Mathematics, physics, and formal languages require no reference point as an "I". They're about as objective as you can get. — Shawn

They do require a reference point though, because the data provided through these domains must be subject to interpretation.

Hm. I'm not convinced of the relevance of this. I can understand what it is like to see something from another perspective. As we sit facing each other at table, I can understand that my knife is on my right, and yours on your right, despite yours being on my left. — Banno

This is just your imagination of another perspective, from your reference point.

Yep. Live with it.

does perception require a reference point?

The most extreme skeptics would argue that objectivity is even in principle impossible. But I guess that's another discussion and not relevant for humanity.
1h — Cidat

What would such an argument look like? Cartesian doubt, doubt in extremis, led to the certainty of Descartes' existence. Perhaps we may doubt external reality in toto but then there's the doubter to reckon with.

But then your last answer is nullified since you assert that we can objectively assert something to be undeniably true.

Such an argument could be the regress argument or the problem of the criterion.

But then your last answer is nullified since you assert that we can objectively assert something to be undeniably true. — Cidat

To a novice like myself, the philosophical landscape is riddled with traps. Indeed Descartes' existence couldn't be doubted while he was alive but anything above and beyond is fair game for the skeptic.

Objective truth or objective reality may exist, that is, there may exist truths that are true regardless of perspective or bias, — Cidat

Perception requires a reference point, that will inherently be subjective. — Shawn

It looks like you just stated a truth about reality, therefore it would be an objective statement.

Depends on the language, no?

Mathematics, physics, and formal languages require no reference point as an "I". They're about as objective as you can get. — Shawn

How do we make objective statements with words, which are just particular sounds or scribbles, from our subjective perspective?

They do require a reference point though, because the data provided through these domains must be subject to interpretation. — emancipate

This is just your imagination of another perspective, from your reference point. — emancipate

Are you making true statements, emancipate? If so, then aren't you're statements objective? How is it that you are making truth claims about how things are for Banno, when you aren't Banno? You must have some objective perspective of Banno to do that.


What about our own minds? Do we have objective access to our own minds, and are not our own minds part of the world?

Perception requires a reference point — Shawn

Which is to say that that is how the world appears from that reference point, which seems like an objective statement to me.

So what would entail subjectivity? When you are being subjective, you are making category errors. To say that the apple is red and good, you would be confusing the state of your mind with the state of the apple. The apple is simply ripe. Redness and goodness is a property of the mind, not the apple. Ripeness is a property of the apple represented in different ways to different sensory organs (red to eyes and good to tastebuds).

I see. The idea that we cannot objectively assert anything about reality assumes that we have access to objective truth. If we cannot be objective, then we would have no way of knowing that. Pyrrhonism avoids the problem altogether by suspending belief in all matters.

This is the question:
What is the way to know if we have reached an objective truth?

There is a difference between "being objective" as an observer and arriving at objective truths. The former is not possible, the latter arguably is, in a very limited field.

Objectivity is possible through analysis, prediction, and success. Which is to say you analyze the properties of something, say a planet and its motion, you predict where it will be, and upon receiving data on its coordinates in space which align with your prediction then that is an objective truth. The same can be applied to any empirical science and to state otherwise would imply the observation to be merely by chance, yet, we can accurately predict the functionality of matter, alter to our will, which necessarily requires objective perception.

Relative perception exists within things that do not actually exist in the universe, such as suffering, horror, and other sensations which are not what we perceive them to be, but are psychological phenomenons relative to survival, i.e. Animalistic perceptions. For example, you cannot predict whether or not with complete accuracy if someone will have an adverse emotional reaction to something, since the essence of which does not exist.

Are you making true statements, emancipate? If so, then aren't you're statements objective? — Harry Hindu

Do truth statements need to be absolutely objective? Can truth statements be both objective and subjective at once? In that case, I would prefer to say that my statements were partially true or that they contained an element of truth. While also being partially false.

Yes, if they're derived from a subjective framework but objectively true. That doesn't mean they're certain, though.

Do truth statements need to be absolutely objective? Can truth statements be both objective and subjective at once? In that case, I would prefer to say that my statements were partially true or that they contained an element of truth. While also being partially false. — emancipate

What do you mean by "true" if not that it is the case for everyone? If it's not true for everyone, then why say it? What use would it be for others? Keep it to yourself as it only applies to you.

What do you mean by "true" if not that it is the case for everyone? If it's not true for everyone, then why say it? What use would it be for others? Keep it to yourself as it only applies to you. — Harry Hindu

It doesn't need to be the case that 'true' is exactly identical for everyone. It is sufficient that everyone finds enough truth in a statement to make practical use of it. Do you believe that your words are delivered without lack? Yet I still understand you.

I used to think that vagueness and subjectivity pervaded every statement to some small degree.

But, that's really a silly assumption. Is there any serious objection to my statement that I am currently using a computer?

Is there any serious objection to my statement that I am currently using a computer? — Pneumenon

I don't object to the statement but I do have to understand it through my subjectivity. How could I not? I have my doubts about strict objectivity.

Objectivity is possible through analysis, prediction, and success. Which is to say you analyze the properties of something, say a planet and its motion, you predict where it will be, and upon receiving data on its coordinates in space which align with your prediction then that is an objective truth. The same can be applied to any empirical science and to state otherwise would imply the observation to be merely by chance, yet, we can accurately predict the functionality of matter, alter to our will, which necessarily requires objective perception. — Templisonanum

It does not necessarily require objectivity, it could be dumb luck. But that kind of thought doesn't get us anywhere.

I think I mostly agree with you, but I wouldn't call it objective perception. It's not the perception that's objective, it's analysis of the shared patterns of our subjective perceptions. Those patterns, or rules, are objective, even if all the actual content of our perception is fabricated.

For example, you cannot predict whether or not with complete accuracy if someone will have an adverse emotional reaction to something, since the essence of which does not exist. — Templisonanum

You cannot technically predict anything with complete accuracy. Emotional reactions should not, in principle, be different.

I see the computer with my eyeballs. It's not inside of my eyeballs, or inherently eyeballish.

does perception require a reference point? — emancipate

There's a philosophical game that says it does. That game relies on using "perception" in a particular way.

You and I both perceive this post; we perceive the very same post.Yet, according to the perception game, these are two distinct perceptions of the same post.

One philosophical games tries to play this out as showing that it is the perception that is pivotal, not the post. As if it is the perception-of-this-post that is real, not the post. We never have the post-in-itself; all we have is the perception-of-post.

David Stove called this the worst argument in the world; Stove's gem.

Yet it keeps so many novice philosophers enthralled.

I can understand what it is like to see something from another perspective. As we sit facing each other at table, I can understand that my knife is on my right, and yours on your right, despite yours being on my left.
— Banno

This is just your imagination of another perspective, from your reference point. — emancipate

Well, yes, of course it is. Your saying this does not move the knife suddenly to the left. We share an understanding of the position of the knife, despite the difference in perception. Call that shared understanding objective if you like.

I've been thorough this discussion more than once. The next common reply is to claim that i have not answered the question - "does perception require a reference point?" It's not unlike my demanding that you answer the question "have you stoped beating your wife?" with a yes or a no.

You can stipulate that perception involves a reference point, if you like. Doing so is not saying something about how the world is; it's no more than starting a certain sort of philosophical game.

What is the way to know if we have reached an objective truth? — David Mo

A few elementary points.

One can drop with word "objective" without loss: "What is the way to know if we have reached a truth"

There is no reason to think that there is exactly one answer to this question; that is, the reason we know that Paris is the capital of France is not the same as the reason we know that this sentence is in English or that twice two is four.

Being true is not the same as being known.

We can only know things that are true. If we think we know something, but it's not true, then we are what is called wrong.

The idea that we cannot objectively assert anything about reality assumes that we have access to objective truth. — Cidat

There's a few tricky words in that sentence, apt to mislead: idea, objective, assert...

After all, we can, and do, make true assertions.

So reconsider:

If we cannot be objective, then we would have no way of knowing that. — Cidat

Objective or not, there are things that we know. Beware of philosophical games that lead one to think otherwise.

Is there any serious objection to my statement that I am currently using a computer?
— Pneumenon

I don't object to the statement but I do have to understand it through my subjectivity. How could I not? I have my doubts about strict objectivity. — emancipate

It's odd, how folk divide the world into subjective and objective, only to immediately demand that one is a mere subset of the other. As if subjectivity made sense without objectivity.

You cannot technically predict anything with complete accuracy. — Echarmion

So long as you do not take this to mean that you cannot predict anything.

It doesn't need to be the case that 'true' is exactly identical for everyone. It is sufficient that everyone finds enough truth in a statement to make practical use of it. Do you believe that your words are delivered without lack? Yet I still understand you. — emancipate

If you understand, then what is lacking? Again, you are making objective statements about words lacking something, as if anyone that uses words lacks something.

What I don't understand is how you keep making claims about some state-of-affairs that is true for everyone - namely that "It doesn't need to be the case that 'true' is exactly identical for everyone. It is sufficient that everyone finds enough truth in a statement to make practical use of it.", while at the same time claiming that it's not true for everyone. It's like saying that you know that you know nothing - a contradiction. You can't escape making objective claims about the world as it relates to all of us.

"Everything is subjective" is an objective statement as it is being asserted to be true for everyone.

You cannot technically predict anything with complete accuracy. — Echarmion

It depends on the goal. If the goal was accomplished, how can it be said that it wasn't accurate?

Objectivity is possible through analysis, prediction, and success — Templisonanum

It is not exact. Many theories in the past were predictive and are considered false today.

One can drop with word "objective" without loss: "What is the way to know if we have reached a truth" — Banno

We can also talk about "subjective truths".

There is no reason to think that there is exactly one answer to this question; — Banno

There are some differences according to the different branches of knowledge but it is possible to draw a scale of objectivity. The so-called factual sciences are at the top. (Formal sciences are not objective).

In general, objectivity is related to prediction. We say that "boiling water burns" describes objective facts because we do not know any exceptions to it. We can predict "objectively" what will happen if someone puts a finger in the pot of boiling water.

This seems very simple, but it starts to get complicated when we go to less simple propositions and theories than that. Mainly, because in science we cannot test isolated propositions, but a complex of theories and facts.

Obviously, all this disappoints the metaphysicist who is looking for absolute objectivity or certainty. A chimera.

As if subjectivity made sense without objectivity. — Banno

I have not understand well.