[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 32 KB, 512x366, 264E23D247F7B788C112D2A6B8689_h366_w650_m6_lfalse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3131811 No.3131811 [Reply] [Original]

What's the deal with subjectivity and objectivity? How is it that objective values are somehow superior to subjective values or that objectivity is superior to subjectivity?

>> No.3132104

We don't have access to the objective.

We don't necessarily have access to the intersubjective either, but we have our subjective perception of said, and that with consensus and theory we can start to work on models of reality that enable us to function more equably.

>> No.3132112
File: 273 KB, 400x388, subjective.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3132112

subjective and objective are just buzzwords used by people who don't know how to argue.

When you hear them, bail on the conversation.

>> No.3132116

>>3132112

Okay, let's avoid those words. Do we have access to reality beyond our own perception?

>> No.3132117
File: 12 KB, 480x360, comeon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3132117

>>3132112
>implying that an objective metaphysical reality doesn't exist

>> No.3132118

>>3132117

Demonstrate it.

>> No.3132121

>>3132116
>Do we have access to reality beyond our own perception?

No. Things beyond your perception require belief, faith, and other useless bullshit.

>> No.3132124

>>3132118
>implying demonstrability to human perception has any bearing on its existence
>height of arrogance

>> No.3132123

>>3132121

So how into ethics?

>> No.3132127

>>3132124

>implying you have knowledge of the existence of anything that isn't arrived at through perception

>> No.3132129
File: 81 KB, 525x420, tyranid preposterous.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3132129

>>3131811
Subjective is an opinion, whereas something objective can be verified. For example, "which car is better" is subjective, while "which car goes from 0-60mph faster" is objective. Objectivity is often valued more, since it allows for reproducible results.
Post-modernism will tell you nothing can be "known" and therefore nothing is "objective", but for most people, knowing something well enough to get expected results is close enough to objective.

>> No.3132134

>>3132129

We only have access to the objective via the cogito, so yeah, nah.

>> No.3132140

>>3132116
>"Do we have access to reality beyond our own perception?"
You can only access reality through perception. Your question is badly phrased.

>> No.3132142

>>3132140

So your answer is 'no'.

How into ethics?

>> No.3132144

>>3132127
that's the whole fucking point you imbecile. epistemologically speaking all we need is perception to understand that there is SOME form of reality that exists—regardless of what we perceive, there is in fact an metaphysically objective plane of existence which constitutes 'reality'. it has nothing to do with what humans perceive or postulate upon, but it exists. it refutes all forms of 'brain in a vat' or 'evil technician' conundrums because even in such cases there does exist a form of actualized reality.

god you are thick

>> No.3132145
File: 538 KB, 410x2048, subjectivists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3132145

Can't believe this hasn't been posted yet.

>> No.3132146

>>3132144

Well, I agree with you, in any case.I misread your original post

>> No.3132151

>>3132121
edgy piece of shit

>> No.3132156

>>3132145
i've never been able to understand this comic. what makes books different from the other mediums?

>> No.3132160

>>3132145

The old troll returns

>citing intertextuality and stream-of-consciousness used in a 'virtuous manner' as indicative of merit

>> No.3132199
File: 6 KB, 544x400, 3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3132199

>>3132112
But that's wrong
Let's say
>tomatos taste bad
That's subjective
>I can't see air
That's objective

>> No.3132234

>>3132199
>>I can't see air
>That's objective
No it isn't.

>> No.3132239

>>3132199

>I
>see

>objective

>> No.3132249

>>3132234
>>3132239
Yes it is, if you can't see air you can't fucking see air.

>> No.3132257

>>3132249

Whether or not YOU can see it has only an incidental relation to whether or not it can be seen.

>> No.3132264

Subjectivism is the dumbest idea I know of. The only reason I even both to talk to people is to attempt to discover the objective truth behind our perceptions. I can't accept that just because my senses are imperfect there isn't a perfect world they are percieving.

>> No.3132265

>>3132249
So the subject, I, is unable to impose a property, the ability to be seen, on an object: that is subjective. Air can't be seen is objective. You (in the sense of "one") can't see air or nobody can see air could be considered objective statements because it's something that effects everyone, and that has been argued to be objective by people like Hegel.

In fact, you could better argue that "tomatoes taste bad" is an objective statement, unlike "I can't see air".

>> No.3132268

>>3132264

You can be sure that something exists, but there are enormous limits when it comes to understanding what that something - reality - is. We have to rely on models that fall apart under scrutiny in certain areas.

>> No.3132276

>>3132268
Then we should work at creating a better understanding through improving models or inventing new ones. Subjectivists are just trolls in that they dont' contribute anything to the sum of human knowledge.

>> No.3132280

>>3132276

You can't invent new models using structures that have already been shown to be foundationally inadequate, na mean?

>> No.3132281

>>3132280
No.

>> No.3132287

>>3132281

It's postmodernism we're breathing. There is no cure. Living in it. Bathing. Your modes of thinking are aged and not as wine. Your narrative is as valid and worthless as mine. Embrace it. Give a hug. It's time you hopped on the train. The journey's a fucking blast but we never make it to the end. Ya dig?

>> No.3132291

>>3132287
Not sure if nigger or beatnic.

>> No.3132295

>>3132291

An ideologue who'd embrace said categories as definitive is clearly a blind fool.

>> No.3132326

>>3132325

That's the joke.

>> No.3132325

>>3132295
>a blind fool
that's subjective

>> No.3132344

I don't think theres is some preference between objective or subjective, just a misunderstanding of the concepts that leads to this valuing. Objectivy is inaccessible for human beings as we are. But it doesn't mean it inexists.

>> No.3132366

My understanding of value is that a value is "something we act to gain or keep."

Ultimately all vales need to be based in reality, i.e. have to be objective. Also values are not primary concepts but depend implicitly on the question "of value to whom and for what?" There needs to be a hierarchy of value as well. All values are (or need to be) derived from the antecedent concept of "life" ; logic is what allows us to construct this hierarchy.

"Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action." You cannot separate "value" from "life" without negating the whole concept of "value."

"Subjective" values are not inferior - they are invalid. To want a subjective value is to say that you can pick or choose something which goes against life or nature; that there is no end or standard of values but it is all a matter of pure choice or preference.