fast

Before I begin, I think it's necessary to explain what this thread is NOT about. It's not about objective morality. It's not about subjective morality. Hell, it's not even about morality. In fact, I'd kind of like it if we didn't even make reference to those THREE terms.

This is about understanding the substance of what it means to say that something is either OR both subjective and/or objective. In short, what is objective?, and what is subjective?

What characteristics or criteria MUST be present in order to satisfy the requirements?

What is the nature of those terms? Can they change and have differing meanings in different contexts, or is that dishonest use of the terms?

I don't particularly like these terms being so whimsical where one can adjust the meanings to fit whatever purpose one has.

What's the REAL PROPER meaning?

If objective takes on the characteristic of Q, R, and S only, then something that is Q and R can objectively be shown not to be objective -- if that makes any sense. Anyhow, help me make sense of it's use. Can we come to a consensus, or is it hopeless that we can ever agree? Agree as to what it IS -that is

EssEff

I think basically it's this:

objective is rooted in the object, i.e., the thing being described, and subjective is rooted in the subject, i.e., the person doing the describing.

fast

So, take the following proposition:

P: I like ice-cream.

We have 3 components:

C1 "I": the subject. who is objectively real, so I'm still confused.
C3 "ice-cream": which is the object that I the subject likes, so I'm still confused.

C2"like", the verb. Which is subjective to anyone yet objectively real for many. This becomes compounded in complexity because it relates to a desire that hasn't been substantiated clearly. What does that mean? Do I like ice-cream all the time in that I always like ice-cream so the desire is always there but just not firing up, or the desire comes and goes, but that's off topic

Dealing with C1 and C3 will suffice.

I know I'm making this more complicated than it has to be, but I really would like to nail this bad boy.

knowitall

In one sense, the solopsistic sense, everything is subjective. In another sense, where observation is taken to be believable, everything is objective.

Objective means something has the value of truth. Like what we observe objectively exists. The scope of objective applies to the whole system in question.

Subjective is really a subset of objective. It means the value of truth attributed to something is of a limited scope relative to the whole system.

Therefore, one can make a subjective statement objective by simply adding the necessary conditional properties that make it true relative to the whole system.

Subjective: "Icecream is the best food!"

Objective: "Icecream is the best food, in my opinion."

fast

And can we all in good conscious agree to this?

edited in:
can we then say that all things are objective and some of all things are subjective; therefore some things are both subjective and objective.

99Percent

Its where the truth resides.

Objective truth is true regardless of the subject.
Subjective truth is only true for the subject.

"Ice cream tastes good" is true for me, but not necessarily true for everyone else.
"Ice scream needs to be stored at subfreezing temperature or else it melts" is true regardless of who says it.

Subjective truth is subject to opinion, feelings, whims, etc. Objective truth is not.

fast

Can we say then that the conscious mind is subjective territory, while everything other than other conscious minds is objective territory. Of course not because there's always going to be someone saying that the process that makes it all happen has a truth value to it.

If I say:

p2: I love ice-cream.

Is this objective or subjective? It sounds subjective but it's a declarative proposition that can be verified against my opinion, so it is objectively true that I subjectively love ice-cream.

Come on guys. Pull it all together for me. You see me stumbling. You know this is harder than it looks. As soon as it goes to the very next level, everything goes haywire.

The foundation for these terms needs to be unquestionable.

Danielboy

I think you have to be careful when saying this:
"Subjective truth is only true for the subject."
Subjectively true for you need not be subjectively false for me.

Danielboy

This web-site is quite useful
Subjectivism vs Objectivism

fast

That was very helpful. Thank you.