false. Subjective statements can be true, false or just plain irrational for a human being to make. For instance, I believe the earth is shaped like a triangle! How could I justify that belief? I can’t, but I still believe it anyway! I am entitled to a stupid belief right? I honestly have a problem with that people can hold on to false beliefs, but that is another story. I hope this answers your inquiry. If not, then let me know what specifically as possible is troubling you and I will try to address it better. I do not want to seem like I am rambling or putting people to sleep so I will stop here. Peace.
Subjectiveness is biased, objectiveness isn’t.
thanks for adetailed explanation .it hasbeen of great importance to my research
I am a new subscriber. Like the concept. Just think your explanations are to long. Just get to the point.
Roy and Co,
Thanks for all the posts clarifying (or confusing) the subjective/objective defs.
Maybe you can settle an arguement me and a friend were having.
I was saying that comedy was subjective, and he was saying it was objective. And I should clarify, we both must be idiots, because we both meant the opposite of what we were saying.
I was thinking along the lines that comedy was measurable, but after reading this forum and thinking about it, I still think that it is measurable, but it is measureable of the objective opinions of the majority. For example, 0 to no one thinks the holocaust is funny. A very high percentage would laugh at watching someone get hit in the nether-regions. So, could I say there is a subjective scale of comedy on the objective opinions of the majority? Thanks for the any clarification….
Justin,
I would like to comment on your disagreement with your friend about comedy. Sure I think if we could establish an absolute definition of “comedy” then there is pure objectivity in what fits in the comedy classification. However, I am not sure at this point in time if there is an model example of comedy. Let’s assume there is a model definition out there — I am not saying this is it — that has been around since the Greeks were doing their plays. Let’s say the agreed definition was at that time the following: “Professional entertainment consisting of jokes and satirical sketches, intended to make an audience laugh.
2. A movie, play, or broadcast program intended to make an audience laugh.
[ I am not saying this is so!!!! I am giving an example how to argue this] Now we take samples from Justin what he calls comedy and see if it fits within the confines of comedy. The Halocaust does not fit in the definition — it was not intended to make an audience laugh; nor was it a movie, play or broadcast with intent to make the audience laugh. Is the Hangover movie a comedy? I would put it to the test. I would say YES! Is the Thor movie a comedy? I would say NO!!! There has to be some criteria for determining what goes into a comedy in distinction to a tragedy or drama. The hard part is discovering what those qualities are that make something a comedy if there is no criteria already set in place. The comment about comedy being measurable will still make something a comedy or not since one comedy can draw more laughs than perhaps another comedy. Both are comedy but movie A was funnier than movie B. That is more along the lines with being subjective if I say the comedy of Austin Powers is funnier than the Naked Gun movie. So I do not want people to draw the inference that popularity makes something objective or subjective. This is NOT the case. Popularity has nothing to do with objectivity or subjectivity. Jesus Christ is either God or He is not God objectively. The same could be said of the Doomsday date predicted by Harold Camping and Family Radio: May 21,2011 is the end of the world!!!! Now that the date is past we now know it is objectively false. The Jesus Christ example we are still awaiting — its time will eventually come too and then it will be true or false. Right now we just don’t know and we don’t hae enough information to know. Awareness is not apart of objectivity folks. A tree falls in the forrest still makes a noise !!!! Many people who study psychology tend to act as logical people just as some demons act as angels of light. There is a difference between Psychology and Philosophy. Psychology was once called “the school of practical philosophy” going back to the times of Plato who invented the topic of studying the mind. Psychology has been confused with Philsopophy too much which is why people confuse terms. Too bad most people take the Psychologist words over the Philosopher about Philosophical terms. Sort of like going to the car mechanic to have teeth pulled over a dentist.
Thanks! I think I understand what you mean about there having to be a model, defining what a comedy would be. Looks like I lost the arguement!
Subjective means negative while objective refers to positive. A subjective person is biased person while objective person is unbiased. Being objective helps someone to achieve his/her dreams. The objective individual appears to be motivated to attain to where he/she sets the goals. The subjective individual makes decision based on the feelings and opinions of the speaker and not on the facts.
Dr. Wilson Ugwu
how the f do i change the language on my laptop from martion to english
Roy,
Fu*k Off.You know,too much of analysis leads to paralysis and you are paralyzed already.
You seem to me as arrogant and a bad listener.Learn to overcome that and come out of the box and
listen other views.You need to read a lot .. not just philosophy.There are many other learning areas that you need to dig before you can make some sense.You just put all jargon here and you just sound like a confused person who is not clear ,crisp and concise.
Kim,
Your post is full of anger. What specifically did I post to get you to respond like that? Your post is without a justification in it. You are extremely vague about what “jargon” I used and you are vauge about why you are uptight. Was it the part about psychology that hit a nerve? At least you should have given that information. Furthermore, you seem to hate people who go into detail. Why is that? Is it because you refuse to do so? All of a sudden, I am arogant and the next thing associated with that is “a KNOW IT ALL”. How can you arrive at such conclusions? You certainly did not state any reasons why you responded so negatively. Many other readers here have stated that my post were clear. What did you not understand? I specifically stated the definition I gave about Objectivity was from the perspective of Philosophy. I did not force information on anyone. Most people here did not consider the philosophical definition because they did not experience it. I provided a view many did not know existed and I become a “KNOW IT ALL” and “ARROGANT?” Perhaps you are a psychology student or a professional in that field which upset you to become irate and post irrationally. People read or hear the word Philosophy and just start acting the fool I guess. Most people here have psychology experience because they deal with people and their emotions. Pychology is the study of what humans think and human behavior. You don’t have to be enrolled in a University to be a psych major. You just have to know how to snow people over: speak in a nice tone, smile, speak vaguley, avoid saying anything negative and just be happy, happy, happy. Unfortuantely all ideas are not equal. All music is not equal. All art is not equal. For instance, my drawings or paintings would not be likend to ART in any real sense of the term. That is the happy happy happy in you. Psychology and its related fields tend to teach that stuff. The ironic thing is many psych majors, as I call them, are two faced: they are either the happy happ happy type — where the world is just positive and perfect — OR they can be the deliberate Jerk. The diliberate jerk is the kind of person who is purposely negative: i.e., the jerk interviewer who keeps creating interuptions such as taking personal calls in the middle of the interview, won’t smile, speaks in a demeaning tone, criticize irrelevant things, etc. Another form of the deliberate Jerk is the person who irrational blurts negatives and is unphased by anything: you find this type of jerk in the comedy club with the frown on the face, arms crossed, already with an attitude before the show starts. “I will NOT laugh — Nothing will phase me!” This is where you come in Kim: the deliberate jerk who nothing phases and blurts out random negatives. “I am KIM and nothing phases me. All that stuff Roy typed before is all BS but I can’t prove it. All the details Roy typed are worthless because nothing phases me — I’m KIM.”
A rational person would at least mention some details and specifically where my comments were wrong or flawed. But since nothing Phases Kim why were you reading in the first place? Just because I suppose — really rational. How is it you don’t understand what I wrote? You understood. You just dont’ care! You just don’t care why you hate me.
And next batter up, Out of left field (aka outta the blue), “nothing phases me” with
an emotional rant — KIM.
A rational person would state the reasons why they feel a certain way. That might be hard work for someone who hates details and being specifc. So following Fu*k Off should be the justification for the comment. That justification should be full of true statements — not emotional rants just because you have the freedom of speech. I have no doubt you can’t justify your rant.
The happy happy happy people think that all is fine. All ideas are equally good, all the religions of the world are equally true, all things are subject to opinion, etc. This is not taught in lets say math or gymnastics. Where do people get these ideas? We could list every academic subject there is and eliminate those academic subjects that do not push the happy happy happy subjective theory. Is it pragmatic? The answer is Yes, which is why most humans experience it. Is it rational always? No. Authority in the pragmatic world kicks in and overrides reason in many cases. I try to reason with my boss and I upset him: “Roy you are fired!” Regardless of who is right or wrong, I can be fired either way. Authority is a crowd pleaser as well. What Kim here has done is make herself the authority while demeaning me. Typical animal behavior in many species outside of humans; it is called usually the “ALPHA” syndrome such as an “alpha male” dominates the others in its group be it Apes, Wolves, Dogs, etc. In this case it is a female ALPHA who can’t find reason.
i think roy spends too much time on his computer
(HI ROY)
I know you are right on point… (but the way you employ the esoteric lexicon of the English language seems a bit harsh.)
{[Remember:]-> “With great power comes great responsibility.”}
Outstanding content not to mention very easy towards fully understand story. How do I just do receiving agreement towards submit component of this page with my future news letter? Offering suitable consumer credit rating back to you typically the writer not to mention web site link within the web website will not be considered trouble.
Glad you enjoyed my article, it is interesting how as we grow we change and adapt our views as well!
Wow! This could be 1 particular of the most beneficial blogs We have ever arrive across on this subject. Actually Magnificent. Im also a specialist in this subject so I can understand your hard function.
No, the subjectivity of truth and I’m speaking on my own behalf, is not a happy happy kingdom of thoughts, nor is objectivity. Subjective is soft, objective is kind of hard. Soft (subjective) is the better option (just an opinion), quite simply because it’s open to different people arguing over whether it’s chalk or cheese. That in fact is open to a good argument, objective is one view, so with being forced into one opinion it doesn’t make a good argument, don’t make any mistake, subjective is not a happy happy thinking, it’s a soft rationality, or an irrationality. It’s your intuition most of us trust instinctively for one thing, for another, one must trust their perception and their senses, and for a third, viewpoints of the same person can change at a different time and the same person’s view of the truth will vary with time, it ain’t objective. I think objective= negative and subjective = positive, to be agnostic is simply a subjectivist secularisation, atheist is blindly doubting without proof.
Subjective,
Thanks for your input. You were soft and well said in a pragmatic way. Subjective is more people skills. Yes, I can absolutely agree! However, the objective is not necessarily negative. Objective is to report accuracy and truth in the same expression without bias. “Today, September 26, 2011 is not Christmas day” is an objective statement. It accurately denotes the truth value of the expression and is very specific. Subjective issues often times refuses to go into specifics. Subjective is usually pragmatic — the “whatever works” method. In other words, often this means “do anything to get over this situation.” Back in the elementary school days, I remember, all the way up to High school many students “do whatever just to pass with a “C”. When I was growing up, this was labled as “hustling”. This of course hints at being a con or having fake personality. Pragmatics also hints at being a con or having a fake personality due to you want success so badly you will go low as possible to achieve your result. You really don’t care — you just want this over and you want to win. Objectivity is only reporting true and accurate expressions of ideas that are unbiased — “calling it straight!” I do not benefit from uttering the objective statement. As a matter of fact, my existence is independant of the objective statement! If I were never born, the expression “Today, September 26, 2011 is not Christmas day” is true. The fact that people disagree means nothing to objectivity. The objective fact exists independantly of the observer. So why do humans need options to choose from with the expression “Today, September 26, 2011 is not Christmas day”? Subjective as you stated is “open”. The truth value of the expression, however, is not “open”. Either it is true or false — no other options, sorry. Objective statements can also be open: when in fact you have more than one oprtion: “All American citizens can choose to run for President of the United States or choose not to run at all”. True statement, right? It turns out that all literally meaningful sentences are either true or false. I did not make it that way. My existence is not the cause. All literally meaningful sentences just happens to be either true or false; there are no gray areas when literally meaningful sentences are present whether I exist or without me existing. By all literally meaningful sentences I mean sentences that appeal to reality and to human senses: those sentences that can be verified physically. All expressions are not this way by any means. Subjective expressions, from my experience, often hold more weight when they come from a human acting as an authority or a person who thinks he is superior over another human being. For example, my boss likes classical music. If I want to stay employed I too have to listen to classical music without any negative feedback. The higher up can retaliate more and do things the insubordinate cannot. Psychology has it that people only want to focus on positive facts — not the negative facts. There are studies on this. Where people are given negative fact cases and the responses show that people will try to avoid the negative even when it is impossible and intently made that way. People reason better when things are put positively than negatively. People make more fallacies when they have to reason about negative facts. Many people are taught as a child, “if you don’t have anything positive to say than don’t say anything at all.” Negative facts are not welcomed. This is psychology and the start of happy happy happy. It is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. When it is exagerated, then it beomes untruthful and poor thinking results. One can falsely believe all things are positive, all things work out for the good, all negative things can be corrected, etc. So the pragmatic person looks like a nice person whereas the objective person if he utters a negative truth is the “bad guy”. This should not be so.
Hi Roy, I enjoyed your article and wanted to thank you for posting my video. I was wondering why the hits went up so much on that one, and then I saw you had embedded it on your site. Nice idea for a blog site, and I also like how you interact with the comments on your post, both positive and negative.
Thanks for this wonderful site. I really like the way you emphasized your point of view right here.I learned a lot and I obtain much knowledge upon reading this.
i think it is much simpler:
- Objective: if the vast majority of people agree that something is so, it is considered to be objective.
- subjective: if you do not agree with the majority of people on something; others don’t actually enter in your view, your view is independant of others.
————————————————————————————————————–
Subjective is extremely important as all science depends on subjectivity, you must disagree with what we consider to be such and such in order question it.
Objectivity is to find the truth that we all agree or can agree to.
Reality is simply what we all agree to be. We all agree to gravity so it exists and anyone disagreeing would be looked at as mad. Nevertheless we could all be wrong, as a more fundamental truth could make us think that gravity existed when in fact it doesn’t.
Ottjo,
Your definions are technically wrong: you oversimplify the words too much & as a result your view will have so many exceptions to your own defintions:
- Objective: if the vast majority of people agree that something is so, it is considered to be objective.
- subjective: if you do not agree with the majority of people on something; others don’t actually enter in your view, your view is independant of others.
You are taking shortcuts that might work SOMETIMES –not always. Thus, your view is incompatible with the term “Objective” which deals with certainty. You are taking shortcuts as if you are at gunpoint. Why simplify so much to destroy the initial goal ? Agreeing with people doesn’t solve the issue . Objectivity needs no agreement. Psychology has such an impact that most people get this word “objective ” wrong.
Thank you for sharing superb informations. Your web site is so cool. I’m impressed by the details that you have on this site. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for extra articles. You, my friend, ROCK! I found simply the info I already searched all over the place and just couldn’t come across. What a perfect website.
The posts at this site are really wonderful—I’m enriched. Thanks!