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.

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

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!

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.