How to determine if a property is objective or subjective?

A Christian Philosophy

What is 'objective' and 'subjective'?
A property is objective if it is linked to the object, that is, the thing observed, thought about, spoken about. A property is subjective if it is linked to the subject, that is, the observer, the thinker, the speaker. Consequently, objective statements can be either true or false; where as subjective statements cannot be false (except when the subject is dishonest).

Can we prove that some properties are objective and some are subjective, as opposed to all properties being either one or the other? Yes we can, for some things are clearly, indubitably subjective or indubitably objective. Indubitably subjective: best colour. Indubitably objective: maths; which is a property of reality as a whole; and consequently, anything that is measurable is objective.

How to determine if a property is objective or subjective?
The problem is that all of us humans are subjects; and all the data we have to work with can either come from the outer reality, or from our inner subconscious selves (such as our feelings). Other than the indubitable examples such as the ones previously stated, how can we determine the source of the data? How about the following scientific experiment: Have numerous independent human subjects observe an object for a given property. If the large majority of subjects agree on the property they observe, then it is reasonable to conclude that the property is objective. If no clear agreement, then we can conclude that the property is subjective. E.g. Testing if ‘colour’ is an objective property by having many subjects observe a coloured ball, and see if they agree on the specific colour.

The relative-objective test:
One challenge with the above test is that test subjects might have differing perceptions in the degree of a property, thereby making it difficult to give a confident answer. E.g. Is the ball really that ‘red’, or more ‘orangey’? Is the tree really that ‘tall’? Is the joke really that ‘funny’? To overcome this issue, let’s improve on the previous test by adding a second object having the same property as the first object observed, but differing in degree. If the large majority of subjects agree on which of the two objects has the highest degree of the observed property, then we can reasonably conclude that the property is objective. If some find the first object to have the highest degree while others find the second object to have the highest degree, then we can conclude that the property is subjective.

Let’s test some properties!

Tallness: Let’s observe two trees having different degrees of tallness. I foresee that the large majority will agree on which tree is taller than the other. Therefore ‘tallness’ would be objective.
Funniness: Let’s observe two comedians with different sense of humour. I foresee that there will be no agreement on which comedian is the funniest. Therefore, ‘funniness’ would be subjective.

Do you agree with the relative-objective test to determine objectivity? Care to try it out on another property of your choice? Or else, do you know of another way to determine if a property is objective or subjective?

T Clark

Can we prove that some properties are objective and some are subjective, as opposed to all properties being either one or the other? — Samuel Lacrampe

Is whether or not a property is objective or subjective difficult to determine? Is it often controversial? I bet you and I could agree for almost any property.

anything that is measurable is objective. — Samuel Lacrampe

I'm sure we could develop an objective measure of how much I like blue. Then we could compare it with other colors and determine what my favorite color is. I'm not being facetious here.

Orange by the way. Pumpkin orange, not day-glow. Maybe a bit darker than pumpkin. Orange things make me feel at peace. When people ask me what I want for Christmas, I always say "orange things." All of which is subjective.

On an unrelated note, remember - it's turtles all the way down.

Marchesk

Do you agree with the relative-objective test to determine objectivity? — Samuel Lacrampe

I would add creature-dependency to the relative-objective test.

Care to try it out on another property of your choice? — Samuel Lacrampe

The dead animal smells awful. Most humans would agree. But turkey vultures probably find the smell delectable. Maybe that's more how we humans interpret the olfactory sensation than an actual property of the decaying animal.

What about warmth? People can be notoriously picky about the temperature, and there does seem to a degree of relativity involved in whether we think something feels warm or cold. But there's also a temperature range beyond which is cold or hot to all humans (at least in terms of bodily damage).

How about color? Humans can generally get consensus on colors, with some notable exceptions. But does that make the colors we see objective? Or are they dependant on the sorts of eyes we have?

And is a human majority enough for qualifying something as objective? We could say that the traffic light was objectively red when the driver ran through it, upon viewing the video. But is it colored red independent of human vision and for any organism that can see light at that wavelength?

Harry Hindu

↪Marchesk

It seems to me that objectivity precedes subjectivity, or that the objective is a prerequisite for the subjective.

Take this statement that you made:

How about color? Humans can generally get consensus on colors, with some notable exceptions. But does that make the colors we see objective? Or are they dependant on the sorts of eyes we have? — Marchesk

You make a claim that colors might be subjective, or related to the observer, but this is an objective claim, no? That color is dependent on the sort of eyes we have would be an objective statement about subjectivity.

Any time we make a statement about some state-of-affairs, are we making an objective statement, or a subjective statement? To say that a particular piece of art makes you feel a certain way would also be an objective statement, no? You are describing how you feel, which is a real state-of-affairs in the world. So are we making objective or subjective statements when we talk about our feelings? What about when we say that different people will have different feelings when looking at a piece of art? Would that be an objective statement about the world, or a subjective statement?

Marchesk

That color is dependent on the sort of eyes we have would be an objective statement about subjectivity. — Harry Hindu

That's a really good point. Hadn't thought of it that way before.

Any time we make a statement about some state-of-affairs, are we making an objective statement, or a subjective statement? To say that a particular piece of art makes you feel a certain way would also be an objective statement, no? You are describing how you feel, which is a real state-of-affairs in the world. — Harry Hindu

Not sure. You do raise an interesting question. Someone who's committed to radical subjectivism would deny that you're making a statement about state-of-affairs. Not sure wha the Kantians would say. The state-of-affairs would be our shared conceptual apparatus for them. I'll have to think about it. Landru comes to mind with these sorts of discussions (not Kantian but anti-realist).

Harry Hindu

Not sure. You do raise an interesting question. Someone who's committed to radical subjectivism would deny that you're making a statement about state-of-affairs. — Marchesk

What else could they be making a statement about? Any claim of how things are, or a statement made that is implied to have some truth to it, would be an objective claim.

Not sure wha the Kantians would say. The state-of-affairs would be our shared conceptual apparatus for them. I'll have to think about it. Landru comes to mind with these sorts of discussions (not Kantian but anti-realist). — Marchesk

"The state-of-affairs would be our shared conceptual apparatus." is an objective statement about reality, or some state-of-affairs, or the way things are. It seems to me that you can't escape making objective claims anytime you refer to some state-of-affairs or how things are.

Marchesk

What else could they be making a statement about? Any claim of how things are, or a statement made that is implied to have some truth to it, would be an objective claim. — Harry Hindu

What if I said that I feel a certain way, and someone else disagreed with me? That actually does happen on occasion. Or they disagree with what I claim to believe or not believe.

"The state-of-affairs would be our shared conceptual apparatus." is an objective statement about some state-of-affairs, or the way things are. — Harry Hindu

I guess so. It would be like making a statement about being inside the Matrix.

Harry Hindu

What if I said that I feel a certain way, and someone else disagreed with me? That actually does happen on occasion. Or they disagree with what I claim to believe or not believe. — Marchesk

I'm not sure I understand the question. You can claim to feel a certain way. That would be an objective statement about some state-of-affairs. If someone disagrees with how you feel, then they would also be making an objective claim - that you are wrong. At that point, who is the one making a correct statement, or who's claim is a true representation of reality? At this point do we say there is a state of subjectivity, or a state of disagreement, and what we say is how things really are (that there is a state of disagreement)?

How do we determine which one is right? And once we determine who is right, can we say that it is they that made the objective claim, and the person who is wrong made a subjective claim?

Does this mean that objective claims are true and subjective claims are false? That's how it seems to me. If the only way to determine the degree of objectivity and subjectivity of a claim is to look at the claim and it's relationship with how things actually are, and any claim that mirrors how things actually are is objective, while subjective claims are how things are skewed to appear through the lenses of our emotions, needs and wants, then it seems to me that objective claims are the most useful and meaningful, while subjective claims aren't because we don't really know the degree of truth associated with subjective claims. As a matter of fact, to say that there is subjectivity is to say that there is a skewing of perception from how things actually are - that there is a lesser degree of certainty in subjective claims than there are in making objective claims.

A Christian Philosophy

Is whether or not a property is objective or subjective difficult to determine? Is it often controversial? I bet you and I could agree for almost any property. — T Clark

Hello. I often hear people say "it's just a matter of opinion" on things that seem objective, such as immoral acts on the grounds of religion or culture. Conversely, I see people who judge others on things that seem subjective, such as the way they dress, their taste in music, hobbies, etc. My goal is to come up with a coherent way to talk sense into such people (and myself if I happen to be wrong on some properties).

I'm sure we could develop an objective measure of how much I like blue. Then we could compare it with other colors and determine what my favorite color is. — T Clark

This is true, but that would be a measure of your own preference, not a measure of goodness in the colour blue. It may sound odd, but "I like blue" is an objective statement where the object is "I"; where as "Blue is a good colour" is a subjective statement where the object is "blue".

Orange by the way. [...]" — T Clark

How barbaric...

"Turtles"?

A Christian Philosophy

The dead animal smells awful. Most humans would agree. But turkey vultures probably find the smell delectable. Maybe that's more how we humans interpret the olfactory sensation than an actual property of the decaying animal. — Marchesk

Hello. I actually think that goodness of a smell is subjective. Some people love a perfume, and some people hate it. Now I agree with you that the smell of a decaying body is awful to most; but I think this is only due to the association with diseases that could occur if we come in contact with them; and health is objective. In other words, if we could be certain not to fall ill from a rotting body, then we might not find the smell awful.

What about warmth? People can be notoriously picky about the temperature, and there does seem to a degree of relativity involved in whether we think something feels warm or cold. But there's also a temperature range beyond which is cold or hot to all humans (at least in terms of bodily damage). — Marchesk

Good point. I think health and safety is objective, where as comfort is subjective. When we hit degrees of temperature that affect our health and safety, then the 'goodness of temperature' is objective. In between these extremes, the property is subjective. Also, the statement "x is warmer than y" is objective.

How about color? Humans can generally get consensus on colors, with some notable exceptions. But does that make the colors we see objective? Or are they dependant on the sorts of eyes we have? — Marchesk

Indeed, a blind or colourblind person would not see the same colour as others. But I think the relative-objective test would still show that colour is objective, because most people would agree that object 1 is more red than object 2, and although the blind and colourblind may not observe this, they would also not observe that object 2 is more red than object 1.

And is a human majority enough for qualifying something as objective? — Marchesk

Although it is a bit soon to tell, I am hopeful that the relative-objective test is infallible, that is, it is not possible that, if a property is objective, some would observe object 1 to have the highest degree, while others would observe object 2 to have the highest degree of it.

A Christian Philosophy

↪Harry Hindu

↪Marchesk

Interesting discussion. Here is my take on it. Consider the following statements S1 and S2:

S1: "This food tastes good"
S2: "I enjoy the taste of this food"

For both statements, I am the subject, the message is roughly the same, and both are true. But in S1, the object is 'food', and the property is 'goodness'. In S2, the object is "I", and the property is 'enjoyment'. S1 is subjective because not all subjects will agree that the food is good. S2 is objective because all subjects, upon observing me, would agree that I enjoy the food.

Conclusions: 'Goodness in taste' is a subjective property, not a property of food. 'Enjoyment' is an objective property of the object that is the person experiencing it.

mcdoodle

Does this mean that objective claims are true and subjective claims are false? That's how it seems to me. — Harry Hindu

Perhaps it is in the nature of objective claims that they can be true, or false, or some intermediate state. What I say isn't a claim: the subjective just is the subjective, that's how I am. It's only susceptible to ideas of truth or falsity if it becomes objective in some way.

Michael

Interesting discussion. Here is my take on it. Consider the following statements S1 and S2:

S1: "This food tastes good"
S2: "I enjoy the taste of this food"

For both statements, I am the subject, the message is roughly the same, and both are true. But in S1, the object is 'food', and the property is 'goodness'. In S2, the object is "I", and the property is 'enjoyment'. S1 is subjective because not all subjects will agree that the food is good. S2 is objective because all subjects, upon observing me, would agree that I enjoy the food. — Samuel Lacrampe

So the distinction between objective and subjective is grammatical.

Although if we're being proper, in the first statement the subject is "this food", whereas in the second it's "I".

fishfry

OP can you give specific examples of subjective and objective things? Subjective things are easy to give examples of. I'd like to see you or anyone give an example of anything that's provably objective.

Wayfarer

Do you agree with the relative-objective test to determine objectivity? — Samuel Lacrampe

No, because who would decide the criteria? X-)

And there's your problem in a nutshell. There was a huge conflict over DSM IV, the diagnostic manual for psychological disorders, over this very question: what is a disorder, what is normal behaviour? You'd think if there was a test case for your question, this would be it. But the debate was and is ongoing.

This is not to say there aren't degrees of objectivity or subjectivity. Objectivity is essential in science, jurisprudence, history, and many forms of judgement. Subjectivity is, conversely, the tendency towards idiosyncratic or self-seeking judgement. But nothing is ultimately objective, in the sense that all judgement has a subjective aspect or pole.

A Christian Philosophy

↪mcdoodle

I agree for the most part. But to be very picky, it is possible to say something subjectively false, as such: say I really like a song, but for some reason, I say "this song suck".

A Christian Philosophy

So the distinction between objective and subjective is grammatical. — Michael

(EDIT 2017-10-01): The distinction is not dependant on grammar, but on who or what is the subject, object, and property in the given statement. In S1, the subject is me, the object is 'the food', and the property is 'good taste'. In S2, the subject is still me, but the object is now me (I observe myself), and the property is 'enjoyment of the taste of this food'.

Although if we're being proper, in the first statement the subject is "this food", whereas in the second it's "I". — Michael

Not according to the definition in epistemology. The term 'subject' is ambiguous, and I think you are using the definition as per the study of logic: subject vs predicate, where in the statement "A is B", A is the subject and B is the predicate. In epistemology, the subject is the observer, thinker, speaker, etc; and the object is the thing observed, thought about, spoken about, etc. Ironically, the subject in logic is really the object in epistemology. I expressed my frustration about this in a previous post here.

T Clark

"Turtles"? — Samuel Lacrampe

It's a reference to your icon. This is from Wikipedia for "Turtles all the way down."

‘A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"’

You are missing turtles. Perhaps an infinite number.

Srap Tasmaner

↪T Clark

It is the Great A'Tuin.

A Christian Philosophy

↪fishfry

Sure. To clarify, I am talking about objective properties, not objective statements. "God exists" is an objective statement (regardless if true or false), but I am concerned whether 'beauty' is an objective property, such as in the statement "This waterfall is beautiful".

Any property that is physical is objective. Why? Because any physical property is measurable (at least in theory), and if measurable, then it is mathematical, and if mathematical, then it is logical, and logic is indubitably an objective property of reality. This is why a science is less prone to debate if it is quantifiable. As such, properties like mass, length, energy, and even colour are properties of the object of thought.

Unfortunately, these are the only examples of properties I can give with confidence right now, without relying on tools like the relative-objective test. Are non-physical properties like 'moral goodness', 'beauty', 'goodness of songs' objective or subjective? It would be great to find out.

Cavacava

There is a pragmatic contradiction. The subject posits a non-subject object as not posited. Idealism avoids the realist's contradiction by denying the reality of the object outside of thought, but the idealist must admit to its own mortality, which entails a reality outside of thought.

fishfry

Any property that is physical is objective. Why? Because any physical property is measurable (at least in theory), and if measurable, then it is mathematical, and if mathematical, then it is logical, and logic is indubitably an objective property of reality. — Samuel Lacrampe

I hardly know where to start with this chain of bad reasoning.

Any physical property is objective? I'd give you Bishop Berkeley as a refutation. Or Plato's cave, or Descartes's demon. The fable of the elephant and the nine visually challenged persons. I asked for a single specific example and you have given none. Please give one and we'll take it apart. Name an objective property that can be determined without making a subjective measurement.

Logic is an objective property or reality? Where was the syllogism five minutes after the big bang? Where is modus ponens among the mosquitos? You've managed to name one of the most subjective things there is. Logic is unquestionably the work of the human mind.

So please go back to my first question to you. Please name a single specific thing that is objective so that we have something to talk about. Perhaps you'll name something and I'll go, "Oh yeah I see that you're right and I'm wrong." Without a specific example you're just talking vague generalities.

By way of example -- SPECIFIC example I might add -- we can examine some of the most obvious candidates. Mass. Nope, not objective. Depends on the velocity of the observer. Color. Nope. Depends on the eye/brain system of the observer. Wavelength of light reflected off the object. Nope, depends on the relative velocity toward or away from the the observer. Red shift.

Etc. That's why I'm challenging you to name a SINGLE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a thing you claim is objective, so that in the spirit of rational inquiry we can examine your claim.

javra

Please name a single specific thing that is objective so that we have something to talk about. — fishfry

I’d like to give this a try:

That daytime follows nighttime follows daytime follows nighttime (etc.) is objective because subjective me and subjective you (and all other subjective beings, from sunflowers, to bees to … well, etc.) all are constrained by the same information … thereby making this information in due measure independent of what either I or you (or anyone else) may will or believe regarding the matter. Anything physical—from that which I and only I visually see at the current moment, like my own laptop, to the causal webs into which these things are entwined (such as laws of nature)—will be objective for the same reason: they will hold presence independent of what individual minds may will or believe. Hallucinations? These—which, one would think, can only be discovered when contradicting what all other agencies hold to be objective—will be non-objective on grounds of contradicting the causal web of all other givens that all other agencies are bound by and are thereby in one way or another aware of (the logos of the world, it used to be termed) … and, thereby, will be the products of an individual mind.

Other questions could pursue. But I’d like to know in turn, on what system of justification would you deny that nighttime being followed by daytime is not an objective, empirical observation? (Presuming that objective data is not confused with absolute certainties? For which, I grant, no justifications can be provided, tmk. Also presuming that objective data does not equate with an eternally fixed, perfectly stable absolute data that is severed from subjectivity (such that, for example, no awareness of it could occur), for this to me currently seems to be a logical contradiction as regards data.)

fishfry

Pretty good example.

Also presuming that objective data does not equate with an eternally fixed, perfectly stable absolute data that is severed from subjectivity (such that, for example, no awareness of it could occur) — javra

You're right, to argue against your example I'd be forced into levels of sophistry I'm unwilling to embrace. Interesting that your example refers to state changes rather than absolute entities. I wonder if that's characteristic of compelling examples of objectiveness. For example I can argue that a red light might not be red to some particular observer, but the transition of a traffic light from red to green can't be denied. Even though I might not agree that red is always red, I'm forced to admit that red is different than green.

Good one.

javra

Good one. — fishfry

I'm on the verge of blushing here. Not good for my reputation. But hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Cheers.

Edit:

I wonder if that's characteristic of compelling examples of objectiveness. — fishfry

Btw, I haven’t gotten into exploring your proposal because it would get into process philosophy—and that murky area of whether or not entities are in fact objective. Your proposal sounds good to me philosophically. That said, kids will think, for example, that the tree over there is objectively real … and I’d here agree with the kids. And, in truth, I innately think this myself even when there are no kids around. So, again, what you bring up would get murky for me.

Srap Tasmaner

kids will think, for example, that the tree over there is objectively real — javra

I was thinking about this driving home from work last night. The standard example for perception is always something like this: I see the road sign, that is a road sign, etc., an observation at a single point in time. But in English at least we have present participles: I am continuing to see the road sign as I drive along the road. (I think a similar point has been made in "embodied" theories of knowledge and perception-- that the persistence or invariance of the object as we move about and investigate is what we should capture. Optical illusions, for instance, often depend on observer position, light source, etc.)

So that would be an example of the object not changing state but the observer. If it's still there when you come back and it's just the same-- no, but if you come back and bring someone else with you, and the two of you walk around, look at it from different angles, maybe do so at different times of day and so on, then we start to think "objective".

A Christian Philosophy

No, because who would decide the criteria? — Wayfarer

My hope is that, if a property is objective, and that object 1 has a higher degree of it than object 2, then most subjects would observe it as such, and the others would not see a distinction, but nobody would be able to observe that object 2 has a higher degree of the property than object 1. The last underlined statement would be the criteria.

Example: test for 'redness'. Let's observe a supposedly red ball 1 and a green ball 2. I foresee most subjects to observe ball 1 as being more red than ball 2; then the rest, being colourblind, will not see a distinction; but nobody would observe ball 2 as being more red than ball 1. If the criteria is met, then 'redness' is an objective property.

But nothing is ultimately objective, in the sense that all judgement has a subjective aspect or pole. — Wayfarer

That's why I'm challenging you to name a SINGLE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a thing you claim is objective, so that in the spirit of rational inquiry we can examine your claim. — fishfry

What about essential properties of objects? E.g. a triangle necessarily has the property of having 3 sides.

A Christian Philosophy

↪Cavacava

Any physical property is objective? I'd give you Bishop Berkeley as a refutation. Or Plato's cave, or Descartes's demon. — fishfry

How do idealists account for the fact that you and I see the same objects with the same properties? I suppose it could happen that you and I coincidently subjectively posit the same properties at the same time, but this hypothesis is much more complicated than the hypothesis of objective properties, is it not? It would therefore be shaved off by Occam's razor.

A Christian Philosophy

↪T Clark

Awesome! As Mr Tasmaner said, my icon is the Great A'Tuin from Discworld. I did not know about this whole turtle story, and found out upon further reading of the article that Terry Pratchett, the creator of Discworld, got the idea from that story in the first place.

Srap Tasmaner

Mr Tasmaner — Samuel Lacrampe

Mr. Tasmaner was my father. I'm just Srap.

(The things you can say on the internet ...)

A Christian Philosophy

Logic is an objective property or reality? Where was the syllogism five minutes after the big bang? Where is modus ponens among the mosquitos? You've managed to name one of the most subjective things there is. Logic is unquestionably the work of the human mind. — fishfry

You asked for a proof earlier. There is no stronger proof than a logical or mathematical proof, is there? And this is sufficient to demonstrate that logic is objective; or else, how can logical proofs be strong if logic is merely subjective? Even Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum is an "archimedean point" only because of its logic.

Mass. Nope, not objective. Depends on the velocity of the observer. — fishfry

Mass of an object depends on the observer? Do you mean that a scale recording an object's mass of 10 kg would change its value if I, an observer, move very fast? This is not rhetorical; I am genuinely ignorant of that phenomenon.

Color. Nope. Depends on the eye/brain system of the observer. Wavelength of light reflected off the object. Nope, depends on the relative velocity toward or away from the the observer. Red shift. — fishfry

I think you are correct about that one. I think I was referring to something closer to the property that makes only certain light frequencies reflect back, but this is not really the 'colour'. I'll abandon that example to focus on simpler ones.

How to determine if a property is objective or subjective?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions