Re: Objectivity [was Re: Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]

On 25 Mar 2007 23:42:52 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif-ik1l9ssToec+JF/[email protected]> wrote:
> > That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be objective
> > merely because we live in a subjective world, the one we created for
> > ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
>
> Just a note. You claim that "objectivism" is highly over-rated. Do you mean
> the philosophy of Ayn Rand (also referred to as "Randianism")? Or do you mean
> plain-old "objectivity"?

I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it is a
real thing or even possible.

> In any case, I have a problem with this. As you may realise there are three
> similar but non-identical terms:
>
> 1. Unbiased.
>
> 2. Objective.
>
> 3. Neutral. Or as it is known on the Wikipedia - Neutral Point of View or
> NPOV.
>
> They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan performed many Evil
> acts", this is a biased statement. But it is objective because it is true.

How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol living in the 13th
century, you'd think that Genghis was a great and worthy Khan. Go read
the [1] wikipedia entry.

I believe that there is nothing objective, and there are no
universals. Even 'one and one is two' is true only if you accept the
two mathematical axioms regd. natural numbers. In some reference
systems one and one is three... like in a family.

> While we are inherentely subjective to some extent, we can and should always
> try to be as objective as possible. I'm not saying we should be unbiased,
> just that we try to perceive and conceive reality as if we were not
> associated with anyone, and could always judge things objectively.

IMHO, since you perceive reality through your senses alone, which are
fallible, and you further filter what you sense through your
unconscious filters, which are individual and subjective, the attempt
at objectivity is doomed to fail.

> Aside from objective/subjective, there are also matters of taste, which are
> not subject to such judgement. I can consider a painting as good and another
> person may dislike it, and arguing about it is pointless.

Taste is subjectivity to a personal extreme. For example, killing is
bad because the society we live in dictates it as a moral rule (and
morality is subjective but relatively uniform in a single society in a
point in time). Your painting sux because I personally think so. It's
a matter of scope.

-- Arik