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

On Monday 26 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
> 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.
>

OK. :-)

> > 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.

It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual data. 
Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had to, but 
because he wanted to. Maybe it seemed right to his present day Mongols, but 
it wasn't. Some mainland Chinese I talked to did not know Mao was a 
mass-murderer, but we all know he was an Evil man who killed at least 40 
million people of his own people.

To quote Neo-Tech ( http://www.neo-tech.com/orientation/ ):

<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously 
done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the 
productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or 
prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the 
destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).

Honestly using one's reasoning nature is always beneficial and moral; 
dishonestly using one's reasoning nature is always harmful and 
immoral. ...Volitionally harmful acts always arise from mysticism -- from 
dishonesty, rationalizations, evasions, defaults.

Yet, acting on fully integrated honesty (Neo-Tech), not reason itself, is the 
basic moral act. When Genghis Khan, for example, chose to use reasoning for a 
specific military move, then in an out-of-context sense, he chose to act 
morally by protecting himself and his troops (thus filling human biological 
needs). But in the larger sense of fully integrated honesty, Khan's total 
actions were grossly immoral in choosing to use aggressive force in becoming 
a mass murderer (thus negating human biological needs). The highly 
destructive, irrational immorality of Genghis Khan's overall dictatorial 
military actions far outweighed any narrow, out-of-context "moral" 
actions. ...Genghis Khan was  enormously evil as were Stalin, Hitler, Mao, 
Castro, Pol Pot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(I hope I'm not invoking Godwin's Law here - see 
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.html for why it may not be the 
case)

Objective is not what has a full consensus. It is what can be universally 
agreed upon by most or any sensible person (or alternatively a different 
intelligent life form similar to humans) who has all the relevant data and is 
capable of thought. If I told a tribesman in Africa about Mao, he'll probably 
agree that he's Evil. 

>
> I believe that there is nothing objective, and there are no 
> universals. 

If nothing is objective neither is this statement. Thus, it is a subjective 
(or mystical or whatever) statement, that I'd rather ignore coming from you. 
If everything is subjective any argument is pointless:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Interviewer: let's do a discusssion about drug legalisation.

A: I support it.

B: I oppose.

Interviewer: well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, so let's end it 
here. Thanks for watching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(Based on the Zehu-Zeh's episode about Cable-TV).

If a parent, sibling, child or SO of mine tells me about his feelings, this is 
a subjective statement of importance to me. But the statement "The distance 
between Tel Aviv and Haifa is 100 km" is either objective/factual or simply 
false. It cannot be subjective.

> 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.

2 + 2 == 5 for very large values of 2.

More seriously now, yes, I can define my own math:

http://search.cpan.org/dist/Acme-NewMath/lib/acme/newmath.pm

^^^^ Read it - it's hilarious.

And even more seriously now, 2 is commonly understood as the number following 
1 in standard arithmetics. All modern languages can express such arithmetics 
(see the large numbers mentioned in the Old Testament for example), and it 
can be written very succinctly by using Arabic numerals and the Algebraic 
notation. If I mean a different algebraic system, I should explicitly mention 
it. Otherwise, in the standard system 1+1==2, and objectively. 

If I define a system such that 1+1==3, then this is the case in its context, 
and objectively.

There's a difference between subjectivism and contextualism. 

>
> > 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.

"I'd rather be a tail for the lions, than the head of tha jackals."

I'd rather be as close to be objective as possible, then be almost completely 
subjective. Objectivity is an ideal, which can never be entirely reached. 
However, honesty is also an ideal, which can never be fully attained. And so 
is self-esteem, and happiness.

Do you claim that I should ditch honesty, self-esteem and happiness too, and 
be dishonest, feel lousy about myself, and miserable?

>
> > 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.

Right. However, the fact that killing is bad can be easily deduced from the 
Golden Rule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Which is very logical, and commonly accepted. If you want to go against logic, 
and devise a system of ethics that is not based on the Golden rule, I suppose 
you can. But you might as well say that A may be not-A, and get over with it, 
as you will be able to immediately deduce any claim and its opposite.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif-ik1l9ssToec+JF/[email protected]
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
    -- An Israeli Linuxer


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/