No one has objectivity. I'm paraphrasing a dear friend of mine's view that people can't be objective because their brain function as well as their experience clouds their perception of reality.
The subject of objectivity came up in passing as my friend and I were discussing brain function and its corresponding software. I don't share my friend's view about objectivity, but I decided not to press the point to hard, mostly because we've covered this ground before. Having reached an impasse on the subject of objectivity, we both have an inability to understand one another's point of view. He thinks (objectively BTW) I'm stuck in old outmoded ways of thinking; I think he's just being illogical and has failed to notice he has sawed off the branch he is sitting on epistemologically.
But I felt like writing about it not only because I believe I have something to say with regard to the objectivity of human beings, but because I know my good friend's view is the reigning champion in our culture. It is (with all due respect to him) an absurd notion–absurd because it's illogical and because people who hold this view don't practice what they preach. We may say we believe humans are without objectivity. However, in our actions we say something else. And the irony is that while we are doing this we are seemingly unaware of our unintended hypocrisy.
For example, my friend states as incontrovertible fact we can't be objective. Yet his statement illustrates exactly the thing he claims is impossible. If all our assessments are tainted at their source (see Freud) , then that would have to mean even my dear friend's view that people can't be objective is also tainted, and thus not worthy of belief. His view also commits suicide since the statement itself contradicts the very thing it claims as fact, truth, etc.
It also means that the information my friend and I choose to act on is spurious as well. Or rather, how we interpret the information is flawed. In this particular case, we were discussing the findings of the noted psychologist Daniel G. Amen. We both believe that Dr. Amen's findings in his area of expertise are correct, that he is on the cutting edge of his discipline. Are we being objective when we make that assessment? Moreover, are Dr. Amen's conclusions worthy of belief since he also is a human being and thus suffers from tainted objectivity? I'm being facetious, obviously, but you can see the trap here. Those who say we are "incapable of objectivity" disprove their assertion every time they make the statement. They inadvertently prove the very point they are attempting to refute.
Want to stir up a hornet's nest? Next time you hear someone say, "Objectivity is impossible," "There are no absolutes," or some other such nonsense, simply respond with these three words: "Are you sure?" If they say, "yes," and believe me, 90% of the people you talk to will, then you can say, "You're quite right. The truth is incontrovertible. I'm glad you agree with me that human beings can be objective after all."
Ha, ha. Good one!
What we need is an alien species to decide if humans can be objective. Or maybe robots. Shiney, chrome-plated ones. Surely- not being human- they could objectively decide if humans can be objective.
Alas, T.R. if the robots are designed by tainted humans then they too (the robots) must also be tainted. Of course, since my opinion that the humans and thus the robots are tainted is…uh, well…tainted, it would appear my friend may be right. Notice I didn’t say that he is absolutely right, as that would imply some form of objectivity, which we all “know” I mean…uh, which in all probability is impossible…wait a minute, that means we can’t know anything…or we at least we can’t be certain. Oh crap! If that’s true then we can’t even be certain that we are certain….As my cartoon shows, the one thing the culture is certain of is that we CAN’T be certain, which, of course is complete and utter nonsense. Like Socrates, you end up chasing your tail reductio ad absurdum.
I disagree, Chadly, ole boy. Even if the robots were imperfect, they would still have the possible ability to objectively make a decision about humans, as they themselves are not humans.
Take for example guys and girls. Girls cannot objectively judge how another girl looks- the claws come out in some form or another, due to an inherent competitiveness that all females have.
On the other hand, we guys- not being chicks ourselves- do indeed have the ability to objectively decided which gal looks the best. Why, we objectify women on a daily basis!
I know im very late with this, but ive been researching for an essay and came across your blog. I totally disagree, this has to be one of the weakest arguments for objectivity i have come across. This is a part of the current draft of my eassy:
Objectivity is a central and elusive philosophical category proposing to deal “with facts Without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices” (Penguin 2002:607). A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject. (Wiki). In light of this the idea of a ‘reality’ or ‘truth’ comes in to question. According to the theory of Objectivism “reality is mind-independent, it is thus inclusive of objects that are unknown and not the subject of intentionality” (Wiki). Moreover, truth is considered “the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality.” (Wiki). The idea of a single, indisputable reality, and thus objectivism, is impossible for us to prove or percieve. Any proposition or observation has to be made through human means “in which both feeling and logical categories are necessarily human inventions.” (Benson 2002:266). For this reason the theory of objectivity will remain elusive and unprovable as this is a clearly impossible state.
In contrast, subjectivity is a theory which describes a state “relating to, determined by, or arising from the mind or self” (Penguin 2002:890). A much more widely accepted theory over objectivity, which refers to the qualia which is only available to each individuals consciousness. It suggests that all knowing; Theories, philosophies, observations, understandings, “every concept we have about the world is based on human or individual perspective.” (Wiki) Although the cause of each individual experience is believed to be ‘objectively’ available to each individual, the theory states that the experience will be unique to the individual as it will be processed through their unique state of knowing. Subjectivity is within itself the only truth despite assumptions about subjective “truths” we make. The creation of philosophies is within itself subjective, along with the concept of discovery or creation of ideas.
Still a little rough but does the job
It’s quite alright James. We closed this site as of December 31st 2010, but you’re welcome to read or comment as you like for as long as the blog remains up.
That said, I agree with you….the wiki explanation is weak. I know you didn’t mean it that way, but I couldn’t resist turning your opening statement on it’s head. The problem with explanations/arguments against objectivity is always the same. They fail to satisfy their own requirements for truth, thus (conveniently) committing suicide. If objectivity is something which can’t be centered around a sentient creature, then how in God’s name do we know that such a statement is objectively true? The answer is, we can’t….and if we can’t know it… because the writers of said drivel are, in fact, tainted at their sources, then there’s no reason to believe that the statement is true. If it’s not objectively true, then why are they violating their own principle in stating that it is? Either objectivity is possible or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then they should be more tentative in their explanation. A more logically consistent explanation would involve using the conditionals “may,” maybe,” “uncertain,” and so forth. You have to admit, it’s quite humorous to see them stating their view that objectivity is impossible…but stating it as an objective reality which is irrefutable. I’m still laughing about that. But it is Wikipedia; I wouldn’t expect anything less from them.
The assumption you make when assuming that your friend “saws off his own branch” is that only the objective is worthy of being believed. In other words the subjective notion is false because it is tainted by bias. This is an especially weak assumption however. That which is subjective CAN be tainted by bias, it is not completely true that it always is. Anything requiring perception is inherently subjective, and there is plenty perceived that is as it is perceived. All human endeavors really require some degree of subjectivity, and all human experiences, including those which would lead you to believe that certain beliefs are objectively true are also Dependant on subjectivity. That is not to say that the world exists as we interpret it. It is instead to say that there is a total objective truth. We can never completely know it. There are subjective truths in line with objective truth, and subjective falsehoods that are not in line with objective truth. Based on what we know about cognitive science, the idea that any of us have access to objective truth is patently absurd.
Hi Mike,
Thanks for playing. That was a beautiful rhetorical tap dance you did there and actually agree with at least one of your “facts.” The one stating “that which is subjective CAN be tainted by bias, it is not completely true that it always is.” Of course. That was never my argument and if that were all you had to say on the matter, we could call it quits, because I agree 100% on that point. But then…you continued and went on to state at least a dozen truth claims as objective reality. And that is precisely the problem. You committed the same error my friend did…along with countless others who have all drank from the same well. The problem is thus: Whenever you make a truth claim such as: It is the case that “the idea that any of us have access to objective truth is patently absurd,” you make a statement which fails to satisfy its own requirements for validity. Thus the statement vanishes in a puff of self refuting smoke. Since I already explained this in a comment which preceded yours, I don’t expect you to get it. But perhaps someone else who hasn’t been taught that you can make sense out of nonsense will understand and move on from this fractured epistemological paradigm into the light of rationality. And now I must bid you adieu. I wish you well.