Super late comment here, but: I think it's very useful to break down this dichotomy into two different dichotomies, and that a *lot* of philosophical problems arise from conflating those two different dichotomies together. On the one hand, there's the dichotomy of objective-as-in-universal vs subjective-as-in-relative, which is about whether there is one single correct answer to a given question such that disagreeing with it means you're incorrect, or there's no correct or incorrect answers at all and just different opinions all equally not-right-or-wrong. On the other hand, there's the dichotomy of objective-as-in-transcendent vs subjective-as-in-phenomenal, which is about whether there can be properties that are completely divorced from any impact they have on anybody's experience of the world, or all properties of all things are nothing above or beyond the differences that they make in someone's experiences. These two dichotomies don't have to line up! The common ontology employed by the physical sciences is objective-as-in-universal but subjective-as-in-phenomenal: there is, on that account, nothing more to reality than the way that it appears, nothing beyond empirical observation, but there is *one single unified* reality that has to be consistent with *all* observations. If you apply the same combination of principles to morality instead of reality, you get something like the axiology used in utilitarianism: goodness consists of something to do with people's experiences (them being pleasurable rather than painful), but there's *one single unified* good that has to be consistent with *all* such experiences, i.e. goodness lies in *everyone's* experience being pleasurable-not-painful, so whatever a good state of affairs is, it's got to somehow or another manage that.
So what if someone says "I love this painting" The object in question is the "i" who lives the painting, and in a sense, that person will love that painting whether or not a subject is there to see it. Is it then objective that this person loves the painting or subjective? If they said "this painting is beautiful" it would be subjective, the object becomes the painting, and whether or not it's beautiful depends solely on the subject perceiving it.
@robmusorpheus5640 haha, I asked a weird question and got a beautiful answer. Thanks for clearing it up. I've always believed myself that, as you said, there are no idiots that haven't been conditioned that way by society and culture. So, if I understand correctly, our perception and our belief will always be subjective? So, for example, subjectively, money has a value beyond its physical properties. However, objectively, it can not provide such values, seeing as it solely depends on whether or not the recipient of such money agrees that it has value. But in itself it's not valuable?
@robmusorpheus5640 oh I see, so in stead of seeing It as black or white, our perception and belief will always be subjective however to a more or less degree. In the end it is subjective but you come closer to an objective truth through scientific reasoning, or other methods that use truth
@robmusorpheus5640 Wow, what an eye-opener. Thank you for taking your time to explain these concepts :) I can't say I fully understand everything yet but I have so many valuable questions from this that I can indulge in more haha. You're truly amazing, thanks.
Subjectivity is ultimately an aspect of objectivity. My subjective experience is an objective fact. It's an objective fact I'm having experiences. Now if my interpretation of an external event is incorrect then its an objective fact that I misinterpreted something. Conscious experience is part of reality as much as any other phenomena happening in the world.
Both are also steps in The Scientific Process. You start with what is Subjective (unknown) before testing, defining, and eventually making it Objective (known). Such is the way of the world.
Society is fucked because of too much subjectivity. Too many embroiled in their nonsense fuelled by their wants needs and desires greed ego etc, Not enough objectivity. Looking beyond oneself.
It's also important to recognize that the tree falling results in vibrations of air pressure, much like any type of vocalized speech, which results in what we understand, after it reaches our ear drums, in a "sound." The "sound" itself, however, might differ from one group of people to another, which is why we have e.g. stark differences in onomatopoetic language. As a result, the tree falling certainly results objectively in those vibrations of air pressure, though the actual "sound" that it produces would be subjective--and not realized without someone around to hear it.
Summary: 1. Objective in a sense that Yes it did make a sound because falling results in vibrations of air pressure. (Kind of a scientific fact?) 2. What kind of sound it made could not be confirmed as no one is around to hear it so whatever anyone says is subjective unless confirmed.
The entire philosophical argument is based on the fact that OUR SENSES THEMSELVES are subjective... You can say "I know for a FACT that when a tree falls it creates vibrations because I can feel them, hear them, and measure them with tools" but all of this really boils down to "I consider the data that my eyes, ears, and nerves send to my brain to be a fact" which in itself, is a subjective opinion about a subjective experience. Then you might say "well all of us scientists agree, all of our senses agree, all of our tools agree, and all of our measurements agree so thats how we know its true" but this in itself, is the definition of a democratic opinion. Something isnt "Objectively true" just because the majority agrees... each agreement or disagreement in itself is a subjective opinion formed from subjective senses The philosophical point is "A brain cannot perceive objectivity" because everybody's senses are different, some people can hear frequencies that others cant, some people can see colors that others cant, every single human perceives the world differently and I hate to be the bearer of bad news... But the entire concept of "disabilities" like "Color blindness" or "Hearing loss" is subjective and based on democratic opinion, somebody literally said "Damn, the majority of people can see these colors, so if you arent in the majority you have a disability because majority = inherently right/normal/objective" same goes for hearing, and every other sense But once again, these things are all based on democratic opinion, just because "the majority of perception agrees" doesnt mean "the majority of perception is objectively right" This is the argument some people use to say things like "Crazy people really know the truth" and "Schizophrenia is really just seeing the matrix for what it is" but the main point that should be derived isnt that "other people know the truth and we dont" its that "A human brain can only perceive things subjectively by using our subjective senses whether you're living a personal experience or looking at data on a screen, and we can only have collectively agreeing subjective experiences, but that alone is not enough evidence to prove they are objective experiences" I could ask you for scientific proof that collective subjective agreement about something is enough to prove that its objective but the truth is, you cant... No one can You can break it down to the collective subjective agreement on the spin of the quarks, leptons, and bosons that we *THINK* make up our universe but I can simply say "why?" or "how?" to whatever "proof" you give and the only things you can say are "well its obvious, its an axiom, it simply has to be true, it doesnt go any further than that, its self explanatory" (which is your opinion) or you can say the truth "we as humans literally do not know and can not prove it, we just go along with it because its worked this far and without it we would be structureless and submerged in self destructive chaos" 🤷
@@Pencil0fDoom I'd call it conceptually recursive; when a word refers to a concept that applies to itself. Conversely there would also be a category called conceptually exclusive, whereby the word refers to a concept of which it is not only NOT an example, but from which it is explicitly excluded. An example that comes to mind is *phonetic*. On the other hand, I do like inventing my own conceptual categories and creating the nomenclature to describe it. Perhaps there's already some semantic formality for these, in other languages (German perhaps?) if not English.
I would add that the word objective has two definitions that get mistaken for each other in dialog. Objective: Mind independent, is that which exists independent of minds. Gravity, mass, blunt force trauma, sound waves propagating in gaseous media. These exist, if anything does, independent of minds. Objective: Stance independent. This is a subset of the subjective, it requires minds, but there is still a truth value independent of opinion. The rules of chess, the value of money, poetry, art and mathematics.
Group consensus is subjectively objective but requires agreement. A large group might have a set of standard/criteria to base decisions off of, but it’s unique to that group.
I would explain it this way: It depends on how you define “sound”. If you define it as the result of a brain’s interpretation of certain physical stimuli, then no, it does not make a sound; however, you can also define it as the physical stimuli themselves that the brain interprets. No answer is incorrect, consider that the question does not inherently imply that we must use the scientific understanding of the phenomenon of sound.
So, if my ears are ringing, is this a sound? Id say it aint. Its just a sensory error. Nobody else can hear it. I think sound is just an air pressure modulation. Hence the terms ultra- and infrasound. We cant perceive neither ultrasound nor infrasound. Yet these forms of sound still perfectly exist. And the vinyl groove is just an analog representation of the sound that has been encoded into it. Aka, its not a sound, its just an analog way of encoding it. A representation of it. Until you play it, to create the air pressure modulations with the speaker, no sound exists.
@@rist98 The ringing in your ears is from nerves. The nerves which carry information that we experience as sound. Those nerves are somehow now agitated due to some sort of physiological cause. That agitation is experienced as sound in the same way as the transmission by those nerves from a perturbation from an outside source. Variation of pressure that propagates through matter as a wave is what we experience as sound once it activates our ear drum and then is converted to a nerve signal. Pattern of vibration traveling through matter, be it air or water etc. is also a analog signal carrying information. The physical signal matter it's self is not the information, no more than the lines on paper that we call letters making up words are the meaning conveyed by those letters. Science uses the word sound in phrases like ultra- and infrasound, but that's just a convention of language and terms, just like a subatomic particle is not really a particle like a piece of dust is.
How can sound be interpreted as an experience? Maybe to some living organisms that come across that as fact, but sound is nothing more than a natural phenomenon, for some there is no experience sometimes can be visually or mentally constructed.
@@TheMightyN any event in consciousness is an experience! We experience sound do we not??? In the objective world prior to you experiencing it it is only waves of vibrations through a medium!
@@DavidKolbSantosh Not always with our physics boundaries where we experience sound is limited via frequencies or is inaccessible. Take sound design or music for example, these fields can experiment with sounds, but the outcome of you perception of what something sounds is somewhat non-existent. It is all up to interpretation.
I'd like to look at the opening question of whether or not the tree made a sound from a different angle: *I spoke and no one was around to hear me. Did I make a sound?* I believe that putting myself in place of the tree proves that the tree indeed does make a sound when it falls though no one was around to hear it.
@@queenelizabethii3149 *Great question!* Do I believe a hearer needs to be present for a sound to be made? No I don't. My proof? I can make sounds without others being present: therefore sounds can still be made without me or others hearing them.
I dont think you can debunk a theory about something being subjective or objective at the end of it its only the angle that your looking at. You gave same exaple as person in this video only referring your self as an " object" insted of the tree.
Jeremy Castro you are conflating “subject” and “object” and thereby ruining the entire point of this functional model. You just plugged the battery into itself and blew up your own ass pocket. You crammed the mic into the amps voice coil and deafened the audience with a screeching feedback loop. If you derive joy from intentionally engaging in this kind of chaotic destruction, you’re probably an insufferable, nihilistic, contrarian prick with rage issues from unresolved trauma. If you do this kind of thing unintentionally, because of a lack of a grasp of these constituent concepts or because you’re being “creative” or you’re an “empath”... you may just be kind of dumb.
I have spent some time recently considering whether reality is objective or subjective. With the aid of science, quantum mechanics specifically, philosophy and any other reasonable input I have shaped my minimal understanding on the matter. The way I see it is as follows, a falling tree will create sound waves and those sound waves will be turned into sound, so to speak, when "collected" by an ear. The sound waves are objective, once they are "collected" by an ear they are then vulnerable to the perception of that ear and the perception of the sound wave by the ear is dependent on the conditioning the ear was subjected to and the biological structure of the ear, thus to say that the perception of the sound wave will be of subjective nature. Given what I have said, I can, uncertainly, say that perhaps there is an actual objective reality that is vulnerable to our ability to perceive it. I appreciate your views and thank you for the opportunity to discuss such matters. Have a great day! :)
Exactly what I just thought. Bc they only let us kno what the higher ups wants us to kno. But my soul is telling me this all is a big coverup from our souls or something. I had to get right where I am n help my children b good nice peoplewho is gonna make the worst mistakes ever in life. N they will all kinds
Another fantastic video. I'm reading a long philosophy book by Bertrand Russell. Your videos are helping me with this and grasping philosophy ideas in general.
Idk man. I enjoy deepening and reviewing my understanding sometimes. I had somebody tell me that I didn't know the difference between the two, so I'm here to make sure that he was inaccurate.
So if someone comes up with an idea and writes it down in a book and then dies he doesn't exist anymore but the things he wrote down still exist, are they objective or subjective? If what he wrote down was a moral system, can this be objective morality?
For anyone that has heard the crashing of a tree in the forest that sound would be objective and for those that never have it would be subjective. A falling tree will always make a sound, however, the sound will always be different. There will be contributing factors surrounding the sound. Yet, giving the description of the sound will vary between people.
Sounds (sound waves) are vibrations. Vibration that can travel through air, liquids, and solids. An ear is an apparatus for hearing a sound produced by vibration. An ear does not "turn it into sound," an ear hears a sound produced by something.
When a vibration is interpreted, or heard, then it becomes sound at least that is the linguistic way of going about it. The idea is that you need an agent to interpret the vibration, what is vibration without someone to claim it is there or to interpret it. An ear does not hear a sound, sound is the linguistic expression we use to say something has a sensational vibration (i.e. any vibration we want to claim is making an impression). An hear doesn't hear a sound, nor is sound produced, to be absolutely correct. A vibration occurs then it is interpreted, because we interpret vibration therefore we call it sound (sound being an expression of vibrational interpretation).
So, if vibration is not interpreted by ears and not heard, then there is no sound? Are you saying sound is when your ear interprets and identifies a certain vibration...then that vibration is called sound?
I am saying that the act of hearing is called sound, which in fact is the interpretation of vibration. For instance when you say that you hear a sound, this is just the normal way of saying my eardrum interpreted a vibration, we just don't talk like that. Again, sound is just a word we use to describe the event of this vibrational sense-data-rendering. The question you should ask yourself: What is vibration without the eardrum? Schrodinger's cat is a great example on the subjective nature of things, if you were looking for a method of defending that you need an ear for a sound (to speak generally). To go a step further, if the act of sound is the interpretation of a vibration, then there is no one around to hear the sound. If the act of a tree falling makes a vibration (which it probably does) then you could say so; however it is in a superposition state between no vibration and vibration, which is where an agent changes the outcome once we interpret it. YA SCIENCE!!!!
Using sound was a bad example in my opinion, because scientifically-speaking if there is no ear drum to receive (hear) the sound vibration, it in fact won’t make “a sound.” Much like a radio transmitter broadcasting music: The waves are ever-present in the air, but without someone receiving them on a radio they produce no sound. In this case the “perception” of the sound makes the phenomenon an object reality.
I’m trying to understand...but as far as the question goes..Yes it does make a sound...doesn’t matter if ur there to hear it or not. All things involved around that tree doesn’t care if ur there to hear it or not, it’ll make a sound regardless. Were not so special to change the reality of a sound the tree makes when it falls if we’re there or not. So yes it makes a sound if no one is there to hear it. If u sent up a tape recorder, I bet u will capture that sound....sorry I blacked out typing this.
He might have meant metaphysical to be our “rational thoughts,” which illustrate a priori knowledge, in contrast to our “empirical thoughts,” which only come from our experiences (which are always subjective).
@@charitiemartino9872 i get what you are trying to explain but "Empirical thoughts" sounds like an oxymoron. Perhaps there is be a better word to explain it.
People who say “everything is subjective” are borderline pretentious. You can stand in front of a wall and argue wether or not it is really there until the cows come home. The bottom line is that if you walk into it you will hit your head, and you will look like a fool. You have the right to perceive this anyway you want, but the result of this is going to be nearly the same for everyone. Here is my (subjective) opinion. Any philosophy that does not have a real world application is of little value, and should not be touted as being more than it is.
+thevisi0nary One might make a distinction between actions and beliefs. I can believe that I am dreaming and therefore the wall does not exist, but that does not give me the ability to walk through it, nor does it mean that I will not walk around it. I understand the frustration with philosophy that does not seem to have any real application to life. The problem is that so much of philosophy builds on itself that it is hard to get rid of one wihtout getting rid of another. For example, most people would claim that ethics has real world applications. That the answer to the quesiton "should gay people be allowed to be married?" or "Should we assasinate a dictator?" are important quesitons. The problem is, depending on your view on philosophy of religion, or epistemology, you might give a different answer. In the end, people that protest gay marriage in the street do so because of a very basic disagreement about metaphisics, the nature of reality. Based on what you believe about these things, will affect your actions. To bring it back to the videosomeone that believes that morality is subjective and someone that believes that morality is objective are going to act very differently. Which of these folks is right is going to depend on a lot of other factors which may not seem applicable right now, but still do influence folks' choices.
As I hinted in my previous comment, universal understanding is a big enough barrier by itself, and language is nothing more than our imperfect solution to this problem.
So basically if a tree (or what we define as a tree) falls in the forest it will make a sound (or the thing that will happen which we humans define as sound)
The mushroom spores rely on the vibrations in the air to propagate, but do they have the consciousness to identify the difference between inaudible vibrations and a "sound"?
Is complexity objective, subjective or both? My husband and I are debating music. He knows a bit about music theory and plays an instrument well. I know music theory is a complicated subject and took piano for several years as a kid. He says, because someone can analyse some pieces of music for hours and others for just minutes, then the longer analysis means that the music is objectively more complex. My question was "what if the piece of music took 10mins to write and the writer said it was really easy but the music theory bod talked about it for 4 hours? Or what if the person took years to write a song with a simple 4 chord progression? Said they really struggled. Is it objectively less complex, because the chord progression is simple, common, shorter? Or is it subjectively more complex because they found it hard? Just because the piece is in the key of E flats half cousin twice removed, rather than C or G, sores that make the song objectively more complex? Even if the person had no clue what chords they were playing? It's a 6 of 1, half a dozen on the other it seems and we still have settled on a definitive answer we're both happy with 🤦🏻♀️🤣
Thank you very much i was doing some excercise on my anxiety and i couldnt grasp the theory of objective thinking , after wathcing this i do understand how this work
Subjective is objective! We just categorize our personal experience as subjective due to practical semantic reasons, forgetting that we as "subjects" is constituted by the same fundamental material as everything else in the physical universe and therefore are objects to. We are experiencing objects that are experiencing other objects. Death to Cartesian dualism!
So, what you are saying is that there are no such things as philosophical zombies? ua-cam.com/video/WPT8YKnL5kQ/v-deo.html That qualia don't really exist? ua-cam.com/video/Zuj0zXfJfZM/v-deo.html That Mary learned nothing new? ua-cam.com/video/myGH0adOuAM/v-deo.html
Just because someone does not perceive the sound caused by the vibrations objectively incurred by the tree falling, does not mean no sound was made. It would be heard by any individual with the proper hearing mechanism that perceives these vibrations, but the vibrations are there independent of the subject.
As we are inherently subjective creatures then we can only perceive a subjective reality.....we can create concepts like objectivity to escape from the limits of our subjectivity. But we can never be objective, that would be like asking an apple to be an orange....
I would say the tree makes no sound without ears to hear it. While I am aware that sound is vibration, the word sound itself functions to distinguish Audible vibrations from the rest of the spectrum of vibration. Without ears to sense or not sense the vibration, there would be no way to set the parameters for which vibrations are sounds and which are just vibrations and the word, “sound” itself would never have been conceived.
I will make a thesis that objectivity comes with knowledge and truth. And the subjectivity of ignorance and desire. Most people will say that beauty is subjective, but after examining it, there is a mathematical and symmetrical in beauty that makes it comfortable for everyone to see, the subjective part of beauty is a preference to choose or because there is no choice.
shall we accept that all terms have an opposite - a duality - if beauty - then there is ugliness, if good there is bad, and if truth there is falsehood. So already we have say that it is not standing on it own but in relation to something else - what is not beauty, or good, or truth - or shall we say that they are two sides of a coin - one can find ugliness in beauty, as beauty in ugliness, bad in good, and good in bad, and truth in falsehood, and falsehood in truth? (similar to the idea of yin and yang - the dancing fishes)
The lessons of this video are informative. However, based on it's explanation this could be lost in translation because the narrator fails to provide any clarity or simpler examples. In short, this video could only be recommended to a knowledgeable audience and nobody outside of it.
MEH NAME It’s not. If it’s subjective, it’s irrelevant to everyone else. No one could hold anyone to a standard. If one person thinks murder is ok, how do you deny that? You can only do so by using objective standards of morality. Subjective morality is self-refuting. Just saying it’s subjective is making a universal claim. I have never met someone who says that, but didn’t mean it universally or as something that applies to everyone. Moral claims are universal statements and universal statements are objective (existing outside ourselves).
@@TheRealRealOK If morality is objective, how is it that most of us disagree? Imo, subjective morality provides space that an objective morality doesn't. A majority of people thinking a certain way, doesn't imply objectivity, because the mere fact that you are *able* to disagree proves itself to be subjective. If that makes any sense...
@O K morality is subjective, the universe doesn't have an opinion and it doesn't judge morality Objectively speaking killing and raping hundreds of kids is no better or worse than helping millions of people get food shelter and careers, factually speaking they are the same in that there is no objective judgment, all judgments are from perception, the concepts of good and evil right and wrong are subjective experience and come from perception hence they have no factual merit Religious idiots like to use this as an argument for their beliefs, but it's a false argument
A more defined modern restatement of the objective vs subjective .. something is objective when everyone can conceive a shared perceptual idea with its source occurrence to a correct alignment of realizable chains reaction consequentially creating one or multiple situations with or without other collateral side effects with its relatable force of momentum it initially manifested itself. Subjective is an idea or reaction from emotional disposition of biases, fallacies and misconceived interpretations to be displayed or expressed in a situation or condition.. Here, we must pay much attention to the subjective case since it is affected by condition which are externally manipulable.
Good, beauty, morality depend entirely on subjects, so subjective. Truth, it depends on the context. True proposition about reality depend on reality, so objective in that case.
Interesting opinions. Some even think truth about propositions is in some way subjective, (ua-cam.com/video/u0EOF56roHI/v-deo.html)(ua-cam.com/video/Oyf0vHpdIFs/v-deo.html).
assalane Umm, should I believe what you’re saying? You literally made a universal claim. Those kinds of claims are objective, not subjective. You refuted your own claim. Truth, beauty, and morality are objective.
"An object exists independent of our perception of it " ? Is there a way to prove that ? The concept of sound is objective or subjective ? The only way to experience life or reality is trough our subjective perspective . How does one decide when to trust one's senses and when not to ? How do you know if anything exists objectively ? While in a dream state everything is "subjective" yet while experiencing the dream there's no doubt about it being the "objective " reality. As a concept, subjective/objective make perfect sense but other than that.......
It is subjective because it depends on the way an individual defines special... Objectively speaking, there is no way to say if one person is more special than another... I think..
What hears it? If no one is around there is no consciousness to separate out the difference between a vibration that cannot be perceived by a consciousness and one that can.
The sun will raise every day, no matter what. We can argue the empirical nature of it. Meaning how do I know that to be true? But it's objective that it will raise. And I don't believe no one in the world will argue this otherwise.
Wyatt Campbell, Your statement is objective. An objective claim that everything is subjective. “ Nothing is real” = another objective statement. Two objective claims in one sentence. Like when people say “ there’s no absolute truth” That’s an absolute statement. Whenever you claim what is or isn’t you’re making an absolute truth claim and therefore being objective.
Objective: Not distorted by emotion or personal bias. (A Fact) Subjective: Of, relating to, or emanating from a persons emotions, prejudices. (An Opinion)
Sound is vibration that move through a medium such as air which can be heard when they reach the ear of a person or animal. Sound, being vibration is objective. How we interpret that sound is objective. If no one is in the forest when a tree falls, it does make a sound however it takes an observer to hear that sound. Anything open to interpretation in subjective. Science is objective because science doesn’t give a rat’s ass if you “believe” in science. Religion is subjective because “belief” can be interpreted in any number of ways.
I'm not sure that science is objective. Theories cannot be tested outside of a paradigm. The paradigm that you pick is dependent on who you are. If something results in a contradiction, we are underdetermined as to how we should act, so only our subjective bias can determine whether to discard our background theories or our hypothesis: ua-cam.com/video/co8adINPCns/v-deo.html
I believe that everything is both ... on different planes of consciousness. What about creation? In absolute time-space creation of everything “occurs” (rather “is”) together with observation of everything. Both are true ... and the same. In relative time and space we can consider them as separate but related. In the latter we can ask ourselves “who is creating?” On one plane we are the tree, or the sound, on another the tree or the sound is a separate object. In the relative plane we can also choose the perspective we speak from. In the absolute all perspectives are the same thing and the creator is the observer.
Objective truths exist free from perception so things like mathematics and statements of fact everything else is subjective including morality and Beauty
When a tree falls in the forest it makes air waves. The question is are air waves objectively sound? No, they are just air waves, it is the air waves that vibrates your ear drum and ultimately your brain interprets that as sound. Yes, the world exists independent of our brains. However, if all human brains disappeared would human "Love" still exist? No. Would the number "6" exist? No. Our concept of physics would disappear but the physical relations (not Forms) upon which physics was conceived would still exist. By trying trying to differential between objective and subjective you, Aristotle, Plato, and Descartes are falling into the same dualism trap.
What if it turns out that the subject and object in some modes of knowing are not separate, not completely independent of each other. Why not explore this as a possibility?
by basing our train of thought on facts. for example, you exepirience gravity all your life, and form your opinion of it, but no matter what your opinion is ,its most important property is that you acknowledge the fact gravity is present and always pulling material together regardless if you are there or not. Thus, you can make a subjective claim of your exepirience and opinion regarding gravity based on this objective property. one can say "I think invisible demons are pulling stuff together" and Einstein with his great physical intuition can blurp some claims of gravity and space-time continuem. the connection between their opinions is the fact "Something" is always pulling stuff together. making an objective claim, with the intuition behind it (demons, and Space-Times model inside Einsteins head).
TheSloppySlender the again it can be said that nothing in life is related but related at the same time. Thus leading a person to attempt to create somethingness out of nothingness which means that there is no objective truth due to humans biased need to understand and connect things together.
Another way to look at it is, fire is hot and that's an objective fact. Remember, if one cant explain something simply then they do not understand it :)
@@armandoc.3150 Oversimplification of a topic does not mean you understand it either. The statement "fire is hot, and that is an objective fact" undermines his initial question. He is questioning how we can say something is objective when we base it on something as subjective as intuition. So simply answering "fire is hot" is not a valid answer to his question, when your own statement does not explain how something like the sensation of temperature (something that is intuitive) can be considered as something objective. After all, the way we perceive the world could be completely different from one another. How can you be so sure that your hot is the same as my hot? Even if you had this in mind when creating that statement, you did not elaborate on how your statement can be used to answer his question. Hence, making your comment invalid.
I think it’s actually wrong to focus on the *sound* of a falling tree because I do believe sound is a subjective experience, in a somewhat less subjective sense the physical reactions of the falling tree seems to be objective with respect to being not dead. Of course, it seems like all things objective are contingent on being alive to know them in the first place (which is subjective). But I think with fanangling it is possible to recognize that anything objective can still be, actually, objective with respect to life or some living agent, or even some inanimate machine around to take in data. Thus all objective things are in a sense subjective, but this subjectivity is 1) spread to multiple agents, not *just you,* and 2) we say that nothing is not subjective, and in doing so define ‘locally objective’ to have the same meaning as full objectivity but limited only to the domain with respect to at least 1 agent. This is sort of bootstrapping, but I think it’s more honest than to say there is no objectivity in the spirit of its ordinary use. After all, I always present this thought experiment to a full blown skeptic: “if everything is subjective, then it shouldn’t matter if I point a gun at you and pull the trigger. Because if I shoot you, then shooting you is subjective, and the results of getting shot, perhaps in the face, should not objectively entail any particular result.” I personally find this to be quite a convincing argument.
A good question. Is mathematics about the real world? What about the world makes mathematical statements true or false? For example, what in the real world makes the product of two negative numbers positive? If it is our beliefs about it, then it is subjective. If it is independent, it is objective. Is Euclidean geometry or non-Euclidean geometry correct? They describe different worlds.
I just moved schools and we have an assignment with a bunch of stuff about language and my old teacher never taught us anything and I’m sitting here in my room watching tutorials
So if you got rid of everything with ear drums on the planet but left a stereo on a loop and with a power source that kept it running forever it would stop existing or rather the sound waves wouldnt be there anymore
Our lack of information due to limitations to technology results in us making that necessary leap of "faith" based on our "subjective" understanding of science (eg. calculations/hypotheses) which is a subjective method for us to understand the world around us. However, even without our subjective understandings, it is a fact that 1+ 1 always = 2, and these conclusions lead us to objective facts which can be concluded without the need for faith and observation. If we had a similar model to explain everything else that occurs, subjectivity will be extinct, the only trace left being the "subjective" methods used by our limited human minds in perceiving objective occurrences. This is why we strive towards progress in technology. In the end, only mechanical apparatuses can provide a truly objective conclusion as they do not hold personal biases and perspectives (think of speedometers in a car, thermometers, etc). As a scientist, I too understand the heartbreaking limitations of the human mind, that it is inevitable we perceive this world through words and feelings, but it is the pleasure of having an opinion that makes life meaningful. It is my belief that subjectivity is the outcome of our failure as humans to be able to perceive the world without biases, but it is also a blessing for us that we might enjoy life and find meaning through our subjective means. tldr; subjectivity is the product of an emotional and humanistic mind, objectivity exists and we try our best to interpret the objective reality through our highly limited subjective means. Words may describe a painting well, but nothing beats observing the painting as it is (even then many subjective processes still takes place in our minds, leaving us far from understanding the full objective properties of the painting).
I would like to use the five minute video on Objective vs subjective in my course on report writing for law enforcement and security officers. What is involved in gaining permission to do so?
I objectively think that a tree falling makes a sound. A person can only subjectively hear it differently than I do. So objectively good and evil exist. Subjectively it’s on the person to feel what they define as good or evil. So do I think objectively or subjectively. Or can there be an understanding of both.
I think so, once you pick the thing to base it on - the rest could be objective. Ie: I pick to do as little harm as possible to other humans - so I can objectively tell if (X) causes harm or does not cause harm to a person, I know hitting them with my car will cause them harm, so I try to avoid them - I can only act based on what information I have at the time I have it, so perhaps turning my wheel so I do not hit the one person causes harm to a group of people I did not see - but the ethic was still sound, I made a choice to move my wheel so I would not harm that person I knew of.
What do you mean "under a given framework?" If this framework must be selected (as it is in our society), it is ultimately subjective. There may be objective truths within this subjective worldview (e.g. rape is objectively wrong in our society) but that doesn't make the general statement (rape is wrong) objectively true. It is only true for us as we made a subjective decision to follow it. For example, there are many who do not see rape as an evil act, and can give a reasoned argument as to why they think this. You could try to argue that they are objectively wrong, but I don't see any reason to believe in an objectively binding set of moral truths.
Josh Cottle "What do you mean "under a given framework?" If this framework must be selected (as it is in our society), it is ultimately subjective." I was referring to ethical theories like Consequential or Utilitarianism. These theories in the end refer to objective states of affairs in reality rather than personal preferences. As for your saying selecting a system makes it subjective does not logically follow. You are saying essentially if you have a choice then it is subjective. That is not how it works. I understand that people disagree on some details of certain moral propositions but no one says that rape is out right okay. Yes, I agree that a lot of people just say their beliefs are moral yet there is a great deal of diversity of opinion what exactly is moral. However, if you agree that morality is truly about the well-being of yourself, others and society, and that some actions either improve that or negate it, and that your are a rational agent, then as that rational agent you should be able to understand "enlighten self interest" and why you ought to follow such a system.
TheAtheistPaladin The theories are ultimately subjective interpretations as to what is to be considered moral in an attempt to reach objectivity. They don't all agree so they cannot all be objective, but as before there are objective truths within their layout. Deontology argues that intentions are the most important indicator of morality, consequentialism argues that the result of the act is more important, etc. As for choice, if there is a range of reasonable selections it is most likely (not always, I agree, but probable) that it is subjective. You might choose that waffles are better than pancakes, someone may disagree. Both of your choices are reasonable, and it is subjective. One society may decide someone's intentions are most important when punishing criminals, others may decide it is more important to punish those based on the results of their actions. Both societies have arguments for their choice, both arguments have substance, so it is likely that it is subjective. You could argue that one society is objectively wrong, but you'd need strong evidence that your framework for morality is objectively true, making it absurd to question it. I see no reason to take any moral framework as objective truth. I won't deny the possibility, in the same way I don't deny the possibility that there is no external world or the possibility that waffles are objectively better than pancakes. The possibility does not make it fact, however, nor does it mean you should consider it to be so. There most certainly are people on this planet who outright believe that rape is right. If you base your moral code on maximising pleasure for the individual rather than the group then rape seems perfectly justified. "However if you agree that morality is truly about the wellbeing of yourself, others and society..." And if I don't agree? I don't believe there is an objective reason beyond our own notions that confirms this to be moral. If we weren't here, would there still be an unwritten law stating that morality is caring for the wellbeing of society? I doubt it.
Josh Cottle "As for choice, if there is a range of reasonable selections it is most likely (not always, I agree, but probable) that it is subjective. You might choose that waffles are better than pancakes, someone may disagree. Both of your choices are reasonable, and it is subjective." THAT is subjective but you didn't link morality to it, you just implied it. Moral choices are not like what you have for breakfast. They effect other people. That is the key difference. Now you can go-on-and-on that people and societies disagree on what is moral, that doesn't matter and it doesn't make it subjective. If that was the case the earth's shape and age would be subjective. There still exist flat earth creationist. That doesn't make anything subjective. Point to different ethical theories and societies all you want but that doesn't make your case. "There most certainly are people on this planet who outright believe that rape is right. If you base your moral code on maximising pleasure for the individual rather than the group then rape seems perfectly justified." And when you start torturing such people for your own pleasure, they will reject it. Thus, it not a self consent theory since they have to special plead about their pleasure and not anyone else's pleasure. Now I doubt such people actually exist. "And if I don't agree? I don't believe there is an objective reason beyond our own notions that confirms this to be moral. If we weren't here, would there still be an unwritten law stating that morality is caring for the wellbeing of society? I doubt it." Well, then you might want to address the rest of what I said. You know, rational agents and "enlightened self interest." Then what rational agent not be interested in wellbeing? If you understand what means to be rational, then is it pretty much implied. I am not trying be condescending but I honestly want you to look up what it means to be rational or a rational agent and "enlightened self interest." Then get back to me. You might actually understand where I am coming from.
Of course the tree that fell in the forest, while no one was around, made a sound. That's a tried and true characteristic of observing the nature of everything. The subjective idea of the philosophical question is the word 'sound' because the word's meaning can be changed to fit into a different narrative. For instance, 'sound' can be defined as a noun or as an action verb, and it is a constant variable in physics and philosophy.
Is a camera or a microphone capable of being subjective in our stead when the tree falls? As in do they qualify as a "someone" when asking if there is anyone to hear it? Probably a dumb question I don't know
Haha. Just because the word objective was picked subjectively, it does not seem that everything that fit into that category was subjective. But that does not mean that the set of all things that are objective is not empty.
however, isn't the claim that "everything is subjective" an objective claim? I believe there is a dualistic relation between objectivity and subjectivity whereby one cannot exist without the other. Ours view of the world is an entirely subjective experience which informs our ability to form objective claims.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Maybe, but I'm more concerned about the poor unaware squirrel sitting underneath it.
They are agreed-upon by the chess player community. They are independent of your personal opinion of them, thus you might find them to be objective. However, if enough chess players came together and agreed that certain rules ruined the game (f.e the queen is too powerful, the rider should move differently), then they could change the rules. Thus, the rules would no longer be independent of subjective opinion. It might be an unlikely scenario, but it is certainly not impossible. So, the rules are objective only if all the chess players decide that they are. But since this state of the rules is dependent upon the opinions of the chess players community, they are, fundamentally, subjective.
@@KommentarSpaltenKrieger Well that is exactly what happened. there was a time when there was no rule you could capture a pawn en passant. Then people decided to change the rules. So what you claim highly unlikely did in fact happen.
If everything a human being can understand is dependent on us perceiving it how can we ever prove that something is objectively true. By nature we are living in a subjective experience? I dont know its confusing to imagine things outside of our perception of it because even just observing an "objective truth" puts it in our brain and makes it a subjective expression of what that thing is? Am I overthinking this??
I think the most flawed point of these definitions are the simple things as "MATH", "REASON" and such. Are they subjective? Based on most of these definitions... yes. They always try to bind "objective" with "concrete", and "subjective" with "abstract", which are different "dimensions", at least in my understanding. It's amazing how "rational" people tend to be not-so self-conscious. They create definitions and supposedly rational theories and guess what they leave out of them... reason itself. Take Freud for example. Nowhere reason can be found in his model of the mind. It's all subjectiveness and feelings. Is it a blind spot? Why isn't it for me then? What am I missing... or what's everyone missing?
Would that be any different than saying if a tree fell one million years ago did it make a sound? Is my presence necessary or are we as beings sayings things can't happen without are existence?
Truth is absolute and universal. Truth is not subjective (personal preference, opinion). Everytime a person who believes truth is subjective claims in absolute terms that truth isn't objective, they act inconsistent to their subjectivism. Even when people claim truth is subjective are making an absolute claim and applying it universally to all as if it's subjective for all. Again, undermining the idea that truth is subjective. Truth is objective, and we can live consistently in it. While we cannot live consistently with the idea of truth being subjective. The reason for this is that truth is not subjective, and people are confusing opinion with truth.
If you consider a sound a translation of the wave by the observers anatomy and not the wave itself the answer's inherently subjective, though if one considers sound the initial energy wave itself then the sound's objection...So is it a chained impression through a medium or a registration of a neurophysiological translation. And does translation work both ways? Can you translate a neurprosthetic recording of a perceived sound to a series of waves through a medium and model the initial cause while disallowing information concerning the initial cause... Probably though the mapping to do do accurately would take a lot of time...
I was watching a video on 'Heidegger and Modern Existentialism'; if I understood what Prof. Barrett was saying correctly, did this distinction (initially) arise as a result of Cartesianism (dualism of the human subject against the external world), or did it originate earlier?
I can't think of anything not symbolized (alphabet). So what we call reality or objective is based on a symbol agreement of meaning that works in favor of survival. It got us this far.
Absolute truth comes from a divine observer who is Objective, while human senses, feelings and experiences are Subjective. We are subjective beings living in a Universe made by an Objective observer who exists outside of space and time. We trust our own senses but never believes in an Objective being who spoke to us through chosen people, partly because we seem to praise ourselves for being highly advanced, and ignoring the fact that this Objective observer who knows each and everyone of us, has a higher knowledge and wisdom that we as human beings couldn't even fathom. This Universe we live in is so finely tuned that we seem to try to ignore the obvious answer.
As I understand it... Subjectively if you didn't hear the tree fall you can't say if it made a sound or not, but objectively by logic, the tree did make a sound .. and tree or an object would know it and you as the subject could only guess/believe... Good?
This made my brain completely explode.
Lol
Welcome to philosophy
thanks helped a lot ...best explanation I got so far.
Thanks!
Yes the online definitions were not cutting it, love the enthusiasm when defining!
Super late comment here, but: I think it's very useful to break down this dichotomy into two different dichotomies, and that a *lot* of philosophical problems arise from conflating those two different dichotomies together.
On the one hand, there's the dichotomy of objective-as-in-universal vs subjective-as-in-relative, which is about whether there is one single correct answer to a given question such that disagreeing with it means you're incorrect, or there's no correct or incorrect answers at all and just different opinions all equally not-right-or-wrong.
On the other hand, there's the dichotomy of objective-as-in-transcendent vs subjective-as-in-phenomenal, which is about whether there can be properties that are completely divorced from any impact they have on anybody's experience of the world, or all properties of all things are nothing above or beyond the differences that they make in someone's experiences.
These two dichotomies don't have to line up! The common ontology employed by the physical sciences is objective-as-in-universal but subjective-as-in-phenomenal: there is, on that account, nothing more to reality than the way that it appears, nothing beyond empirical observation, but there is *one single unified* reality that has to be consistent with *all* observations.
If you apply the same combination of principles to morality instead of reality, you get something like the axiology used in utilitarianism: goodness consists of something to do with people's experiences (them being pleasurable rather than painful), but there's *one single unified* good that has to be consistent with *all* such experiences, i.e. goodness lies in *everyone's* experience being pleasurable-not-painful, so whatever a good state of affairs is, it's got to somehow or another manage that.
So what if someone says "I love this painting"
The object in question is the "i" who lives the painting, and in a sense, that person will love that painting whether or not a subject is there to see it. Is it then objective that this person loves the painting or subjective?
If they said "this painting is beautiful" it would be subjective, the object becomes the painting, and whether or not it's beautiful depends solely on the subject perceiving it.
@robmusorpheus5640 haha, I asked a weird question and got a beautiful answer. Thanks for clearing it up. I've always believed myself that, as you said, there are no idiots that haven't been conditioned that way by society and culture.
So, if I understand correctly, our perception and our belief will always be subjective?
So, for example, subjectively, money has a value beyond its physical properties. However, objectively, it can not provide such values, seeing as it solely depends on whether or not the recipient of such money agrees that it has value. But in itself it's not valuable?
@robmusorpheus5640 oh I see, so in stead of seeing It as black or white, our perception and belief will always be subjective however to a more or less degree. In the end it is subjective but you come closer to an objective truth through scientific reasoning, or other methods that use truth
@robmusorpheus5640 Wow, what an eye-opener. Thank you for taking your time to explain these concepts :)
I can't say I fully understand everything yet but I have so many valuable questions from this that I can indulge in more haha. You're truly amazing, thanks.
Subjectivity is ultimately an aspect of objectivity. My subjective experience is an objective fact. It's an objective fact I'm having experiences. Now if my interpretation of an external event is incorrect then its an objective fact that I misinterpreted something.
Conscious experience is part of reality as much as any other phenomena happening in the world.
Both are also steps in The Scientific Process.
You start with what is Subjective (unknown) before testing, defining, and eventually making it Objective (known).
Such is the way of the world.
I remebered myself when I used to leave my dolls in the room and look at them behind the door so that they can speak comfortably
sign of genius
So sweet ,such a creahve experience
aw
I used to tear paper and make figures and play with it (although I had toys but they couldn't the split I was hoping lmao)
Society is fucked because of too much subjectivity. Too many embroiled in their nonsense fuelled by their wants needs and desires greed ego etc, Not enough objectivity. Looking beyond oneself.
It's also important to recognize that the tree falling results in vibrations of air pressure, much like any type of vocalized speech, which results in what we understand, after it reaches our ear drums, in a "sound." The "sound" itself, however, might differ from one group of people to another, which is why we have e.g. stark differences in onomatopoetic language. As a result, the tree falling certainly results objectively in those vibrations of air pressure, though the actual "sound" that it produces would be subjective--and not realized without someone around to hear it.
Cant fault that analysis. I agree.
Is it what?
Summary:
1. Objective in a sense that Yes it did make a sound because falling results in vibrations of air pressure. (Kind of a scientific fact?)
2. What kind of sound it made could not be confirmed as no one is around to hear it so whatever anyone says is subjective unless confirmed.
Not necessarily. Kant would argue even these vibrations come from our sense interface with the world rather than a direct perception of reality.
The entire philosophical argument is based on the fact that OUR SENSES THEMSELVES are subjective... You can say "I know for a FACT that when a tree falls it creates vibrations because I can feel them, hear them, and measure them with tools" but all of this really boils down to "I consider the data that my eyes, ears, and nerves send to my brain to be a fact" which in itself, is a subjective opinion about a subjective experience.
Then you might say "well all of us scientists agree, all of our senses agree, all of our tools agree, and all of our measurements agree so thats how we know its true" but this in itself, is the definition of a democratic opinion. Something isnt "Objectively true" just because the majority agrees... each agreement or disagreement in itself is a subjective opinion formed from subjective senses
The philosophical point is "A brain cannot perceive objectivity" because everybody's senses are different, some people can hear frequencies that others cant, some people can see colors that others cant, every single human perceives the world differently and I hate to be the bearer of bad news... But the entire concept of "disabilities" like "Color blindness" or "Hearing loss" is subjective and based on democratic opinion, somebody literally said "Damn, the majority of people can see these colors, so if you arent in the majority you have a disability because majority = inherently right/normal/objective" same goes for hearing, and every other sense
But once again, these things are all based on democratic opinion, just because "the majority of perception agrees" doesnt mean "the majority of perception is objectively right"
This is the argument some people use to say things like "Crazy people really know the truth" and "Schizophrenia is really just seeing the matrix for what it is" but the main point that should be derived isnt that "other people know the truth and we dont" its that "A human brain can only perceive things subjectively by using our subjective senses whether you're living a personal experience or looking at data on a screen, and we can only have collectively agreeing subjective experiences, but that alone is not enough evidence to prove they are objective experiences"
I could ask you for scientific proof that collective subjective agreement about something is enough to prove that its objective but the truth is, you cant... No one can
You can break it down to the collective subjective agreement on the spin of the quarks, leptons, and bosons that we *THINK* make up our universe but I can simply say "why?" or "how?" to whatever "proof" you give and the only things you can say are "well its obvious, its an axiom, it simply has to be true, it doesnt go any further than that, its self explanatory" (which is your opinion) or you can say the truth "we as humans literally do not know and can not prove it, we just go along with it because its worked this far and without it we would be structureless and submerged in self destructive chaos" 🤷
even the definition of subjective is subjective,
also the definition of definiton is subjective
Those sound like some good reasons to be a skeptic. :) And a bit like The Rule Following Paradox. ua-cam.com/video/hrfIk4eOuN8/v-deo.html
Avdam Ramadhan the word “example” is an example of itself. So is the word “word”. How many of these exist in English and what is the category called?
@@Pencil0fDoom I think they're called self elaborated terms. That might just be layman though.
@@Pencil0fDoom I'd call it conceptually recursive; when a word refers to a concept that applies to itself. Conversely there would also be a category called conceptually exclusive, whereby the word refers to a concept of which it is not only NOT an example, but from which it is explicitly excluded. An example that comes to mind is *phonetic*.
On the other hand, I do like inventing my own conceptual categories and creating the nomenclature to describe it. Perhaps there's already some semantic formality for these, in other languages (German perhaps?) if not English.
So we can say everything is subjective ??
I would add that the word objective has two definitions that get mistaken for each other in dialog.
Objective: Mind independent, is that which exists independent of minds. Gravity, mass, blunt force trauma, sound waves propagating in gaseous media. These exist, if anything does, independent of minds.
Objective: Stance independent. This is a subset of the subjective, it requires minds, but there is still a truth value independent of opinion. The rules of chess, the value of money, poetry, art and mathematics.
Group consensus is subjectively objective but requires agreement.
A large group might have a set of standard/criteria to base decisions off of, but it’s unique to that group.
@@2097bugs I would say that is the measurable one. All measurements are social constructs.
I would explain it this way:
It depends on how you define “sound”. If you define it as the result of a brain’s interpretation of certain physical stimuli, then no, it does not make a sound; however, you can also define it as the physical stimuli themselves that the brain interprets. No answer is incorrect, consider that the question does not inherently imply that we must use the scientific understanding of the phenomenon of sound.
if there is another person hearing the falling tree and he telling you about the sound. does the sound still subjective?
scientific definitions are not subjective.
@@yashasvi2no scientific definition can be subjective its just matter of time
Objectivity is self evident and stands alone on it's own power.
Only Subjectivity and Relativism want all the Power for themselves to absolutely define truth and moral values.
Well then, does a chair in a room stand alone on it's own power if there is no eye to see it?
@@melvin292 yeah! Facts exist independent of anyone’s say so
@@thecarlitosshow7687 but you’re saying so :) i think objectivity and subjectivity’s relationship is a compatible paradox
@@SleepingChimesmy point was that Reality doesn’t depend on us. It would still exist without anyones say so.
The vibrations moving through air are no more sound than are the grooves on a vinyl record...it is just encoded information. Sound is an experience.
So, if my ears are ringing, is this a sound? Id say it aint. Its just a sensory error. Nobody else can hear it.
I think sound is just an air pressure modulation. Hence the terms ultra- and infrasound. We cant perceive neither ultrasound nor infrasound. Yet these forms of sound still perfectly exist.
And the vinyl groove is just an analog representation of the sound that has been encoded into it. Aka, its not a sound, its just an analog way of encoding it. A representation of it. Until you play it, to create the air pressure modulations with the speaker, no sound exists.
@@rist98 The ringing in your ears is from nerves. The nerves which carry information that we experience as sound. Those nerves are somehow now agitated due to some sort of physiological cause. That agitation is experienced as sound in the same way as the transmission by those nerves from a perturbation from an outside source. Variation of pressure that propagates through matter as a wave is what we experience as sound once it activates our ear drum and then is converted to a nerve signal. Pattern of vibration traveling through matter, be it air or water etc. is also a analog signal carrying information. The physical signal matter it's self is not the information, no more than the lines on paper that we call letters making up words are the meaning conveyed by those letters. Science uses the word sound in phrases like ultra- and infrasound, but that's just a convention of language and terms, just like a subatomic particle is not really a particle like a piece of dust is.
How can sound be interpreted as an experience? Maybe to some living organisms that come across that as fact, but sound is nothing more than a natural phenomenon, for some there is no experience sometimes can be visually or mentally constructed.
@@TheMightyN any event in consciousness is an experience! We experience sound do we not??? In the objective world prior to you experiencing it it is only waves of vibrations through a medium!
@@DavidKolbSantosh Not always with our physics boundaries where we experience sound is limited via frequencies or is inaccessible. Take sound design or music for example, these fields can experiment with sounds, but the outcome of you perception of what something sounds is somewhat non-existent. It is all up to interpretation.
The pacing in this video is comparable to the speed of light
Finally, I won’t mix those two words again. Thank you for this great clear Video.
I'd like to look at the opening question of whether or not the tree made a sound from a different angle:
*I spoke and no one was around to hear me. Did I make a sound?*
I believe that putting myself in place of the tree proves that the tree indeed does make a sound when it falls though no one was around to hear it.
How would you apply "I think, therefore, I am" to this?
@@queenelizabethii3149 *Great question!* Do I believe a hearer needs to be present for a sound to be made? No I don't. My proof? I can make sounds without others being present: therefore sounds can still be made without me or others hearing them.
I dont think you can debunk a theory about something being subjective or objective at the end of it its only the angle that your looking at. You gave same exaple as person in this video only referring your self as an " object" insted of the tree.
Its a kind of question that can be compared to a schrödingers cat example, kind of paradoxal isn't it?
Jeremy Castro you are conflating “subject” and “object” and thereby ruining the entire point of this functional model. You just plugged the battery into itself and blew up your own ass pocket. You crammed the mic into the amps voice coil and deafened the audience with a screeching feedback loop.
If you derive joy from intentionally engaging in this kind of chaotic destruction, you’re probably an insufferable, nihilistic, contrarian prick with rage issues from unresolved trauma. If you do this kind of thing unintentionally, because of a lack of a grasp of these constituent concepts or because you’re being “creative” or you’re an “empath”... you may just be kind of dumb.
I have spent some time recently considering whether reality is objective or subjective. With the aid of science, quantum mechanics specifically, philosophy and any other reasonable input I have shaped my minimal understanding on the matter. The way I see it is as follows, a falling tree will create sound waves and those sound waves will be turned into sound, so to speak, when "collected" by an ear. The sound waves are objective, once they are "collected" by an ear they are then vulnerable to the perception of that ear and the perception of the sound wave by the ear is dependent on the conditioning the ear was subjected to and the biological structure of the ear, thus to say that the perception of the sound wave will be of subjective nature. Given what I have said, I can, uncertainly, say that perhaps there is an actual objective reality that is vulnerable to our ability to perceive it. I appreciate your views and thank you for the opportunity to discuss such matters. Have a great day! :)
How did I get to this part of UA-cam
HAHAHAHAHA
Exactly what I just thought. Bc they only let us kno what the higher ups wants us to kno. But my soul is telling me this all is a big coverup from our souls or something. I had to get right where I am n help my children b good nice peoplewho is gonna make the worst mistakes ever in life. N they will all kinds
Another fantastic video.
I'm reading a long philosophy book by Bertrand Russell. Your videos are helping me with this and grasping philosophy ideas in general.
Yeah yeah, just make it simple.
Objective is what exist(no matter we exist or not)
Subjective is our opinion.
I feel stupid now for not looking at the comments first
@@ethanmotwani1889 Same, ha ha.
Idk man. I enjoy deepening and reviewing my understanding sometimes. I had somebody tell me that I didn't know the difference between the two, so I'm here to make sure that he was inaccurate.
@@joeysimoneau Same with me too bro
So if someone comes up with an idea and writes it down in a book and then dies he doesn't exist anymore but the things he wrote down still exist, are they objective or subjective?
If what he wrote down was a moral system, can this be objective morality?
For anyone that has heard the crashing of a tree in the forest that sound would be objective and for those that never have it would be subjective. A falling tree will always make a sound, however, the sound will always be different. There will be contributing factors surrounding the sound. Yet, giving the description of the sound will vary between people.
A tree will certainly make vibration, but their will be no ear to turn it into sound. So the answer is no, no one is around to hear it.
Sounds (sound waves) are vibrations. Vibration that can travel through air, liquids, and solids. An ear is an apparatus for hearing a sound produced by vibration. An ear does not "turn it into sound," an ear hears a sound produced by something.
When a vibration is interpreted, or heard, then it becomes sound at least that is the linguistic way of going about it. The idea is that you need an agent to interpret the vibration, what is vibration without someone to claim it is there or to interpret it. An ear does not hear a sound, sound is the linguistic expression we use to say something has a sensational vibration (i.e. any vibration we want to claim is making an impression). An hear doesn't hear a sound, nor is sound produced, to be absolutely correct. A vibration occurs then it is interpreted, because we interpret vibration therefore we call it sound (sound being an expression of vibrational interpretation).
So, if vibration is not interpreted by ears and not heard, then there is no sound? Are you saying sound is when your ear interprets and identifies a certain vibration...then that vibration is called sound?
I am saying that the act of hearing is called sound, which in fact is the interpretation of vibration. For instance when you say that you hear a sound, this is just the normal way of saying my eardrum interpreted a vibration, we just don't talk like that. Again, sound is just a word we use to describe the event of this vibrational sense-data-rendering. The question you should ask yourself: What is vibration without the eardrum? Schrodinger's cat is a great example on the subjective nature of things, if you were looking for a method of defending that you need an ear for a sound (to speak generally). To go a step further, if the act of sound is the interpretation of a vibration, then there is no one around to hear the sound. If the act of a tree falling makes a vibration (which it probably does) then you could say so; however it is in a superposition state between no vibration and vibration, which is where an agent changes the outcome once we interpret it. YA SCIENCE!!!!
Subjectivity is everything including this text!
Using sound was a bad example in my opinion, because scientifically-speaking if there is no ear drum to receive (hear) the sound vibration, it in fact won’t make “a sound.” Much like a radio transmitter broadcasting music: The waves are ever-present in the air, but without someone receiving them on a radio they produce no sound. In this case the “perception” of the sound makes the phenomenon an object reality.
I’m trying to understand...but as far as the question goes..Yes it does make a sound...doesn’t matter if ur there to hear it or not. All things involved around that tree doesn’t care if ur there to hear it or not, it’ll make a sound regardless. Were not so special to change the reality of a sound the tree makes when it falls if we’re there or not. So yes it makes a sound if no one is there to hear it. If u sent up a tape recorder, I bet u will capture that sound....sorry I blacked out typing this.
Or you can just make your own falling tree sound as it hit the ground. 😂
Thanks! Finally got the doubts cleared!
I'm glad to help.
Error @ 1:15. METAPHYSICAL = of or relating to things THOUGHT to exist but cannot be observed (measured). This is SUBjective!!!
Thank you for pointing this out. I think he meant to say "Physical". But I thought the same thing upon watching the video.
Wrong
He might have meant metaphysical to be our “rational thoughts,” which illustrate a priori knowledge, in contrast to our “empirical thoughts,” which only come from our experiences (which are always subjective).
@@charitiemartino9872 i get what you are trying to explain but "Empirical thoughts" sounds like an oxymoron.
Perhaps there is be a better word to explain it.
People who say “everything is subjective” are borderline pretentious. You can stand in front of a wall and argue wether or not it is really there until the cows come home. The bottom line is that if you walk into it you will hit your head, and you will look like a fool. You have the right to perceive this anyway you want, but the result of this is going to be nearly the same for everyone.
Here is my (subjective) opinion. Any philosophy that does not have a real world application is of little value, and should not be touted as being more than it is.
What if what you call a wall I think it is something else lol
+thevisi0nary One might make a distinction between actions and beliefs. I can believe that I am dreaming and therefore the wall does not exist, but that does not give me the ability to walk through it, nor does it mean that I will not walk around it.
I understand the frustration with philosophy that does not seem to have any real application to life. The problem is that so much of philosophy builds on itself that it is hard to get rid of one wihtout getting rid of another. For example, most people would claim that ethics has real world applications. That the answer to the quesiton "should gay people be allowed to be married?" or "Should we assasinate a dictator?" are important quesitons. The problem is, depending on your view on philosophy of religion, or epistemology, you might give a different answer. In the end, people that protest gay marriage in the street do so because of a very basic disagreement about metaphisics, the nature of reality. Based on what you believe about these things, will affect your actions.
To bring it back to the videosomeone that believes that morality is subjective and someone that believes that morality is objective are going to act very differently. Which of these folks is right is going to depend on a lot of other factors which may not seem applicable right now, but still do influence folks' choices.
+Keyonte And then of course there are concerns in philosophy of language which might seem obscure, but what are we if we can't communicate?
Our perception is limited in my opinion where as some people think it is enough.
As I hinted in my previous comment, universal understanding is a big enough barrier by itself, and language is nothing more than our imperfect solution to this problem.
So basically if a tree (or what we define as a tree) falls in the forest it will make a sound (or the thing that will happen which we humans define as sound)
Thank you for this video, i thought you explained everything well and i finally know what objective and subjective mean.
Thanks! Glad it helped.
I remember in middle school the teacher asked this in class about the tree making the sound. I raised my hand.
🏅👏
Emotionally, we are thrilled to announce that the confirmation of your Sales Incentive payment has been processed.
0:35 yes it absolutely made a sound cause there are mushroom spores relying on that sound to propagate
The mushroom spores rely on the vibrations in the air to propagate, but do they have the consciousness to identify the difference between inaudible vibrations and a "sound"?
Dude, I just came across your page. Thank you for your hard work on putting all this info out.
Is complexity objective, subjective or both?
My husband and I are debating music. He knows a bit about music theory and plays an instrument well. I know music theory is a complicated subject and took piano for several years as a kid.
He says, because someone can analyse some pieces of music for hours and others for just minutes, then the longer analysis means that the music is objectively more complex.
My question was "what if the piece of music took 10mins to write and the writer said it was really easy but the music theory bod talked about it for 4 hours? Or what if the person took years to write a song with a simple 4 chord progression? Said they really struggled. Is it objectively less complex, because the chord progression is simple, common, shorter? Or is it subjectively more complex because they found it hard?
Just because the piece is in the key of E flats half cousin twice removed, rather than C or G, sores that make the song objectively more complex? Even if the person had no clue what chords they were playing?
It's a 6 of 1, half a dozen on the other it seems and we still have settled on a definitive answer we're both happy with 🤦🏻♀️🤣
Geeeeze. I needed this... subjectively.
Thank you very much i was doing some excercise on my anxiety and i couldnt grasp the theory of objective thinking , after wathcing this i do understand how this work
Subjective is objective! We just categorize our personal experience as subjective due to practical semantic reasons, forgetting that we as "subjects" is constituted by the same fundamental material as everything else in the physical universe and therefore are objects to. We are experiencing objects that are experiencing other objects. Death to Cartesian dualism!
So, what you are saying is that there are no such things as philosophical zombies? ua-cam.com/video/WPT8YKnL5kQ/v-deo.html That qualia don't really exist? ua-cam.com/video/Zuj0zXfJfZM/v-deo.html That Mary learned nothing new? ua-cam.com/video/myGH0adOuAM/v-deo.html
Very good to know the difference.
Objective is quantitative whilst subjective is qualitative.
Sound is objective as it's measurable, whilst music preference is subjective.
Simply the best.. 🙏🏼👍🏼
Just because someone does not perceive the sound caused by the vibrations objectively incurred by the tree falling, does not mean no sound was made. It would be heard by any individual with the proper hearing mechanism that perceives these vibrations, but the vibrations are there independent of the subject.
As we are inherently subjective creatures then we can only perceive a subjective reality.....we can create concepts like objectivity to escape from the limits of our subjectivity. But we can never be objective, that would be like asking an apple to be an orange....
I would say the tree makes no sound without ears to hear it. While I am aware that sound is vibration, the word sound itself functions to distinguish Audible vibrations from the rest of the spectrum of vibration. Without ears to sense or not sense the vibration, there would be no way to set the parameters for which vibrations are sounds and which are just vibrations and the word, “sound” itself would never have been conceived.
It still makes sound, just that no one is there...
He means sound must have someone be observing it
I will make a thesis that objectivity comes with knowledge and truth. And the subjectivity of ignorance and desire. Most people will say that beauty is subjective, but after examining it, there is a mathematical and symmetrical in beauty that makes it comfortable for everyone to see, the subjective part of beauty is a preference to choose or because there is no choice.
shall we accept that all terms have an opposite - a duality - if beauty - then there is ugliness, if good there is bad, and if truth there is falsehood.
So already we have say that it is not standing on it own but in relation to something else - what is not beauty, or good, or truth -
or shall we say that they are two sides of a coin - one can find ugliness in beauty, as beauty in ugliness, bad in good, and good in bad, and truth in falsehood, and falsehood in truth?
(similar to the idea of yin and yang - the dancing fishes)
Really explanatory! Thank you very much
Glad you enjoyed! Thanks for watching.
The lessons of this video are informative. However, based on it's explanation this could be lost in translation because the narrator fails to provide any clarity or simpler examples. In short, this video could only be recommended to a knowledgeable audience and nobody outside of it.
if i close my eyes does everything disappear until i open my eyes again?
We assume it doesn't because that assumption has worked so far in life and also seems intuitive...
Do you have any comments on whether morality is subjective ?
MEH NAME It’s not. If it’s subjective, it’s irrelevant to everyone else. No one could hold anyone to a standard. If one person thinks murder is ok, how do you deny that? You can only do so by using objective standards of morality. Subjective morality is self-refuting. Just saying it’s subjective is making a universal claim. I have never met someone who says that, but didn’t mean it universally or as something that applies to everyone. Moral claims are universal statements and universal statements are objective (existing outside ourselves).
@@TheRealRealOK If morality is objective, how is it that most of us disagree? Imo, subjective morality provides space that an objective morality doesn't. A majority of people thinking a certain way, doesn't imply objectivity, because the mere fact that you are *able* to disagree proves itself to be subjective. If that makes any sense...
@@Naijiri. we just don't know what is true.
preschoolers can argue what 12/3=
Does that mean that any cancer was right?
@Naijiri you are spot on the fact that perception can influence morality means it's not objective
@O K morality is subjective, the universe doesn't have an opinion and it doesn't judge morality
Objectively speaking killing and raping hundreds of kids is no better or worse than helping millions of people get food shelter and careers, factually speaking they are the same in that there is no objective judgment, all judgments are from perception, the concepts of good and evil right and wrong are subjective experience and come from perception hence they have no factual merit
Religious idiots like to use this as an argument for their beliefs, but it's a false argument
A more defined modern restatement of the objective vs subjective .. something is objective when everyone can conceive a shared perceptual idea with its source occurrence to a correct alignment of realizable chains reaction consequentially creating one or multiple situations with or without other collateral side effects with its relatable force of momentum it initially manifested itself.
Subjective is an idea or reaction from emotional disposition of biases, fallacies and misconceived interpretations to be displayed or expressed in a situation or condition..
Here, we must pay much attention to the subjective case since it is affected by condition which are externally manipulable.
Good, beauty, morality depend entirely on subjects, so subjective.
Truth, it depends on the context. True proposition about reality depend on reality, so objective in that case.
Interesting opinions. Some even think truth about propositions is in some way subjective, (ua-cam.com/video/u0EOF56roHI/v-deo.html)(ua-cam.com/video/Oyf0vHpdIFs/v-deo.html).
If good is subjective then morality is subjective as well i.e moral relativity
assalane Umm, should I believe what you’re saying? You literally made a universal claim. Those kinds of claims are objective, not subjective. You refuted your own claim.
Truth, beauty, and morality are objective.
@@TheRealRealOK well you made the same mistake by claiming that universal claims are objective.
O K beauty and morality do not seem to be objective because they don’t have standards upon which we can decipher whether they are objective
very good video deserves more views
Nicely put, bro. Thanks a lot.
"An object exists independent of our perception of it " ? Is there a way to prove that ? The concept of sound is objective or subjective ? The only way to experience life or reality is trough our subjective perspective . How does one decide when to trust one's senses and when not to ? How do you know if anything exists objectively ? While in a dream state everything is "subjective" yet while experiencing the dream there's no doubt about it being the "objective " reality. As a concept, subjective/objective make perfect sense but other than that.......
Are there people who are "special" or is everyone special? Is special objective or subjective?
It is subjective because it depends on the way an individual defines special... Objectively speaking, there is no way to say if one person is more special than another... I think..
"... stay skeptical everybody." That's funny; objectively skeptical, Goethe's dilemma.
Even if no one's around something "hears" it.
What hears it? If no one is around there is no consciousness to separate out the difference between a vibration that cannot be perceived by a consciousness and one that can.
is anything really objective when all reality is determined to be objective or subjective by we, the subjects?
The sun will raise every day, no matter what. We can argue the empirical nature of it. Meaning how do I know that to be true? But it's objective that it will raise. And I don't believe no one in the world will argue this otherwise.
Everything is subjective! Nothing is real! Words are just something we use to communicate abstract thoughts!
Wyatt Campbell what about your consciousness? Is that subjective or objective?
Wyatt Campbell, Your statement is objective. An objective claim that everything is subjective.
“ Nothing is real” = another objective statement.
Two objective claims in one sentence.
Like when people say “ there’s no absolute truth”
That’s an absolute statement.
Whenever you claim what is or isn’t you’re making an absolute truth claim and therefore being objective.
Pain can be measured objectively. Touch a hot stove and you will be burned. Therefore you don’t touch the stove.
I wonder what’s ur understanding of multiple realities. I’ve stuck in this concept for a few months, could u share ur understanding with me?
@@shahzadjawaid8296 Thx for ur reply
Objective: Not distorted by emotion or personal bias. (A Fact)
Subjective: Of, relating to, or emanating from a persons emotions, prejudices. (An Opinion)
LEAFY GUITAR SOLOS methinks a rock then can only ever be objective eh?
WE OBEY JESUS Better than video your answer
Sound is vibration that move through a medium such as air which can be heard when they reach the ear of a person or animal. Sound, being vibration is objective. How we interpret that sound is objective. If no one is in the forest when a tree falls, it does make a sound however it takes an observer to hear that sound. Anything open to interpretation in subjective. Science is objective because science doesn’t give a rat’s ass if you “believe” in science. Religion is subjective because “belief” can be interpreted in any number of ways.
I'm not sure that science is objective. Theories cannot be tested outside of a paradigm. The paradigm that you pick is dependent on who you are. If something results in a contradiction, we are underdetermined as to how we should act, so only our subjective bias can determine whether to discard our background theories or our hypothesis: ua-cam.com/video/co8adINPCns/v-deo.html
I believe that everything is both ... on different planes of consciousness. What about creation? In absolute time-space creation of everything “occurs” (rather “is”) together with observation of everything. Both are true ... and the same. In relative time and space we can consider them as separate but related. In the latter we can ask ourselves “who is creating?” On one plane we are the tree, or the sound, on another the tree or the sound is a separate object. In the relative plane we can also choose the perspective we speak from. In the absolute all perspectives are the same thing and the creator is the observer.
Objective truths exist free from perception so things like mathematics and statements of fact everything else is subjective including morality and Beauty
When a tree falls in the forest it makes air waves. The question is are air waves objectively sound? No, they are just air waves, it is the air waves that vibrates your ear drum and ultimately your brain interprets that as sound. Yes, the world exists independent of our brains. However, if all human brains disappeared would human "Love" still exist? No. Would the number "6" exist? No. Our concept of physics would disappear but the physical relations (not Forms) upon which physics was conceived would still exist. By trying trying to differential between objective and subjective you, Aristotle, Plato, and Descartes are falling into the same dualism trap.
What if it turns out that the subject and object in some modes of knowing are not separate, not completely independent of each other. Why not explore this as a possibility?
Subjectiveness is the lens people see the world through.
This is an amazing example.
Intuitively?...how can we make objective claims with subjective intuition?
Lizica Dumitru exactly lmfao
by basing our train of thought on facts. for example, you exepirience gravity all your life, and form your opinion of it, but no matter what your opinion is ,its most important property is that you acknowledge the fact gravity is present and always pulling material together regardless if you are there or not. Thus, you can make a subjective claim of your exepirience and opinion regarding gravity based on this objective property. one can say "I think invisible demons are pulling stuff together"
and Einstein with his great physical intuition can blurp some claims of gravity and space-time continuem. the connection between their opinions is the fact "Something" is always pulling stuff together. making an objective claim, with the intuition behind it (demons, and Space-Times model inside Einsteins head).
TheSloppySlender the again it can be said that nothing in life is related but related at the same time. Thus leading a person to attempt to create somethingness out of nothingness which means that there is no objective truth due to humans biased need to understand and connect things together.
Another way to look at it is, fire is hot and that's an objective fact. Remember, if one cant explain something simply then they do not understand it :)
@@armandoc.3150 Oversimplification of a topic does not mean you understand it either. The statement "fire is hot, and that is an objective fact" undermines his initial question. He is questioning how we can say something is objective when we base it on something as subjective as intuition. So simply answering "fire is hot" is not a valid answer to his question, when your own statement does not explain how something like the sensation of temperature (something that is intuitive) can be considered as something objective. After all, the way we perceive the world could be completely different from one another.
How can you be so sure that your hot is the same as my hot?
Even if you had this in mind when creating that statement, you did not elaborate on how your statement can be used to answer his question. Hence, making your comment invalid.
I think it’s actually wrong to focus on the *sound* of a falling tree because I do believe sound is a subjective experience, in a somewhat less subjective sense the physical reactions of the falling tree seems to be objective with respect to being not dead.
Of course, it seems like all things objective are contingent on being alive to know them in the first place (which is subjective). But I think with fanangling it is possible to recognize that anything objective can still be, actually, objective with respect to life or some living agent, or even some inanimate machine around to take in data.
Thus all objective things are in a sense subjective, but this subjectivity is 1) spread to multiple agents, not *just you,* and 2) we say that nothing is not subjective, and in doing so define ‘locally objective’ to have the same meaning as full objectivity but limited only to the domain with respect to at least 1 agent.
This is sort of bootstrapping, but I think it’s more honest than to say there is no objectivity in the spirit of its ordinary use. After all, I always present this thought experiment to a full blown skeptic: “if everything is subjective, then it shouldn’t matter if I point a gun at you and pull the trigger. Because if I shoot you, then shooting you is subjective, and the results of getting shot, perhaps in the face, should not objectively entail any particular result.”
I personally find this to be quite a convincing argument.
Robert Wilson III did not read
Is mathematics objective or subjective? Did we created mathematics or did we discovered it?
A good question. Is mathematics about the real world? What about the world makes mathematical statements true or false? For example, what in the real world makes the product of two negative numbers positive? If it is our beliefs about it, then it is subjective. If it is independent, it is objective. Is Euclidean geometry or non-Euclidean geometry correct? They describe different worlds.
I just moved schools and we have an assignment with a bunch of stuff about language and my old teacher never taught us anything and I’m sitting here in my room watching tutorials
I am glad to help. :)
You got me through the assignment check! Thanks!
So if you got rid of everything with ear drums on the planet but left a stereo on a loop and with a power source that kept it running forever it would stop existing or rather the sound waves wouldnt be there anymore
Our lack of information due to limitations to technology results in us making that necessary leap of "faith" based on our "subjective" understanding of science (eg. calculations/hypotheses) which is a subjective method for us to understand the world around us. However, even without our subjective understandings, it is a fact that 1+ 1 always = 2, and these conclusions lead us to objective facts which can be concluded without the need for faith and observation. If we had a similar model to explain everything else that occurs, subjectivity will be extinct, the only trace left being the "subjective" methods used by our limited human minds in perceiving objective occurrences. This is why we strive towards progress in technology. In the end, only mechanical apparatuses can provide a truly objective conclusion as they do not hold personal biases and perspectives (think of speedometers in a car, thermometers, etc). As a scientist, I too understand the heartbreaking limitations of the human mind, that it is inevitable we perceive this world through words and feelings, but it is the pleasure of having an opinion that makes life meaningful. It is my belief that subjectivity is the outcome of our failure as humans to be able to perceive the world without biases, but it is also a blessing for us that we might enjoy life and find meaning through our subjective means.
tldr; subjectivity is the product of an emotional and humanistic mind, objectivity exists and we try our best to interpret the objective reality through our highly limited subjective means. Words may describe a painting well, but nothing beats observing the painting as it is (even then many subjective processes still takes place in our minds, leaving us far from understanding the full objective properties of the painting).
We have been given the ability to think individually therefore, subjectively it exist. That's just my opinion. 😊
I would like to use the five minute video on Objective vs subjective in my course on report writing for law enforcement and security officers. What is involved in gaining permission to do so?
You have my permission to use it, on the condition that Carneades.org is credited with making it. Thanks for asking!
How do you know if the tree made a noise if it fell?
Anyone can please right down definition of objectivity by any Thinker.
I objectively think that a tree falling makes a sound. A person can only subjectively hear it differently than I do. So objectively good and evil exist. Subjectively it’s on the person to feel what they define as good or evil. So do I think objectively or subjectively. Or can there be an understanding of both.
Very nicely and clearly explained. Thank you. :)
No problem, thanks for watching!
Without objective truths subjective views don't exist.
Truth is objective
Beauty is subjective
What about ethics? Could that ever be objective under a given framework?
I think so, once you pick the thing to base it on - the rest could be objective. Ie: I pick to do as little harm as possible to other humans - so I can objectively tell if (X) causes harm or does not cause harm to a person, I know hitting them with my car will cause them harm, so I try to avoid them - I can only act based on what information I have at the time I have it, so perhaps turning my wheel so I do not hit the one person causes harm to a group of people I did not see - but the ethic was still sound, I made a choice to move my wheel so I would not harm that person I knew of.
What do you mean "under a given framework?" If this framework must be selected (as it is in our society), it is ultimately subjective.
There may be objective truths within this subjective worldview (e.g. rape is objectively wrong in our society) but that doesn't make the general statement (rape is wrong) objectively true. It is only true for us as we made a subjective decision to follow it.
For example, there are many who do not see rape as an evil act, and can give a reasoned argument as to why they think this. You could try to argue that they are objectively wrong, but I don't see any reason to believe in an objectively binding set of moral truths.
Josh Cottle
"What do you mean "under a given framework?" If this framework must be selected (as it is in our society), it is ultimately subjective."
I was referring to ethical theories like Consequential or Utilitarianism. These theories in the end refer to objective states of affairs in reality rather than personal preferences. As for your saying selecting a system makes it subjective does not logically follow. You are saying essentially if you have a choice then it is subjective. That is not how it works.
I understand that people disagree on some details of certain moral propositions but no one says that rape is out right okay. Yes, I agree that a lot of people just say their beliefs are moral yet there is a great deal of diversity of opinion what exactly is moral. However, if you agree that morality is truly about the well-being of yourself, others and society, and that some actions either improve that or negate it, and that your are a rational agent, then as that rational agent you should be able to understand "enlighten self interest" and why you ought to follow such a system.
TheAtheistPaladin
The theories are ultimately subjective interpretations as to what is to be considered moral in an attempt to reach objectivity. They don't all agree so they cannot all be objective, but as before there are objective truths within their layout. Deontology argues that intentions are the most important indicator of morality, consequentialism argues that the result of the act is more important, etc.
As for choice, if there is a range of reasonable selections it is most likely (not always, I agree, but probable) that it is subjective. You might choose that waffles are better than pancakes, someone may disagree. Both of your choices are reasonable, and it is subjective.
One society may decide someone's intentions are most important when punishing criminals, others may decide it is more important to punish those based on the results of their actions. Both societies have arguments for their choice, both arguments have substance, so it is likely that it is subjective. You could argue that one society is objectively wrong, but you'd need strong evidence that your framework for morality is objectively true, making it absurd to question it. I see no reason to take any moral framework as objective truth. I won't deny the possibility, in the same way I don't deny the possibility that there is no external world or the possibility that waffles are objectively better than pancakes. The possibility does not make it fact, however, nor does it mean you should consider it to be so.
There most certainly are people on this planet who outright believe that rape is right. If you base your moral code on maximising pleasure for the individual rather than the group then rape seems perfectly justified.
"However if you agree that morality is truly about the wellbeing of yourself, others and society..."
And if I don't agree? I don't believe there is an objective reason beyond our own notions that confirms this to be moral. If we weren't here, would there still be an unwritten law stating that morality is caring for the wellbeing of society? I doubt it.
Josh Cottle
"As for choice, if there is a range of reasonable selections it is most likely (not always, I agree, but probable) that it is subjective. You might choose that waffles are better than pancakes, someone may disagree. Both of your choices are reasonable, and it is subjective."
THAT is subjective but you didn't link morality to it, you just implied it. Moral choices are not like what you have for breakfast. They effect other people. That is the key difference. Now you can go-on-and-on that people and societies disagree on what is moral, that doesn't matter and it doesn't make it subjective. If that was the case the earth's shape and age would be subjective. There still exist flat earth creationist. That doesn't make anything subjective. Point to different ethical theories and societies all you want but that doesn't make your case.
"There most certainly are people on this planet who outright believe that rape is right. If you base your moral code on maximising pleasure for the individual rather than the group then rape seems perfectly justified."
And when you start torturing such people for your own pleasure, they will reject it. Thus, it not a self consent theory since they have to special plead about their pleasure and not anyone else's pleasure. Now I doubt such people actually exist.
"And if I don't agree? I don't believe there is an objective reason beyond our own notions that confirms this to be moral. If we weren't here, would there still be an unwritten law stating that morality is caring for the wellbeing of society? I doubt it."
Well, then you might want to address the rest of what I said. You know, rational agents and "enlightened self interest." Then what rational agent not be interested in wellbeing? If you understand what means to be rational, then is it pretty much implied. I am not trying be condescending but I honestly want you to look up what it means to be rational or a rational agent and "enlightened self interest." Then get back to me. You might actually understand where I am coming from.
Of course the tree that fell in the forest, while no one was around, made a sound. That's a tried and true characteristic of observing the nature of everything. The subjective idea of the philosophical question is the word 'sound' because the word's meaning can be changed to fit into a different narrative. For instance, 'sound' can be defined as a noun or as an action verb, and it is a constant variable in physics and philosophy.
Is a camera or a microphone capable of being subjective in our stead when the tree falls? As in do they qualify as a "someone" when asking if there is anyone to hear it? Probably a dumb question I don't know
But, the word "Objective" was subjectively picked to be what it is, thus everything is subjective :D
Haha. Just because the word objective was picked subjectively, it does not seem that everything that fit into that category was subjective. But that does not mean that the set of all things that are objective is not empty.
Carneades.org Words are fun. :D
Facts are objective, opinions are subjective.
***** true. but the word "fact" is subjectively chosen to be "fact" ;)
I'm just playing with words dont mind me.
however, isn't the claim that "everything is subjective" an objective claim? I believe there is a dualistic relation between objectivity and subjectivity whereby one cannot exist without the other. Ours view of the world is an entirely subjective experience which informs our ability to form objective claims.
Now are the ideas of objective truth and subjective truth subjective?
Sanctum Beats Objective Truth can’t be subjective.
thank you very much !! finally i got it
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Maybe, but I'm more concerned about the poor unaware squirrel sitting underneath it.
Are the rules of chess subjective or objective?
They are agreed-upon by the chess player community. They are independent of your personal opinion of them, thus you might find them to be objective. However, if enough chess players came together and agreed that certain rules ruined the game (f.e the queen is too powerful, the rider should move differently), then they could change the rules. Thus, the rules would no longer be independent of subjective opinion. It might be an unlikely scenario, but it is certainly not impossible. So, the rules are objective only if all the chess players decide that they are. But since this state of the rules is dependent upon the opinions of the chess players community, they are, fundamentally, subjective.
@@KommentarSpaltenKrieger Well that is exactly what happened. there was a time when there was no rule you could capture a pawn en passant. Then people decided to change the rules. So what you claim highly unlikely did in fact happen.
If everything a human being can understand is dependent on us perceiving it how can we ever prove that something is objectively true. By nature we are living in a subjective experience? I dont know its confusing to imagine things outside of our perception of it because even just observing an "objective truth" puts it in our brain and makes it a subjective expression of what that thing is? Am I overthinking this??
When lightening strikes,
And no one is around, thunder still booms? Objectively, yes.
I think the most flawed point of these definitions are the simple things as "MATH", "REASON" and such. Are they subjective? Based on most of these definitions... yes. They always try to bind "objective" with "concrete", and "subjective" with "abstract", which are different "dimensions", at least in my understanding. It's amazing how "rational" people tend to be not-so self-conscious. They create definitions and supposedly rational theories and guess what they leave out of them... reason itself. Take Freud for example. Nowhere reason can be found in his model of the mind. It's all subjectiveness and feelings. Is it a blind spot? Why isn't it for me then? What am I missing... or what's everyone missing?
Would that be any different than saying if a tree fell one million years ago did it make a sound? Is my presence necessary or are we as beings sayings things can't happen without are existence?
Truth is absolute and universal. Truth is not subjective (personal preference, opinion). Everytime a person who believes truth is subjective claims in absolute terms that truth isn't objective, they act inconsistent to their subjectivism. Even when people claim truth is subjective are making an absolute claim and applying it universally to all as if it's subjective for all. Again, undermining the idea that truth is subjective. Truth is objective, and we can live consistently in it. While we cannot live consistently with the idea of truth being subjective. The reason for this is that truth is not subjective, and people are confusing opinion with truth.
The Battle For Ideas Yes.
Good
Truth, Goodness and Beauty are objective, but the taste and perception is subjective.
If you consider a sound a translation of the wave by the observers anatomy and not the wave itself the answer's inherently subjective, though if one considers sound the initial energy wave itself then the sound's objection...So is it a chained impression through a medium or a registration of a neurophysiological translation. And does translation work both ways? Can you translate a neurprosthetic recording of a perceived sound to a series of waves through a medium and model the initial cause while disallowing information concerning the initial cause... Probably though the mapping to do do accurately would take a lot of time...
About to do a quiz on this on a beautiful Sunday morning.
Glad to help!
I was watching a video on 'Heidegger and Modern Existentialism'; if I understood what Prof. Barrett was saying correctly, did this distinction (initially) arise as a result of Cartesianism (dualism of the human subject against the external world), or did it originate earlier?
These definitions imply a false dichotomy. Something may depend on both an object and a subject.
"Coffee tastes objectively better than tea."
I can't think of anything not symbolized (alphabet). So what we call reality or objective is based on a symbol agreement of meaning that works in favor of survival. It got us this far.
Absolute truth comes from a divine observer who is Objective, while human senses, feelings and experiences are Subjective. We are subjective beings living in a Universe made by an Objective observer who exists outside of space and time. We trust our own senses but never believes in an Objective being who spoke to us through chosen people, partly because we seem to praise ourselves for being highly advanced, and ignoring the fact that this Objective observer who knows each and everyone of us, has a higher knowledge and wisdom that we as human beings couldn't even fathom. This Universe we live in is so finely tuned that we seem to try to ignore the obvious answer.
Thank you your work is really good thanks ^^
Glad to help! Thanks for watching.
So is subjective that we made a word that describes things objectively that may also be subjective because we created an idea of that objective sense
As I understand it... Subjectively if you didn't hear the tree fall you can't say if it made a sound or not, but objectively by logic, the tree did make a sound .. and tree or an object would know it and you as the subject could only guess/believe... Good?
What is light?