#objective vs. subjective

[syscourse-shmiscourse]

I’d argue that all plurality is so under researched and underrepresented in psychology, that bringing ANY science into the “are endos real” discourse is about as useful as arguing about what some niche dinosaur may have looked like. Does bringing science in help? Yes, of course it does! It always will! But acting like science is going to be some instant and immediate “See, here’s proof!” is ridiculous (plus there’s the fact that saying “this scientific article proves-” about anything is extremely anti-science as no article or study can “prove” anything but I don’t think anyone’s ready for that conversation yet) because at the end of the day, 90% of the argument isn’t about science. It’s about morality and the human nature of “If I do not understand something, I am scared of it or perceive it as a threat”.

Anon I 2000% agree with you (and sorry for taking a couple days to respond)! We actually typed up this post specifically because of this issue in system spaces. It's something people don't like to keep in mind because in areas of discourse, we've found it's mostly that people want objective experiences (things we can measure and identify with absolute certainty) as opposed to subjective experiences (personal experiences that may or may not be quantifiable in science). Which honestly blows my mind because while things we can measure and count are 100% important, the subjective experience is so fascinating and I wish that syscoursers kept that in mind with good faith.

Have a wonderful day <3

[redkoi1]

Please don't send spirituality tips to people who are actually psychotic it will worsen they health if they try to use them instead of going to specialist. It's really dangerous. I'm sorry. This ask comes from someone who was sent to exorcist because of accidentally misunderstood mental illness and the exorcist told me I wasn't possesed and I had mental illness.

How about: don't tell me what to fucking do. How about that? I beat all my mental illness with very little meds, to tapering off, and with God.

Psychotic people tend to be ritually abused and targeted for bullying even more because of their fragile mentality. If you're psychotic, learn patience. It is the virtue of Wrath within the seven deadly sins. Wrath is the most deadly of the seven sins. Learn patience, and just keep learning. Do breathwork/meditation. Every other person with psychotic tendencies is tired of having their sanity tested to no ends, regardless of who, what, how, or why the sender is doing it. Most mentally ill people aren't senseless and evil like the ignorant, "normal", never-been-diagnosed tend to think 'we' are. That said, degeneracy does and can lead to mental illness as well. Good/Evil also lies on a spectrum within mental illness.

[harbingersecho]

misrecognition is not ignorance

[luidilovins]

Whether the morality of making a hot cheese or coco mac is objective or subjective hinges on why OP created them.

If OP created these monstrosities despite the clear instructions specifically out of hubris that he is invulnerable to the consequences of creation of these homunculi or the wrath of God, then morality is objective.

If OP created these monstrosities because he was unaware of the instructions or the instructions were unclear, or if OP created these dishes for the sake of curiosity, or to expand food options to ease others dilemmas when it comes to lack of options in their pantry due to being needy or if OP created these disgusting abominations simply for the sake of pure enjoyment and OP is neither gluttonous nor wasteful then the morality is subjective.

Paradoxically since any one of these options is in the realm of possibility then by default morality is indeed subjective, because if morality was objective then mankind would insticutually know not to create hot cheese and coco mac and only explicitly create it by ignoring this instinct.

And while hot cheese and coco mac are capable of existing, they are not necessary permissible and are still generally frowned upon for their existence goes against societal order.

[dandelionjack]

i have a maybe lukewarm maybe hot take about this godforsaken show that some people could find mean, but i stand behind it, no elaboration (okay, some elaboration in the tags below… a lot of elaboration)

opinion: if you claim to like clara’s dynamic with the doctor and her character development in series 8 and 9, but simultaneously say you hate the impossible girl arc/elevenclara, you don’t actually understand anything about their relationship and what makes it the way that it is

[wantbytaemin]

literally whenever i feel like an ego boost i do a little dance in the mirror it’s so good to me

[karnalesbian]

outside the dmv: honestly feel bad for people who work at the dmv like imagine dealing with long lines of frustrated people all day about the most trite bullshit

standing in line at the dmv: I was a fool. The lady at the desk is the enemy. Her only objective is to specifically worsen every aspect of my day and or life, and she will stop at nothing in pursuit of that end.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

anytime there's production trivia for something i've actually seen like "& the director didn't tell any of the actors this was going to happen so as to get Not Acted Surprise, from the Actors" it's like that's so funny the way i didn't ever see that part as like wow that seemed so particularly genuine to me compared to other parts of this work or other works in general. but on the other hand there'll be scenes in something where a surprising event occurs around multiple characters and there'll be trivia like "wow the way nobody (else) knew this was going to happen beforehand, in so impactful a scene, that makes sense" and then someone involved will be like that's not true

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Objectivity

Objectivity is a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry, often considered crucial for achieving impartiality and truth. It represents a stance or a method that aims to eliminate personal biases, emotions, and subjective influences from the process of understanding and evaluating reality. This exploration will delve into the philosophical dimensions of objectivity, examining its nature, significance, and the debates surrounding its attainability and application in various fields.

Understanding Objectivity

Objectivity refers to the quality of being free from personal biases, emotions, and subjective influences. It is often associated with impartiality, fairness, and neutrality. In philosophy, objectivity is essential for evaluating claims, theories, and arguments based on evidence and reason rather than personal feelings or opinions.

Philosophical Perspectives on Objectivity

Epistemological Objectivity:

In epistemology, objectivity is related to the pursuit of knowledge that is independent of individual perspectives. Objective knowledge is considered to be universally valid and verifiable. The quest for objective truth involves using rigorous methods of inquiry, such as the scientific method, to ensure that findings are reproducible and not influenced by subjective factors.

Moral Objectivity:

Moral objectivity pertains to the idea that certain moral truths or principles are universally valid, regardless of individual beliefs or cultural practices. Ethical theories like moral realism argue that moral facts exist independently of human opinions and can be discovered through rational reflection and ethical reasoning.

Aesthetic Objectivity:

Aesthetic objectivity concerns the possibility of making objective judgments about art and beauty. While aesthetic experiences are often deeply personal and subjective, some philosophers argue that there are objective criteria for evaluating artistic quality, such as coherence, complexity, and emotional impact.

Scientific Objectivity:

In the sciences, objectivity is critical for ensuring the reliability and validity of research findings. Scientific objectivity involves the use of standardized methods, peer review, and replication to minimize biases and errors. The goal is to produce knowledge that can be independently verified and is not influenced by the researchers' personal beliefs or desires.

Debates and Challenges

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity:

A central debate in the philosophy of objectivity revolves around the tension between objective and subjective perspectives. Critics argue that complete objectivity is unattainable because all human understanding is inherently shaped by individual experiences, cultural contexts, and cognitive biases. This viewpoint suggests that objectivity is an ideal rather than an achievable state.

Relativism:

Relativism challenges the notion of objective truth by arguing that what is considered true or valid depends on cultural, social, or individual perspectives. According to relativism, there are no absolute truths, and all knowledge is context-dependent. This poses a significant challenge to the idea of objectivity, especially in fields like ethics and aesthetics.

The Role of Values in Objectivity:

Another critical issue is the role of values and interests in shaping what is considered objective. Some philosophers argue that values inevitably influence the process of inquiry and that striving for value-free objectivity is neither possible nor desirable. Instead, they advocate for transparency about the values that guide research and decision-making.

Feminist and Postcolonial Critiques:

Feminist and postcolonial philosophers have critiqued traditional notions of objectivity, arguing that they often reflect the perspectives of dominant groups while marginalizing others. These critiques highlight the importance of considering diverse viewpoints and the potential biases in what is deemed objective knowledge.

The philosophy of objectivity addresses fundamental questions about the nature of truth, knowledge, and impartiality. It challenges us to consider how we can strive for fair and unbiased understanding while recognizing the limitations and influences of our subjective perspectives. By exploring the philosophical dimensions of objectivity, we gain deeper insights into the complexities of human cognition and the pursuit of knowledge.

[indigosfindings]

always thinking about a video i saw years ago arguing that professional film critics are More Correct than the layperson because they're More Objective, and the example given was that a Professional might remark on things like contrast/affinity. the intended takeaway was that critics base their observations on Objective And Quantifiable Facts, unlike puerile commoners (whose opinions have nothing to do with the contents of the movie)

and like. there are a lot of things one could say about this, but what i keep thinking of is the sheer flimsiness of the argument. remarking on contrast is in fact not a qualitative observation! noting whether a shot is high-contrast says literally nothing about your opinion on it!! as soon as you tack on "...and that's a good thing," you're making a subjective statement! what function is served by claiming that certain opinions are ~Objective~, other than defending the idea of a Superior Intelligent Elite that the Uneducated Masses should look to for The Correct Opinions like a dog begging for table scraps

[girl4music]

I love Willow as a character because of what she represents and teaches about the human condition and because she shows what humans result to on a bad day or when in desperation to do something but if I knew somebody like her in real life I really could not stand being around her. Just the severe lack of emotional maturity and intelligence she has and her insistence to Will things her way all the time and completely ignore or disregard people’s consent and not take into consideration their views or feelings as if she’s the only one in the room that even matters.

I couldn’t be friends with somebody like that. I really couldn’t. I couldn’t tolerate the blatant disrespect. I’d be constantly fighting with her. Telling her that how she’s behaving is selfish or arrogant or childish and could potentially risk or endanger hers or other’s well-being or both. That it’s not worth what it does for her.

She’s a fascinating character in a fictional sense.

But knowing a character like that in reality…

Different story for me. Absolutely.

And it’s a good thing she is fictional because I wouldn’t have the authority to tell anybody any of this. But I know for fact it would slip out when I’m moody and because I’m just a take-no-shit kind of person. I might be quiet and stoic in real life but I’m not carefree and lenient like Oz and Tara are. The reason why I can say Willow is my favourite character in the Buffyverse is because I primarily look at her objectively. She’s an object. A vehicle for learning. And that’s what matters most to me in art/entertainment.

As odd as it may seem to say, - I feel like I could get along with somebody like Xander more than Willow and I know the whole fanbase would take me to task for that and be completely confused by it because the majority of the fanbase think of Xander as the worst.

But nah, not for me. Xander uses his worst traits to become his best self. It’s always opposite for Willow. She uses what she does best to be the fucking worst and it’s not until she’s actually at her worst does she come to realize this and does a 180. But even then…

Nah, knowing a “Willow Rosenberg” in real life would not be a long relationship for me. I just know it.

But I think it’s very interesting how we can love characters that we don’t particularly think much of as a person in art/entertainment but can love as a character. Or maybe it’s just me that’s like that.

I mean fiction is fiction and reality is reality.

I analyze the fuck out of this character. Mostly negatively. But nevertheless - enough to realize that she most definitely is my favourite character. There are characters I don’t ever talk about at all and that’s because I don’t think much of them as a character but probably would like them a lot as a person in real life.

[abimee]

i hope this helps people decode what im talking about when i give games i love poor ratings

[thegreatyin]

upon reflection several months later i have to admit. bg3 doesn't have the greatest story ever. but is it still really good and really enjoyable and really top tier? hell yeah brother

[rossemboss]

"It's a family of stone, petrified so deeply it's impenetrable. Every day we try to kill one another, to kill. Not only do we not talk to one another, we don't even look at one another. When you're being looked at you can't look. To look is to feel curious, to be interested, to lower yourself. No one you look at is worth it. Looking is always demeaning."

- Marguerite Duras, The Lover

[leefi]

can someone who knows more japanese than me explain (or point me to explanations) the rhyme and reason behind particles…like why is it コーヒーを飲みます in this case and 紅茶が欲しいです in this one

[jinkieswouldyoulookatthis]

This is subjective vs objective.

Subjective is how much you liked a thing. "Ok" to "Eating glass/I will never be the same/etc."

Objective is how technically well-crafted that thing was. "utter dogshit" to "Well-made art"

A lot of people are not good at separating these two scales even though they are entirely different. Except where Supernatural is concerned, because Supernatural is everything.

OP turned off reblogs so this is my post now. Behold, the "Objective quality vs. degree of ferality" scale

Here are a few of my own personal datapoints: