Subjective v. Objective Worldviews

[Ro-bear]

Indeed, it would be impossible for anyone to live consistently within the Christian worldview, since it is entirely subjective and contrary to knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There you go again. You depict the Christian worldview as monolithic; it is not. And EVERY worldview is subjective, although not all are "contrary to knowledge".

You compound your error by assuming a deficit in my reading acuity. I assure you that little in print escapes my cognition.

 

When you claim all the reasonable aspects of other worldviews are derivative of atheist values, that is "cherry-picking". Atheists are almost certainly as influenced by theistic worldviews as vice-versa if we look at it honestly.

 

I, too, am an atheist and a materialist, so it's a bit awkward arguing with you. Perhaps we should agree to disagree about Christians and Christianity. Or we can keep butting heads. Your call.

[Francois Tremblay]

There you go again. You depict the Christian worldview as monolithic; it is not.

 

I'm talking about Christianity itself - the belief in the god of the Bible and of "Jesus" as saviour - not its individual sects.

 

 

And EVERY worldview is subjective

 

No they're not. That's a ridiculous claim.

 

 

You compound your error by assuming a deficit in my reading acuity. I assure you that little in print escapes my cognition.

 

Let's see you apply that cognition to your own claim that "every worldview is subjective".

 

 

When you claim all the reasonable aspects of other worldviews are derivative of atheist values, that is "cherry-picking".

 

Once again, you're not reading right. I never said anything about "atheist values". There is no such thing. I also didn't say "atheist worldview", which is what you seem to be implying. I said "ATHEISTIC worldviews". Buddhism is not atheism, but it is an atheistic worldview. Humanism is not atheism, but it is an atheistic worldview. Objectivism is not atheism, but it is an atheistic worldview. Post-modernism is not atheism, but it is an atheistic worldview. Do you understand the difference ?

[Ro-bear]

No they're not. That's a ridiculous claim.

Prove it. I'm interested in your attempt to show how a worldview, or morals in general, can be anything BUT subjective.

 

You are arrogant, and your tone is insulting. I could easily resort to the snide insinuations and not-so-subtle superiority that pepper your comments, but I will refrain until you have chewed the big-ass chunk you just bit off.

[Francois Tremblay]

Prove it. I'm interested in your attempt to show how a worldview, or morals in general, can be anything BUT subjective.

 

I am under no obligation to make such an "attempt". You have the burden of proof because you made the extraordinary claim that no worldview can be based on the facts of reality - including the rational-scientific worldview. You can start by disproving the scientific method.

 

 

You are arrogant, and your tone is insulting.

 

Boo-fucking-hoo. I'll be nicer if you get smarter.

 

I believe the appropriate expression at this point is "put up or shut up".

[Ro-bear]

I am under no obligation to make such an "attempt". You have the burden of proof because you made the extraordinary claim that no worldview can be based on the facts of reality - including the rational-scientific worldview.

 

Your worldview is based upon YOUR INTERPRETATION of the facts of reality. I am as much a rationalist as anyone. Unlike you, I am rational enough to realize that my perceptions, like yours, don't always square with reality. Until you show me how a worldview can be anything other than subjective, I'm done with your cocky ass. Back it up, pal. I'm not ready to concede your superior intelligence on the basis of what you posted here. You seem like nothing more or less than a fundy at this point.

[Amethyst]

True, offensiveness is somewhat subjective, but let's agree that trivializing someone's unjustified death is pretty offensive ? Not talking about humour or other peripherial ways to talk about it, but seriously trivializing someone's suffering.

 

I agree. Christians are supposed to buy into the "everything happens for a reason" cliche'. Well, explain that to everyone who lost loved ones in 9/11 or the recent tsunami. It completely trivializes everything they went through.

 

It says "oh, don't worry, you have to be happy because there is a god and he took away your family and friends for a good reason. Your feelings mean absolutely nothing to him, though, but don't worry because it is for a good reason. Like, maybe they were supposed to be angels in heaven or something." Yeah, right -- that is complete and utter crap, IMHO.

 

Call me selfish if you want to, but I have lost friends and loved ones -- I don't believe that any kind of god who loved us would have a good reason to take them away. What kind of loving god gives someone breast cancer and let them suffer with it for several years (while letting them go into remission a couple of times -- there's nothing like false hope to play mind games), and then die in their early 40's like my mother? Or to have someone commit suicide by fire, like my former roommate? There is no reason. It's tragic, but there isn't one. Christians need to wake up from their brainwashing.

[BlueGiant]

Well, as one cannot prove a negative, and since you poisit that there exists a non-subjective worldview, I believe that the onus probandi is on you, FT.

 

Also, I am inclined to agree that no human can be entirely objective. All of reality that you know must be recieved through some sensory input, be it optical, auditory, tactile, etc (I would poisit more than 5 senses, or that there is a way to jurry-rig senses to get at other types of information as well, but I digress). Now this sensory input must be decoded (from information about excited electron states due to photon collisions in the eye, for example) and then must be processed by the brain. Then some algorithm is applied based on what kind of attention the person is paying to their environment, as well as an interpertation of the data, by the brain, and an on-the-fly prioritization of the data, both by conscious and subconscious methods, a real bitch of a datamining job. These algorithms differ from person to person slightly, as each person's "hardware" (eg. brain, eyes, skin) are wired a bit differently and may be more or less sensitive to certain stimuli. (different genetics, traumas, experience, et al, cause this)

 

The long and short of it is that by the time you percieve a signal from the environment, it has already been processed by your unique hardware (for lack of a better term), and thus your assessment of it will deviate from another persons' to a certain extent. As none of us are reiciving the same data, our interpertations of the overall set will also have to differ (and probably with some considerable complexity in the system as well). If we cannot directly percieve pure, objective reality, but instead, the only world we have access to and can process is by these subjective filters, can a truly objective worldview arise? At a minimum, no individual human can ever be purely objective, based upon hardware limitations, of course subject to a counterexample, which it would be up to you to produce. I will also admit that this is not a complete proof of the matter, but the data presented does point somewhere, ne?

 

I will have to agree that many of the christian-type worldviews I have run into are pretty offensive, then again, so are most I run into.

 

Oh, and theology does not preclude self-responsinbility, especially when your theology includes the following: "if something akin to a god exists, it really doesn't give a rip about us. What we do is on us." Mine does, so please watch that brush when you paint with it. (read: you seriously stuck your foot in your mouth when you said that, and you are not nearly as hot shit as you think you are, kid)

 

Figure you shouldn't get the subtext wrong.

[Ro-bear]

It is a shame when the thin veneer of civility must be cast aside in dealing with a fellow atheist, but in the face of such vitriol, what is one to do? Etiquette, that lubrication of social intercourse, has suffered viscosity breakdown in your case. I’ve never had to speak to a fellow member here this way. Congratulations!

 

Let us move on to more substantive matters. You say I have made a claim; so I have, but it was in response to an implied claim on your part. No matter- I will defend my statement.

 

I agree that a worldview can be based on fact, but that alone does not make it objective, because no worldview stops there. Probably ALL worldviews have SOME basis in the factual. Citing facts is just observation-level thinking, and that is not a worldview. A collection of data is not a worldview, it is a world almanac.

 

The formation of a worldview begins in earnest at the interpretive level; this is where inferences are made based upon the relevant facts. This is, of course, a subjective process, or else we’d all make the same inferences. But wait, there’s more.

 

Any sophisticated worldview transcends the interpretive level. When we draw conclusions based upon our inferences, we reach the evaluative level of thinking. Simply put, we form an opinion. What can be more subjective than that?

 

Now, the way I see it, you have three options:

1. You can admit that you are wrong.

2. You can show me how any worldview can be other than subjective.

3. You can avoid the question and be relegated to my dust heap of unworthy opponents.

 

I hate to seem harsh, but your lack of social skills is appalling. Unless you’re a bubble-boy or something, there is no excuse for your lack of tact and diplomacy.

-Rob

[Francois Tremblay]

Well, as one cannot prove a negative, and since you poisit that there exists a non-subjective worldview, I believe that the onus probandi is on you, FT.

 

No, there is already a non-subjective worldview - the rational-scientific worldview. You're the one who's positing that no objective worldview exists, which is patent nonsense.

 

 

Oh, and theology does not preclude self-responsinbility

 

Self-responsibility cannot exist if values cannot exist. How can you get values from the subjective theistic universe ?

 

 

Also, I am inclined to agree that no human can be entirely objective.

 

If that's so, then I reject all your statements. They are not objective. Bye now.

[Reality Amplifier]

No, there is already a non-subjective worldview - the rational-scientific worldview. You're the one who's positing that no objective worldview exists, which is patent nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Objective reality is commonly said to be reality independent of the mind.

 

Subjective reality is commonly said to be characteristic of, or belonging to reality as perceived, rather than as independent of mind.

 

So can be said to be non-subjective when it comes to reality itself, including such fundamental matters as our own worldviews?

 

Look around you. What do you see? Is it reality? It looks like reality to me, but I am only able to look at by using my mind (subjectively).

 

So my general thoughts on this is that our perception of reality is subjective (first) based on our experience of reality having to be experienced via our sensory perceptions (our minds). From our conscious experience, emerges our individual collections of observations and perceived knowledge of reality, consequently making reality subjective in that context.

 

HOWEVER, with all that being said, I do think there is such a thing as objective reality – but we can only perceive it imperfectly. Each of us perceives differently from everyone else, and perceives now differently from now. So any objective reality is perceived differently at every observation. However, there are techniques and tools by which we can improve our vision (e.g. science and logic). When we experience consensus, or near consensus with others in reality, such as with science and logic, that is when it is relatively safe for subjects to be “practically” labeled as being objective in reality.

[Francois Tremblay]

Look around you.  What do you see?  Is it reality?  It looks like reality to me, but I am only able to look at by using my mind (subjectively).

 

Oh geese. I think there is a problem with idiots and the word "subjective". How can your MIND be subjective ? "Subjective" means a proposition or a concept that does not refer to facts of reality. Are you saying your mind is imaginary ? In that case I agree, your mind is fictional - you're completely mindless.

 

I have a feeling the clue-stick and my ignore list are going to get a looooot of workout until this thread is over.

[Francois Tremblay]

"Reason is subjective"

"No, that's silly, reason is objective"

"Reason is subjective"

"No, 'subjective' means that it doesn't refer to the facts of reality. Logic and reason refer to the facts of reality."

"Reason is subjective"

"Can you point out, say, what emotion comes in a syllogism ? I can demonstrate you that there's only laws of logic and induction in it, no subjectivity. See here..."

"Reason is subjective"

"Listen to me you fucking idiot. Reason is not subjective ! What else do you want me to demonstate for you ? I've proven it again and again !"

"Reason is subjective. Also, I'll whine for paragraphs about how you're insulting me and you're a very mean man. Waaa"

[Java]

Haba-tan avatar is back, y'all.

 

sub·jec·tive Audio pronunciation of "subjective" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)

adj.

 

1.

1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

 

ob·jec·tive Audio pronunciation of "objective" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-jktv)

adj.

 

1. Of or having to do with a material object.

2. Having actual existence or reality.

3.

1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.

2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

 

 

Furthermore, I would like to just throw out Heisenburg (sp?) here, because it's possible we can't know anything truly objective because when we observe it, it changes. Dunno though, I'm not a phD or nothing, so someone else take that up.

 

Even in the "scientific worldview", we cannot be fully objective. Why? Because everything we observe proceeds through our minds. This is why anthropology has it so rough. When looking through ancient texts, we have to sort through not only our own biases but our sources biases, and that's just if it was a first-hand account. Reason is subjective because it proceeds through our minds.

 

Finally, FOR THE SWEET IPU'S SAKE, kindly try NOT to remind me of Paul Mantana, monsier.

[Francois Tremblay]

You know, it's usually hard to get nihilists to admit that they don't have a mind, but on this thread they volunteer themselves.

 

So... who else thinks his mind is fictional ? I want to know right away who are the idiots so I don't have to ever talk to you again.

[Ro-bear]

So... who else thinks his mind is fictional ? I want to know right away who are the idiots so I don't have to ever talk to you again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I don't think my mind is fictional, Mr. Strawman Pants, but count me in on the stupidity boycott.

 

It's painfully obvious to everyone except you that you've chosen option 3 (see above) anyway.

[Ro-bear]

No, there is already a non-subjective worldview - the rational-scientific worldview. You're the one who's positing that no objective worldview exists, which is patent nonsense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hmm...science without making inferences based on data; science without drawing conclusions. I'll have to think about that.

 

 

 

O.K., I've thought about it. It's not science. It will generate no theories. It will produce no innovations. It's as useful as tits on a boar hog, as my venerable grandfather was fond of saying.

[BlueGiant]

No, there is already a non-subjective worldview - the rational-scientific worldview. You're the one who's positing that no objective worldview exists, which is patent nonsense.

Self-responsibility cannot exist if values cannot exist. How can you get values from the subjective theistic universe ?

If that's so, then I reject all your statements. They are not objective. Bye now.

 

 

Ok, so, Let's address you one by one, kid.

 

Even science notes that it needs a frame of reference for measurements, or did you sleep thorough your relativity lecture? Reason may be a way to get at reality, but is a model system (unless you feel like showing me a paradox that is happening right now, check out Kurt Godel sometime), and while it is a strong approximation, can you verify that it is the whole story?

 

Care to back up your second assertion? You may also want to note that I never said that there is no objective reality, just that we must percieve reality through a subjective layer, there are ways, even if we are stuck in subjective frames of reference. Know anything about signal processing?

 

Third comment: That has no bearing, and seems to be a purile attempt to completely ignore the holes in one's own argument. It is obvious that you are here to shove your own system in our faces, so we can smell the shit, too, and not interested in any sort of debate, meh. Also, thanks for ignoring simple physiology.

 

Looks like we have an athiest fundie here, y'all. I find you an amusing troll, though...can we keep him?

[Valgeir]

Ro-bear,

 

Generally, I would agree with you. However, if you read the strong atheism thread objectivism in morality was discussed to no end, so maybe that'll help you understand Francois' position as it helped me.

[Guest Euthyphro]

Haba-tan avatar is back, y'all.

 

sub·jec·tive   Audio pronunciation of "subjective" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sb-jktv)

adj.

 

   1.

         1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

         2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

 

ob·jec·tive   Audio pronunciation of "objective" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (b-jktv)

adj.

 

   1. Of or having to do with a material object.

   2. Having actual existence or reality.

   3.

         1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.

         2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Furthermore, I would like to just throw out Heisenburg (sp?) here, because it's possible we can't know anything truly objective because when we observe it, it changes.  Dunno though, I'm not a phD or nothing, so someone else take that up.

 

Even in the "scientific worldview", we cannot be fully objective.  Why?  Because everything we observe proceeds through our minds.  This is why anthropology has it so rough.  When looking through ancient texts, we have to sort through not only our own biases but our sources biases, and that's just if it was a first-hand account.  Reason is subjective because it proceeds through our minds.

 

Finally, FOR THE SWEET IPU'S SAKE, kindly try NOT to remind me of Paul Mantana, monsier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Subjective v. Objective Worldviews.."

 

I recon these; >both of them< ,go hand in hand in the thinking process.

 

sub·jec·tive 1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

This is utter nonsense as nothing takes place in the mind that is not contingent of what is or has happened in our environment.

 

The dictionary is not an authority to refer to in this case as it does not explain everything that is going on. The mind records input from the environment. It then refers to its knowlege base which is again contingient on the envirionment and then processes the data. This is all taking place in the mind.

 

2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

So what?

 

Our knowledge base is contingient on stimulous from our environment. What goes on in the mind is thinking and emotions. There is no contradiction between subjective and objective because they are both necassary in placing values on things. We must observe, think and feel to navigate in our environment. To place value on actions or things.

 

*Subjectivety does not conflict with this --> "1. Of or having to do with a material object."

*Or this --> 2. Having actual existence or reality.

 

* Subjectivety does not have to necassarily conflict with this, --> "1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic" , because before we place a value we can to great extent reduce emotionalsim and evaluate before we become emotionaly attached to a value that we place on a thing or action.

 

*Subjectivety is contingient on this --> "2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal."

To say that we do not allways have all the pertinent info is a red herring. We must be aware of what goes on in our environment to place value on things or actions in our environment.

 

So when we say that morality is objective what are we really saying here? To some degree everyone is objective in thier thinking. It must be this definition here that we are using when we say that morality is objective --> "2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal."

 

Sometimes the more we understand what information our, or other peoples, values are based on we may change our values. Emotionalism can keep our minds closed to new information. (circular logic).

It can also cause us to process data in ad-hoc fashion. What we consider moral or immoral can change as we gain more understanding. We can be objective and still not have enough information and must guess. But to be objective we must be open minded to knew info. Morality is objective and subjective. We must observe, think, and feel in order to place a value ,how it relates to us, on SOME THING or some action.

 

Objective morality is superior to just dogmatically keeping our old values regardless of new info that comes in. Secular ethics is superior to dogmatic "morality".

 

Objectivety (vs) Dogmatism. Not Objective (vs) Subjective.

 

Is this better? Yes? No?

[Reality Amplifier]

Oh geese. I think there is a problem with idiots and the word "subjective". How can your MIND be subjective ? "Subjective" means a proposition or a concept that does not refer to facts of reality. Are you saying your mind is imaginary ? In that case I agree, your mind is fictional - you're completely mindless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree there is a problem, but it's only a problem of semantics. When I use the word "Subjective", I mean something that is characteristic of, or belonging to reality as being perceived through our minds. I supplied my definition/usage in my post so my viewpoint would be clear. As I see it, at the most foundational level, all knowledge begins in a subjective context for us, because there's no way around perceiving reality without using our minds.

 

Your usage of the term subjective is simply different than mine, and a few of the others on this thread, hence the disagreements. In your definition, you point to “facts of reality”. How do we discern facts of reality? Through our minds (subjectively).

[Reality Amplifier]

I never said that there is no objective reality, just that we must percieve reality through a subjective layer, there are ways, even if we are stuck in subjective frames of reference. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I concur.

[Francois Tremblay]

Well, it looks like even fictional minds can use PMs. The admin has asked me to lay off the rudeness. Well, it's not gonna happen, so either he asks me to leave or you'll have to live with me ;P

[BlueGiant]

No reason to be overly rude, now, is there, kid? Tends to be counterproductive to discourse at large. And we are still waiting for evidence from you, as opposed to ad hominems and flat assertions.

[Ro-bear]

No reason to be overly rude, now, is there, kid?  Tends to be counterproductive to discourse at large.  And we are still waiting for evidence from you, as opposed to ad hominems and flat assertions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Right you are, BlueGiant. I teach the difference between subjective and objective in my nonfiction unit. I've never had a student diss me in an imaginary conversation, though.

 

Valgeir, you needn't worry that I haven't an open mind about our new friend's ideas. I don't follow all the threads, but I'll look into the one you refer to. Let's just say I'm terribly unimpressed with what I've seen of him so far. I had hoped he'd moderate his tone, but that seems unlikely.

[- AUB -]

Oh dear, time to clear things up again.

 

What an Objectivist does is acknowlage that the mind is easily biased, and prone to a subjective "translation" of reality, but that at least there is a reality, and the best you can do is reduce the subjective bias by having standards of proof for everything, such as logic, empiracism ect. We call a mind "objective" if is has ruduced bias to a low enough level to be able to function, act and comprehend in a way that reflects reality. I think it is possible to do so completely in a sense, not always but if your position on an issue is totaly dictated by logic or facts, then you have a right at least to claim so, and you're more likely to be right than anyone else. You could still be wrong, but you could not do more, we dig for truth, the trick is to dig in the right direction.

 

Its not an absolute state, just a goal to be strived for. What some people seem to want is a metaphysical certainty that can't be reached outside idealism, but at least there are ways to be sure enough to base important things such as ethics and gods on. We trust the method of science as the best way to get to the truth, as reality operates in a way that science can understand, its a presupposition that there is nothing "beyond" the reach of our minds, once we have come 2 trust logic, and empiricism, not blindy but due to its success and constant validation.

 

It would be irrational not to trust what generates results and is never contradicted. It is reasonable to beleive in a reality that every scientific result says is there, and operates according to logical standards, as all proofs are logical and empirical ones. These are the tools to use, and until someone demonstrates there are better ones, I'm sticking to them. I am an objectivist, and naturalist, I am because I want to know the truth, whatever it is, and not due to personal bias, I couldn't care a less if god exists. I have no vested interest, as knowing something is true gives me more satisfaction than whatever it is, i get a great sense of awe for evolution not because i want a sinful life but because it's an amazing thing that is real, it would still be an amazing fiction but of no interest to me, but the reality of it is what gets me, it took a lot of evidence to get me there, but once there I can let my emotions go. I love truth itself, knowing I've got there, I may prefure the book of exodus over the archiological facts, as a narrative, but the truth is what i need, and i can't get that sense of wonder if there's any doubt as to it's reality, and my doubt overides all else, show me empirical proof of god and i'd except it the same way as evolution. It is a bias, like we all have, but ones that eliminates bias, as I never stop digging, the moment you stop is when objectivism becomes dogma, and a love of truth means you're never afraid to test it..

 

I try to state facts not opinions, but I acknowlage by fallibility, but also the power of reason, I've experienced what it can do, and I can't blame FT for his certainty, we all just need patiance here, as its a tricky issue, we're into deeper stuff than just whether jesus was god or a puppet for the worst people who've ever lived. This needs to be dealt with, as the fundys have well thought out paradigms, and we need coherant positions as well.