Towards Defining Objective and Subjective

[Christopher]

Although it seems we take for granted that there exists a world apart from humans, there is a significant mixing between the existence of that world and our awareness (i.e. perceptions, etc.) to that world. As a result, a difficult question arises: where does one draw a border between objective (seemingly the external world) and subjective (seemingly the internal world)? Internal/interior is used here to represent those apprehensions (both cognitive and affective) that arise in living creatures. The question of defining a clear boundary between objective and subjective has plagued many discussions about objectivity and subjectivity on this forum (look at the discussion on subjective values).

We should agree that certain metaphysical facts exist, such as the Earth is the third planet from the sun. The sun is made up of significant amounts of hydrogen. Electricity exists and is represented by the flow of electrons.

There are also anthropocentric facts, facts that are specific to the human species. The color red, bitter taste, the universally unpleasant smell of ammonia. Any information our perception, our senses, provides us is a subjective representation of objective stuff (wavelengths, molecules). Does this mean that objectivity can only be understood through the mind by distilling it from the senses (red is not objective until it is defined as "wavelengths with x frequency") ? To me this is poppycock. Categories and thoughts themselves are subjective organizations of the universe built within the human mind and requiring volition to validate. Therefore, by defining objectivity as everything external and subjectivity as everything internal to the mind, everything becomes subjective by definition. We need better definitions than this if having these categorical words are to have any meaning. Indeed, if everything is subjective, there is no need for the set of words objective/subjective.

Colloquially, most of us agree that conceptual knowledge based on validated perceptions and proceeding logical deductions are objective. In other words, seemingly-subjective mental management of metaphysical facts is considered objective. For example, Earth rotates around the sun; there exists gravity; gravity has an operation according to xyz equations (these concepts are all internal events). Likewise in regards to life, a beaver's life is an objective thing which objectively has certain needs in order to sustain the life of the beaver. This takes us back into the interior world of the living: perceptions (red, bitter, etc.) and evaluations (heat=good, water=good) are anthropocentric facts... they arise from an interior seemingly-subjective system, but yikes! -they help represent metaphysical facts about phylogenic needs. So anthroponcentric facts can be objective to the degree that conceptual knowledge about physics can be objective. In other words, the color/experience "red" is seemingly just as objective as discussing wavelengths of abc frequency.

So now to answer the big question, where do we draw the line between objective and subjective? I would assert that "objectivity" is anything handled by interior systems that coincides with metaphysical reality (ex. the sun is filled with hydrogen; the sun is yellow). "Subjectivity" is therefore anything handled by interior systems that does not coincide with meta-physical reality (ex. the sun is made up of nickel-cadmium; the sun is blue). This definition is far far from complete, but it's an important step and a vital consideration to all discussions of objectivity. I think it's important we not use the words "objective" and "subjective" in such a manner that all interior apprehensions and corresponding assertions are automatically categorized as "subjective" (eg. all values are subjective), nor that we say all things are both subjective and objective (a phrase that makes the usage of these two words less than optimal).

[Christopher]

Well I'm just going to come up with a pretty little definition right now and solve the whole discussion. Tell me if there's a flaw, but I don't see one:

The goal of knowledge and awareness is ultimately understanding of the world in order to successfully interact with that world. Humans are loaded with equipment for understanding that world, but all this equipment is phylogenic (the way the cognitive mind works, the way the emotions work, the way perceptions work). The fact that phylogenic equipment produces anthropocentric observations means that it is not sufficient to define objective as "everything outside the human mind." Nothing can be understood outside the mind.

Since the goal of knowledge is awareness of the world, objectivity should be centered around accurate awareness regardless of the mechanisms of awareness. Accurate awareness can be measured by the level of successful (and predictable?) interaction between an organism and metaphysical reality. Therefore, one might be able to define objective as any knowledge arising from phylogenic mechanisms that results in successful interaction between phylogenic needs and the external world. -A mechanism and a purpose.- Subjective would then be any knowledge arising in conflict with either phylogenic mechanisms of awareness or in conflict with interaction between the species and the external world. As a corollary, ontogenic information that coincides with phylogenic-based information is objective, whereas ontogenic information that conflicts with phylogenic-based information (e.g. personal preferences, etc) is subjective.

Example 1: Normal healthy people see the sun is yellow. We conclude the sun is objectively yellow according to phylogenic perception. John sees the sun as green. John's ontogenic observation conflicts with phylogenic observation; therefore, John's assertion is subjective.

Example 2: Bill likes strawberry ice-cream. Not all healthy normal people like strawberry ice-cream (although Bill might doubt these people are "normal"). Bill's taste is subjective.

Example 3: The Earth rotates around the sun according to observation and deduction. The rotation of the Earth around the sun is objective.

(edit: added bold to the definitions, question-marked predictable)

Edited January 2, 2010 by Christopher

[Selene]

Chris:

An a priori question arises to me, can one draw a border between objective (seemingly the external world) and subjective (seemingly the internal world)?

I like your definitions if you can draw a border.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

If I'm reading it correctly, your definition would make subjective knowledge always erroneous, since it would always be in conflict with reality in some way.

How about this definition keeping your basic terminology

Objective knowledge is knowledge that is verifiable through phylogenic mechanisms.

Subjective knowledge is knowledge that can not be verified through phylogenic mechanisms, but may possibly be verified through ontogenic mechanisms.

For example, the taste of coffee and strawberry ice cream is verifiable through phylogenic mechanisms, and therefore objective. Whether coffee or strawberry ice cream tastes better is verifiable only through ontogenic mechanisms, and therefore subjective.

Jeffrey S.

[Christopher]

If I'm reading it correctly, your definition would make subjective knowledge always erroneous, since it would always be in conflict with reality in some way.

How about this definition keeping your basic terminology

Objective knowledge is knowledge that is verifiable through phylogenic mechanisms.

Subjective knowledge is knowledge that can not be verified through phylogenic mechanisms, but may possibly be verified through ontogenic mechanisms.

For example, the taste of coffee and strawberry ice cream is verifiable through phylogenic mechanisms, and therefore objective. Whether coffee or strawberry ice cream tastes better is verifiable only through ontogenic mechanisms, and therefore subjective.

Jeffrey S.

Your suggestion seems a touch more elegant. Verifiable is a better standard for "accurate awareness."

How are we defining ontogenic mechanisms? Perhaps mental structures that are learned through culture and individual experience? In this way, ontogenic mechanisms are distinct from phylogenic mechanisms (hard-wiring) and are open to both subjectivity and objectivity depending on coordination with verifiable phylogenic knowledge.

This is a damn fine definition...

[Xray]

[All quotes: Christopher]

Although it seems we take for granted that there exists a world apart from humans, there is a significant mixing between the existence of that world and our awareness (i.e. perceptions, etc.) to that world.

Christopher,

What do you mean by “apart from humans"? Where does the “significant mixing” come in? If by “apart from humans” you mean existing independently of mind, not altered by mind, etc., doesn’t this observation in itself set a condition of division between independent of mind and mind dependent?

If there is “significant mixing”, are you referring to fallibility and potential for mentally mixing what’s outside of mind with what’s inside of mind?

I don’t know of anyone who claims knowledge exists independent of mind. This is not the issue. The issue is knowledge of WHAT exists independently of mind, which would incorporate the necessary differentiation from what is mind dependent, i.e., derived from mind.

How can there not be an absolute differentiation? What’s the alternative? Certainly, neither the sensory apparatus, nor mental calculations are infallible. Does the fact that one may err dissolve the differentiation? If there is no absolute differentiation independent of mind and mind dependent, by what reference is truth known and error detected?

If the term, objective, is used to symbolize independent of mind, what term is to be used in absolute differentiation for mind-dependent if not the term, subjective? Where can you define if not by differentiation?

As a result, a difficult question arises: where does one draw a border between objective (seemingly the external world) and subjective (seemingly the internal world)? Internal/interior is used here to represent those apprehensions (both cognitive and affective) that arise in living creatures. The question of defining a clear boundary between objective and subjective has plagued many discussions about objectivity and subjectivity on this forum (look at the discussion on subjective values).

How about looking at it from ground up identity? Suppose we start with a human individual entity and observe some critical identifying characteristics.

Each individual is a quantity, an objective existent known to exist by a specific set of characteristics. This entity is endowed with a brain and mind. The brain is an objective existent and the mind is an objective phenomenon. The body, brain and mind exist independently of mind, hence, are objective in that mind did not create these characteristics of identity by feelings, hoping, wishing, believing, etc.

In the same vein of thought, each individual is, by nature, a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity. Volition is the objective ability to subjectively choose. Natural ability to choose neither expresses nor implies any particular choice. Since WHAT is chosen is a matter of personal preference as opposed to the ability to choose, WHAT is chosen is not independent of mind as is the ability to choose. The upshot is, no matter what one may know to exist, or believe to exist, facts in and of themselves neither express nor imply any specific choice. There is the fact of volition, but never a volitional fact. Volition is not the feature that discovers fact, nor does volition create fact. Choice is in regard to facts (or what is believed to be facts), not facts making the choice.

In other words, the question is, how can the natural ability to make choices logically express or imply any specific choice without negating the identifying characteristic of volition itself? I can see no way. Indeed, the idea of a natural particular choice is contradiction. It wouldn’t be choice at all. It would be determinism; which would be denying individual identity itself. To put it another way, to conclude determinism a choice concluding choice does not exist.

Isn’t the same true of the natural ability to attribute value? What is the alternative? If value, i.e, valuation, is inherent in any object or action, “value” is predetermined in contradiction of choice to attribute value; therefore, is determinism in that it negates the natural characteristics of attributing value. Ergo, the notion of “discovering value” is self defeating. This “value” has to exist independently of a valuer for it to exist in order to be discovered. Again, isn’t this a direct contradiction of everything that gives rise to the concept of valuation?

We should agree that certain metaphysical facts exist, such as the Earth is the third planet from the sun. The sun is made up of significant amounts of hydrogen. Electricity exists and is represented by the flow of electrons.

There is also ion current, but insignificant in this context. Suppose we all agree on the alleged facts, which indeed are facts. These items exists independently of mind, therefore, are objective. Valuing or disvaluing these facts is not independent of mind. Attributing value to, or disvalue of these facts is mind-dependent, hence, the opposite of objective, therefore, subjective.

The term, objectivity, is akin to the term, objective, in that it refers to thinking determining what objectively exists uncontaminated by feelings, personal preferences and/or beliefs which may be contrary to objective identity. For instance, a juror may subjectively prefer that the Defendant be innocent of the crime charged, yet render a decision of guilty based on the objective evidence to the contrary.

There are also anthropocentric facts, facts that are specific to the human species. The color red, bitter taste, the universally unpleasant smell of ammonia. Any information our perception, our senses, provides us is a subjective representation of objective stuff (wavelengths, molecules).

Certainly an idea of a thing existing in the mind is not the thing itself. It is not objective in itself. Fallibility is understood. This does not alter the principle. The intent is to have the abstract idea correspond to the real as closely as possible. Every success in reaching an intended and expected goal is evidence of sufficient correspondence between the actual thing and the idea of the thing that motivated the action.

Does this mean that objectivity can only be understood through the mind by distilling it from the senses (red is not objective until it is defined as "wavelengths with x frequency")? To me this is poppycock.

I have no idea of how or why anyone imagine objectivity as “distilled from the senses". Indeed, it is poppycock. I have never known anyone to make such a claim. Do you?

Doesn’t objectivity simply refer to the manner in which one determines what exists independently of subjective valuations as pointed out above?

Categories and thoughts themselves are subjective organizations of the universe built within the human mind and requiring volition to validate ...

There’s some things here I can’t get to mesh. Thought itself is an objective, natural phenomenon. A specific thought about whatever of an individual is personal. The questions to be answered are what is the thought, does it constitute a conclusion, and if it does, does the conclusion conform to reality?

Categories are mental constructs of grouping on arbitrarily selected similarities. The categories are a product of volition. So, what do you mean by “requiring volition to validate"?

Therefore, by defining objectivity as everything external and subjectivity as everything internal to the mind, everything becomes subjective by definition. We need better definitions than this if having these categorical words are to have any meaning. Indeed, if everything is subjective, there is no need for the set of words objective/subjective.

Who defines “objectivity as everything external"? I don’t. It appears that you are using the term, objective, and the term, objectivity, as interchangeable synonyms. Without differentiation, there is no definition of each term as required for identity.

The objective is what exists independently of mind while objectivity is the mental process by which independent of mind is determined.

As defined above, objective is what exists independent of feelings and personal preferences, whereas, the term, objectivity, is a process of thinking which excludes feelings and personal preferences in determining what exists in and of itself

Imo is the non-definitive mental mixing of these two terms that leads to the false conclusion, “everything becomes subjective by definition”. By definition is not the cause. The cause of the contradiction is non-definition, i.e, non differentiation. This presumes to mentally meld objective and subjective (independent of mind and mind-dependent), treated as one, as the same. This leaves “objective” to be whatever one feels it to be.

So now to answer the big question, where do we draw the line between objective and subjective?

No problem. I believe that has been clearly shown: Between independent of mind and dependent on mind. If there is no such absolute division, there is no reference by which to separate fact from fallacy.

Christopher, you have provided these clear definitions from a dictionary of 'objective' and 'subjective' on the "Can morality be objective?" thread:

dictionary.com

Subjective

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

Objective

1. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

2. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

3. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).

4. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Denial result in an untenable position. To claim any belief as truth based on the “facts of an objective reality”, one must necessarily invoke such an objectively reality as absolutely differentiated from subjective personal preferences. Ergo, any argument opposing the absolute differentiation is self-negating.

Imo they provide an excellent frame of reference for discussing "Objectvism". What do you think?

Edited January 3, 2010 by Xray

[tjohnson]

Example 3: The Earth rotates around the sun according to observation and deduction. The rotation of the Earth around the sun is objective.

This sounds quite newtonian. In view of special relativity we know there is no absolute frame of reference. The closest thing we can get to 'objective' is invariance under transformation. This is why Einstein turned to the mathematics of tensors because when the laws of physics are expressed in tensor form they do not change with respect to the observer.

[tjohnson]

There are also anthropocentric facts, facts that are specific to the human species. The color red, bitter taste, the universally unpleasant smell of ammonia. Any information our perception, our senses, provides us is a subjective representation of objective stuff (wavelengths, molecules). Does this mean that objectivity can only be understood through the mind by distilling it from the senses (red is not objective until it is defined as "wavelengths with x frequency") ? To me this is poppycock.

The wavelength of light hitting our eyes is indeed more objective than someone's opinion of what the colour is. The fact is you cannot see what I see and vice versa but this does not mean we can't come to some agreement about what 'red' means, for example. But if we want an even better, more exact idea of what it means then we look at what science tells us, which is much more objective. You might say that science is the "court of life".

[Christopher]

GS,

I have to admire the fact that in your first post you discuss the subjectivity of conceptual frames of reference, then in your second post you discuss the objectivity of such conceptual knowledge

Chris

[Christopher]

I think the definition of "objective" can be simplified to the following:

Objective (adj): of or pertaining to the nature of the universe as verifiable through phylogenic mechanisms.

- objective knowledge: knowledge pertaining to the nature...

- objective values: values pertaining to the nature...

- objective morals: morals pertaining to the nature...

Subjective: anything not objective.

We can consider wavelengths of light to be more objective than specific colors to the degree that non-perceptual concepts provide more robust verifiable representations of the universe than perceptual concepts. Makes me wonder whether scientists and philosophers in general consider "verifiability" to be black and white or existing in gradients.

[tjohnson]

It may come as a surprise to many but I think if you investigate, as Korzybski did, you will find that it is not possible to remove all ambiguity from your terms by finding the "perfect" definition. Rather than trying to do this why not examine what we refer to by these terms? What does it mean to be objective, for example? Just using a traditional definition suffices;

objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

This is precisely what happens when you speak in terms of 'wavelength' rather then 'color'. This is because we have switched to the language of numbers which is a language that allows specific, exact, and asymmetric relations which are very useful to describe the relations we find in nature.

[Selene]

It may come as a surprise to many but I think if you investigate, as Korzybski did, you will find that it is not possible to remove all ambiguity from your terms by finding the "perfect" definition. Rather than trying to do this why not examine what we refer to by these terms? What does it mean to be objective, for example? Just using a traditional definition suffices;

objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

This is precisely what happens when you speak in terms of 'wavelength' rather then 'color'. This is because we have switched to the language of numbers which is a language that allows specific, exact, and asymmetric relations which are very useful to describe the relations we find in nature.

GS:

I agree. As I have mentioned before, that concept and his other concepts on language, are well worth incorporating into anyone's knowledge. However, it does not translate well to human conversation ...Honey you look great in the 239.6 wavelength of light tonight ...it really brings out your eyes!

Adam

Edited January 5, 2010 by Selene

[tjohnson]

GS:

I agree. As I have mentioned before, that concept and his other concepts on language, are well worth incorporating into anyone's knowledge. However, it does not translate well to human conversation ...Honey you look great in the 239.6 wavelength of light tonight ...it really brings out you eyes!

Adam

I agree Nobody said science was good for romancing.

[Christopher]

It may come as a surprise to many but I think if you investigate, as Korzybski did, you will find that it is not possible to remove all ambiguity from your terms by finding the "perfect" definition. Rather than trying to do this why not examine what we refer to by these terms? What does it mean to be objective, for example? Just using a traditional definition suffices;

objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

This is precisely what happens when you speak in terms of 'wavelength' rather then 'color'. This is because we have switched to the language of numbers which is a language that allows specific, exact, and asymmetric relations which are very useful to describe the relations we find in nature.

Seems to me color is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice either. Albeit color is not as exact, it remains objective.

I like this definition. In fact, I'm struggling a little to point out flaws with it. Perhaps you have already highlighted the main flaw when you argue that all things objective contain subjectivity. If this definition allows for non-distinct objective/subjective categorization, it is a bad definition. For example, what about personal feelings and interpretations based on facts? This definition would fail to qualify such information. Therefore, objective values may be easier to argue against since they contain personal feelings and interpretations.

Otherwise, we can also note that facts are verifiable information begotten through phylogenic mechanisms - hence a potential similarity between my and this definition. Still, I'd like to know the definition of facts used in this context here by the author to ensure we are discussing the same type of knowledge. Do facts include aspects of biological requirements? ... The rest of the definition is in the negative (not this, this nor this), which is not perfect either.

[tjohnson]

Seems to me color is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice either. Albeit color is not as exact, it remains objective.

Really? You don't think the determination of color is subject to interpretation by the individual?

[Christopher]

Seems to me color is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice either. Albeit color is not as exact, it remains objective.

Really? You don't think the determination of color is subject to interpretation by the individual?

I'm going to assume you agree with me on the faults of Korzybski's definition.

Regardless of whether you use my definition or K.'s, color is objective according to definition. I think the case is highlighted throughout this thread.

*(edit addition)

Concepts of color can be subjective. For example, I think Koreans define "blue" as including the perception of the color green. Koreans therefore don't conceptually distinguish between blue and green in speech; however, Koreans do state that they see the colors blue and green differently. In other words, the perception remains concrete and differentiated (a fact across healthy humans, so-to-speak); the only variation occurs in the conceptual process.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Christopher

[tjohnson]

Perhaps you have already highlighted the main flaw when you argue that all things objective contain subjectivity.

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as an object without an observer. To disprove this assertion you would have to produce an object without observing it which is a contradiction of terms. In light of this, pure objectivity is impossible, for everything around us can only be known with our senses and so involves some subjectivity. So when I see the term 'objective' I interpret it to mean 'more or less objective'. You might create a palette that has a thousand colors and with training you might be able to distinguish them all and this exercise makes you more objective than an untrained observer. But even better is an instrument that has a digital readout of the wavelength and yet these are not perfect either, they need to be calibrated and again subjectivity enters.

[tjohnson]

I'm going to assume you agree with me on the faults of Korzybski's definition.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that was Korzybski's definition of 'objective', I got that online somewhere.

[Christopher]

Perhaps you have already highlighted the main flaw when you argue that all things objective contain subjectivity.

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as an object without an observer. To disprove this assertion you would have to produce an object without observing it which is a contradiction of terms. In light of this, pure objectivity is impossible, for everything around us can only be known with our senses and so involves some subjectivity. So when I see the term 'objective' I interpret it to mean 'more or less objective'. You might create a palette that has a thousand colors and with training you might be able to distinguish them all and this exercise makes you more objective than an untrained observer. But even better is an instrument that has a digital readout of the wavelength and yet these are not perfect either, they need to be calibrated and again subjectivity enters.

GS,

You and I both agree that objects require an observer. I'm proposing my definition of "objective" in order to incorporate this fact. A definition of objective that attempts to divorce awareness from the observer is a worthless definition because, as you are saying, it always remains somewhat subjective. Again, if people use a definition of objective that always incorporates a level of subjectivity, it is a definition that probably needs some revision.

[RightJungle]

Christopher,

In Randland, when I recognize a thing as the object of my consciousness, I am saying that I am conscious of that thing as separate from my consciousness. I recognize that I have consciousness because I am conscious of that thing out there. If, instead, I make the mistake of thinking that that thing is the subject of my consciousness, I am saying that my consciousness controls the existence of that thing; that I can make it disappear by refusing to acknowledge it, or I can make it real by wanting it to be real without regard to perceptual or conceptual confirmation. That is the difference between objective and subjective in the realm of metaphysics and epistemology.

Mental book mark.

Barbara Branden did a class that included this subject back in the NBI days that has been captured in an audio book, Principles of Efficient Thinking. A thinker like yourself might enjoy that book.

Back to your musings.

There is no line between the objective and the subjective. The difference between these two concepts is not one that can be designated as a division of this realm from that realm. The difference between them is a difference in how we choose to use our minds in relation to the rest of existence. If we make the objective choice we recognize that existence exists regardless of whether or not we know it. If we make the subjective choice we believe that what we refuse to know doesn’t exist and that what exists comes into existence only when we acknowledge it.

Christopher, you present interesting challenges. Actually, some of your challenges are way beyond me, so please let me know if this reply seems inapplicable to your subject.

Mary Lee

[BaalChatzaf]

The fact that phylogenic equipment produces anthropocentric observations means that it is not sufficient to define objective as "everything outside the human mind." Nothing can be understood outside the mind.

The Sun can and did exist for a long time without being understood (or known), as in being understood (or known) by a sentient being. Long before there were sentient beings, matter and energy existed and long after the last sentient being has died and disintegrated matter and energy will exist. Being understood is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for existence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

In Randland, when I recognize a thing as the object of my consciousness, I am saying that I am conscious of that thing as separate from my consciousness. I recognize that I have consciousness because I am conscious of that thing out there. If, instead, I make the mistake of thinking that that thing is the subject of my consciousness, I am saying that my consciousness controls the existence of that thing; that I can make it disappear by refusing to acknowledge it, or I can make it real by wanting it to be real without regard to perceptual or conceptual confirmation. That is the difference between objective and subjective in the realm of metaphysics and epistemology.

Hi Mary,

I think that an object only exists, for you at that time, when you are conscious of it. Also, every different time you are conscious of it, it will have changed since we know that sub-microscopically things are always changing.

[Christopher]

Mary,

I really like your points. I would first say that all things we observe are subjects of our awareness. You note that as well, and your stance is that certain things by being a "subject" of our awareness implies some form of control over those things.

The definition posted on this thread therefore uses the term "verifiable" to avoid this issue. Verifiability is the only way humans can know anything with some level of impersonal truth. Verifiable thus implies that the verified element is indeed an aspect of metaphysical reality not under individual control.

Even when Ba'al comments that the sun existed long before people did, the knowledge of the sun's current existence and of the history of the sun are both verifiable knowledge as per the definition of objectivity. Therefore, the sun's existence as we know it is objective. However, existence is a meaningless concept if we ignore the domain of epistemology.

Christopher

[RightJungle]

Christopher,

I guess that I wasn’t as clear as I thought. I probably didn’t define my terms well enough. When discussing Objectivity and Subjectivity we need to remember the context of our usage of these concepts. I was talking about the Objectivity or Subjectivity of the thing of which I am conscious. I think you are focused on the objectivity or subjectivity of my knowledge about the object. I was attempting to demonstrate that the thing that I observe or taste or hear is the OBJECT of my awareness, not the SUBJECT of my awareness. I define the SUBJECTIVE as “what exists only in the mind, belonging to the mind thinking, not to the object being thought about.”

So I need to yield the field for now, because we just got way over my head. If I smarten up, I’ll catch up with you later.

Mary Lee.

[tjohnson]

The Sun can and did exist for a long time without being understood (or known), as in being understood (or known) by a sentient being. Long before there were sentient beings, matter and energy existed and long after the last sentient being has died and disintegrated matter and energy will exist. Being understood is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for existence.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This is all in theory, of course.