Can humans be objective?

[TheFifthElement]

Definition : Objective - 'Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices'

Is there such a thing as objectivity?

Are humans capable of objectivity?

Is objectivity real, or just another idealistic principle like justice or truth, nice in principle but imperfectly operated in human hands?

What say you :D

[manolia]

I am afraid not..At least i haven't met one such person, although i know some who are almost there.
I try to be objective myself but with certain topics i am completely the opposite (and i know it) ;)

[Lily Adams]

I agree with manolina. I really don't think it's possible. Humans are fundamentally irrational, and fundamentally unjust. Believe what you will, but you look through your glasses and the rest of the world looks at them.

[Stanislaw]

I agree, people can not be objective, since people view and understand their surroundings based on their personal experiences. People can't help but be biased, its the only way we can interpret anything.

[crazefest456]

At first I thought that too, that humans can NEVER be objective, but I'm thinking if some form of brainwashing or psychological torture can give a higher degree of objectivity to someone (for a VERY short period of time, i.e. before the person starts learning things). Maybe I'm looking at this in a wrong way...

[Virgil]

It depends. Yes, if one is limits oneself to data based decisions, then yes one can be objective. The question is, can the decision be framed by data or is it one of those questions that either data doesn't exist or isn't possible. Yes, I believe that I can make an objective decision in some cases.

[Sweets America]

I believe that human beings can have a certain degree of objectivity, as long as they detach themselves from their own point of view and try to understand the opinion of someone else. We are not compelled to have opinions based on our own experiences, we can distance ourselves from our personal views. I am sure that when I try to be objective on a subject, I am still biased without being aware of it though. Discussing with people who have opposite views as yours help you to realize when we are biased. I'm sure it's very difficult to detach ourselves from our feelings, but I think we can do it. I know I can defend the point of view of someone even if I totally reject it on a personal level. I can put myself at the place of other people, think about their own life and understand why they would think this or that way.

[Granny5]

I think that there are people, because of the work they do, that are able to be objective. I know several judges who base their decisions on the exact letter of the law, so they do not let their own beliefs rule their decisions. (Of course, there are bad judges, but the good one work very hard at this). I think that a good doctor makes his or her decisions based on the presented facts. I think that good teachers do not let the like or dislike of a student decide the grade. There are good and bad in all occupations I know, but I really want to believe the good outnumber the bad. So, I guess I believe that there are people in the world who can be objective.

One more thing, there are people on these forum who seem to be very objective and I always heed what they say about a poem or story because I think their knowledge over rules whether they "like" someone or not.

[cactus]

From my understanding, the idea of objectivity and its parameters are based on the notion of truth. In short to be objecive is to stick to the facts, the truth. But truth, according to Michel Foucault, is relative and is defined by ideas and structures that are commonly believed by all (to the the truth) and supported and consolidated by other ideas and those who we judge to be experts in the matter. To give one example, we define animals according to species and family groups and these ideas are supported by scientists...etc. But such construction is man-made and because everyone now classify animals in this way, we believe our understanding of animals to be the truth. Hypothetically, if an alien group of people landed on earth and tell us that animals are only those we could eat, are they wrong? They are not wrong because that is the way they classify animals and... other things (species that one can not eat).

In summary we can be objective but only within the parameters of in which we define as the truth.

[mazHur]

Objectivity is self assertion, a close relative of fantasy and fanaticism. For example, the object of a football player is to hit a goal. He secures a goal but only by shoving the ball into his own goal post! Similarly, one 's object is to catch a train to reach his destination (recall what happened with Columbus) He get on the train but later finds that he's traveling toward a wrong destination. Again, men worship god not exactly what god is? This all goes to make objectivity a matter of quasi-truth. There's something more to objectivity which could make it snugly fit on the idol of data as data itself is not Objectivity in itself. QED
Here is a joke I just bumped against on the net regarding Objectivity. The outcome really leaves a lot for the guys to be done !




It was opening night at the Orpheum theater and the Amazing Eileen was topping the bill. People came from miles around to see the famed hypnotist do her stuff.

As the Amazing Eileen took to the stage, she announced, ''Unlike most stage hypnotists who invite two or three people up onto the stage to be put into a trance, I intend to hypnotize each and every member of the audience.''


The excitement was almost electric as the Amazing Eileen withdrew a beautiful antique pocket watch from her coat.

''I want you each to keep your eye on this antique watch . It's a very special watch. Its been in my family for six generations.''


She began to swing the watch gently back and forth while quietly chanting, ''Watch the watch, watch the watch, watch the watch.... ''.

The crowd became mesmerized as the watch swayed back and forth, light gleaming off its polished surface.


Hundreds of pairs of eyes followed the swaying watch, until suddenly it slipped from the hypnotist's fingers and fell to the floor, breaking into a hundred pieces.

''Sh*t'' said the hypnotist.

It took three weeks to clean up the theatre . ...

[bazarov]

I think we can be objective, always in situations that doesn't involve people we know or care for them, and if we are strong and resolute also in situations which involves are closest friends and family or us.

[adampearson]

I must say, I am impressed by the responses. The only things that are objective are those that pass the "hey, look at that" test. If something cannot be proved based on that simple criteria, it cannot be expressed in objective terms by humans.

[Oniw17]

If everyone were objective in every decision they made, there would be no argument for disbelief in determinism as the state of the universe. I'd rather people be somewhat arbitrary myself, except in things like science and math and discussion, and whatever else goes with those.

[NikolaiI]

Another thing that is a problem here, as well as the fact that each of us have unique opinions and no one can agree; is that each of us, apparently, is trying to manipulate all of the others. This is why there is merit to what may seem as impulsive. What may seem an impulsive action can be good or bad sometimes; it is good because it's an automatic reaction, but bad because it may further something negative (for instance, you might make yourself more angry, or something like that). So there's a need for both spontenaety as well as objectivity, or planning.

The next thing that comes to mind is realization. We might have a realization about truth; but then, it might be a temporary realization. (This seems true to me, but I will be honest with you in that I am paraphrasing with something I recently read). So a temporary realization would be one that disappeared as soon as something difficult came along. The solution? Make sure we understand the difficult.

I'll speak about clarity for a moment, instead of objectivity. Or actually, what the lack of clarity means. May I say delusion, or duality? I mean, these are what I define these things as. Well, recently I sort of have the idea that most people rest less in duality than people usually think. That is, people are less distanced from reality as we always say. But then, the other side of that, we could say that everyone rests in duality.

Anyway, I will say that I do believe people can attain enlightenment, and that I think it is like the Buddhists say, that is very rare. For instance, "The Buddha," is the Buddha of our age, referred to as Shakayumani Buddha. There were something like 15-20 before him, and a certain number are predicted after. This just goes to show that it's very rare.

I prefer the term clarity to objectivity, and I mostly only think in a Buddhist sense. There are many angles and perspectives about all of this. Buddhists teach that meditation is the discipline which will result in clarity, joy, and absence of thoughts, but that is just what they say. They also stress so many other things, and to be honest, these are all the entanglements of dharma. For instance, some traditions will talk about other ways of looking at it, like when they say it's good to no longer try to extend meditation or distinguish between meditation and nonmeditation. Or what has been said about mahamudra; it's said that when you attain nonattainment, this is mahamudra.

I've gotten off-topic, and I see no way to end this- (having just deleted a paragraph comparing the no-goal idea in Buddhism to Western thinking)

[dramasnot6]

One can never be WHOLLY objective, but relative to all other species humans are capable of being able to distance themselves consciously fairly successfully. It is not so much about completely eliminating bias, as it is recognizing what your bias is and working with and around it.

[dramasnot6]

Besides, what is "objective" is in itself subjective to the individual interpreting the meaning of objectivity.

[Virgil]

One can never be WHOLLY objective, but relative to all other species humans are capable of being able to distance themselves consciously fairly successfully. It is not so much about completely eliminating bias, as it is recognizing what your bias is and working with and around it.

A ball dropped falls at the rate of 32 ft per sec per sec. That is an objective statement. If one objective statement can be made, others can too.

[crazefest456]

A ball dropped falls at the rate of 32 ft per sec per sec. That is an objective statement. If one objective statement can be made, others can too.

32 ft*s^-2, meaning acceleration due to gravity... I always thought such constants were based off of a standard that we established a while ago. Can it still be an objective statement, if the basis of this statement is somewhat subjective (the variations of the SI, fps, cks)?

[Virgil]

32 ft*s^-2, meaning acceleration due to gravity... I always thought such constants were based off of a standard that we established a while ago. Can it still be an objective statement, if the basis of this statement is somewhat subjective (the variations of the SI, fps, cks)?

In what way is that a subjective statement? I don't understand. What variations are you talking about?

[crazefest456]

well, the units of measurements: 32 ft per sec squared versus 9.8 meters per sec squared and so on. Feet and meters were determined by people who felt that using intervals that were known to them (in this case, an actual foot, and the ten millionth of the distance between the north pole and the equator, respectively). Isn't that subjectivity?

[Virgil]

well, the units of measurements: 32 ft per sec squared versus 9.8 meters per sec squared and so on. Feet and meters were determined by people who felt that using intervals that were known to them (in this case, an actual foot, and the ten millionth of the distance between the north pole and the equator, respectively). Isn't that subjectivity?

Different units have nothing to do with subjectivity. The ball drops at the same rate whether in ft per sec per sec or meters per sec per sec.

[NikolaiI]

If Virgil and I agree on this matter, that humans can be objective, does that count for anything?


Just random, disjointed, word association: objectivity, clarity, focus- sincerity, honesty, simplicity, reality.

No need to end this discussion! :D

[crazefest456]

Different units have nothing to do with subjectivity. The ball drops at the same rate whether in ft per sec per sec or meters per sec per sec.
okay, that makes sense! I feel stupid...


I always wondered that is it ethical to rely purely on objectivity or some personal judgment (regarding the justice system or situations like that)? I never really had a stance on this because the only place this question was raised up was on TV shows, and I don't give in easily to just one view...

[Dave Shafer]

Isn't that a trick question? Since we're all humans don't we all have a conflict of interest?

[KillCarneyKlans]

Not unless they want to ... which can be rare.

[IntravenousJava]

Let's not confuse objectivity with objectification, much less empathy. When I contemplate myself I am at once subject and object. When I contemplate you, I may obtain a variable degree of objectivity, but I must do so subjectively.

[RetsixArp]

A ball dropped falls at the rate of 32 ft per sec per sec. That is an objective statement. ...My favorite comment on objectivity is in Ronald Laing's memoir, Wisdom, Madness and Folly: "the decision to be objective is a subjective decision." You choose to make an objective statement.

[russellb]

My favorite comment on objectivity is in Ronald Laing's memoir, Wisdom, Madness and Folly: "the decision to be objective is a subjective decision." You choose to make an objective statement.

And Laing's work is full of the subjective choice to make statements intended to be objectively true. That he subjectively chose to make such a decision does not, of course, inform us as to whether his statements are objectively true or not.

[cafolini]

Men are perfectly capable of being objective. Often, however, it's not very different than being completely stupid. Always is even worse.

[russellb]

Men are perfectly capable of being objective. Often, however, it's not very different than being completely stupid. Always is even worse.

Perhaps the word is not "stupid" but "uninteresting." Tautologies and unequivocal facts don't make for great conversation at parties...stupidity on the other hand...

[nerak45]

We are objective. Objectivity is how war is created, rascism, crime in general all created by objectivity. objectivity means to view humans as objects not subjects as in subjectivity.
Objectivity=a jock, a terrorist,a piece of ***, a jew
Subjectivity=a man, a woman, a child

[cacian]

Objectivity is a will. Subjectivity is a feeling. Yes when we will we objectively concentrate and when we feel we subjectively think.

[cafolini]

Will have to ask the tyrants, nepotists, despots, dictators from the Middle East after the next episode we get a chance to show our objectivity. We'll have better witnesses than at the Watchtower.

[russell g]

there is absolutely no such thing as an object,
"it is pure event" see S. R. Allen 's "Gnosis the emergence of individuated holistic intelligence"

[cacian]

there is absolutely no such thing as an object,
"it is pure event" see S. R. Allen 's "Gnosis the emergence of individuated holistic intelligence"

OH well I am not so sure. An object is what a man creates. A subject is closer to home emotionally then an object and so I would it is subjective to the individual to how we interpret either.

[maxphisher]

"The term objective, as applied to art, has only a temporary significance, if it has any. It is too usually considered that an artist is one who projects himself into external phenomena, and transcribes it. I am more inclined to believe that there is no such thing as objective writing in fiction, but in science there has been much, and it has paralysed science for centuries . . . There is but one science in the world: it is psychology, and psychology can only be attempted by a fully-conscious being. One should not write a book for other people; there are no other people. A book should be written to clarify the mind of its writer and to prepare food for genius" - James Stephens ("An Essay in Cubes" 87-88).

[cafolini]

"There is only one science." What a crazy statement, regardless of what science is selected.

[cacian]

The object of desire is to begot. Humans are like machines they mass produce to get. If only mass production was a mass of feelings and coordination. Imagine I would want some of that and more.
Are humans objective? yes to the extremes that they sail pass humans like robots.

[maxphisher]

"There is only one science." What a crazy statement, regardless of what science is selected.

Remember who we're talking about here, a modernist writer at the height of literary modernism. While I would agree with your argument that claiming only one science is pretty short-sighted and, well, rather ridiculous, but I have to admit that I didn't necessarily put Stephens's argument in context. He is discussing what makes a successful novelist. Given the push to balance the novel between plot and narrative action and psychological expression, I tend to agree with him a little more, based only on the period. One of the primary goals of the modernists was to create protagonists who were "whole" men and women. This had been successfully achieved by very few writers before this time, mostly as Stephens argues, because their creators, the author, had failed at truly realizing themselves as complete thinking beings. Again, however, his argument relies primarily on the ability to be objective in fiction writing.

[cafolini]

"One should not write a book for other people; there are no other people." Another insane one here, there and anywhere. LOL

[maxphisher]

Why? How does one write a book for other people? Who is the other that a book could be written for? A book should be written by and for the author, and it should be read by and for the reader. The relationship between an author and an entirely unknown reader is non-existent. The reader can never fully understand the author or authorial intent behind a work; therefore, it is impossible to write content for that reader. Likewise, the author can never fathom anything more than a faceless, common reader - cycle repeated. It's very ego-centric to assume that any writer at any time in any place has ever written a book FOR a reader. The reader is an entirely separate and consequential entity that is wholly reliant on a product that hardly exists as part of the author's mind...

[cafolini]

Case closed.
So, you are not writing for me to read it. So you are writing to prick? Have fun.
ROFLMAO!!

[maxphisher]

You're having trouble separating a novel as a work of art from a novel as a product. We could go about this another way though. Name one book and explain how it was written for you. What ideas and messages did the author include for you, as the reader? How can you know any of that? I'm more than willing to accept a hand written, signed letter from the author that states what he or she wanted you to pull from the work... If it helps, you are welcome to pick any piece of literature that you want.

[cafolini]

You're having trouble separating a novel as a work of art from a novel as a product. We could go about this another way though. Name one book and explain how it was written for you. What ideas and messages did the author include for you, as the reader? How can you know any of that? I'm more than willing to accept a hand written, signed letter from the author that states what he or she wanted you to pull from the work... If it helps, you are welcome to pick any piece of literature that you want.

To discuss this with you in any serious way would be like lending myself for free to be ridiculos.

[maxphisher]

You're offering a lot of laughing and ridiculing and absolutely no thought or basis to your argument. "Just because" will never be a suitable answer to a question.

[cafolini]

Maximum Phisherman. LOL

[maxphisher]

I guess that's the best that I expected from you... That was excellent defense of your stance on this issue. Congratulations, I guess.


Maximum Phisherman. LOL

[Muchograndeeeaa]

There are facts about the world that any rational person recognizes as objective principles, from which we can easily formulate more complex ideologies that are, at least fundamentally, objective. The most basic one would be that we exist. There's no point in thinking anything if we don't exist. Next most basic would be that we rely on a necessarily healthy environment. We need good soils, weather, resources, ext. another would be that happiness and moral are not the same thing. The concept of the non existence of objectivity is a misinterpretation of what science means. All the hedonists look at science and say it erodes morality, but they forget that science itself is objective, though not certain. Certainty is an illusion and certainty isn't objectivity.

[hypatia_]

Besides, what is "objective" is in itself subjective to the individual interpreting the meaning of objectivity.

"the only thing i know is that i know nothing." if you realize your mind is just an instrument for observation and speculation, and that you will never see the complete picture (just think about all the wavelengths we do not see, all the senses we know exist but do not have), then it's clear that objectivity and subjectivity both have their place but are just 2 sides of the same coin.

[Muchograndeeeaa]

"(just think about all the wavelengths we do not see, all the senses we know exist but do not have), then it's clear that objectivity and subjectivity both have their place but are just 2 sides of the same coin.

not necessarily true, we know that those wavelengths are there, its just the way the light is reflected, we can see all the wavelengths that are VISIBLE, based on how the light is reflected

[hypatia_]

i'm a chem major and understand what wavelengths we can and cannot see. the fact that we know other wavelengths are there does not mean we can perceive them, unfortunately.

[KillCarneyKlans]

I was going through my old threads here and came across this, so I decided to stop, and chime in ... I would think it would have to be YES! How could most of the world which is subjective (self-centered) not eventually come to the conclusion that in order to evolve you must be objective ... With more of an eastern philosophical bend on things, (western seems so linear, non-cyclic) seeing the world spinning into chaos, and with humanity facing some of it's worst possibilities like AI, WWIII, declining populations, resources, the 4 horsemen, Armageddon, etc ... How could they, it's inevitable! Our governments, industry, technology and militaries will destroy itself and maybe us with it. Not to mention the next cycle of culling humanity.

The Next Age of the Earth
https://youtu.be/R8DHU0NT7Is?si=F23mBVHPHmIsDh7T
The Coming Catastrophe
https://youtu.be/j635Cv2aOlA?si=XLD

Everyone tells us they are going to do this or that, we ain't in charge, and the people in charge ain't either, there's no way they can stop or not be the apart of the universe. There's no chance for subjective.

[tonywalt]

Ah yes — the inevitable collapse, courtesy of the Four Horsemen and a few billion lines of AI code. I always say, if the universe is a simulation, it’s got a dark sense of humor and a very nonlinear plot structure. But maybe that's the trick — objectivity doesn't save us from the chaos, it saves us in spite of it. Like learning to dance in the storm instead of trying to redirect the hurricane. Eastern thought would say the wheel turns whether you like it or not — best to unhook your ego and watch it spin with wonder. The West, meanwhile, is still trying to install brakes on the wheel.

Anyway, I’m glad you chimed in. Threads like this are exactly what remind me that while we may not be in charge, we are awake — and that counts for something.