Objectivity

[Man.0]

The Macmillan online dictionary defines objectivity as 'a state or situation in which something is based only on facts and evidence'. The Collins online dictionary defines it as: 1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.

I, for one, believe that in the following areas: language, mathematics, music, and art, there exists no actual objectivity. In language, for example, who decides that a particular word should mean what it means? Let's say that I decide to call a gorilla a fish, am I wrong for doing so? If so, why? One might say: ''Because society says so - society defines the meaning of words''. Well, why is society right and the individual wrong? Why is the majority correct, and the minority incorrect?

Also, when it is said that society makes the definitions, well, which society is it that possesses the correct definition? Modern society? If so, why is modern society right and past societies wrong? Take the word 'gay', for example. A past society defined this word as meaning 'happy'. Modern society defines it as meaning 'homosexual'. Which society is right?

But it may be said that both are right. That words can have double meanings; that 'gay' can mean both 'happy' and 'homosexual'. Not objectively they can't. Objectivity deals with truth, and there cannot be two truths for the same thing. Thus there cannot objectively be two meanings of the same word.

Because society is relative, it cannot objectively define a word.

Another example of relativity is cultural languages, or tongues. Consider thiis: which of the following is the correct word to call the four-footed, furry animal which barks? Is it 'dog' (English), 'hond' (Dutch), chien (French) , jukel (Slovakian), or perro (Spanish)? Or is the correct answer found in another language apart from these? Which language is right? Objectively speaking, only one can be right; they can't all be. And in a relative sense they can't all be right - that would be contradictory. When it comes to what is right, what is correct, and what is objective, there can only be one truth.

 

[Roadrunner]

Why can't multiple truths be conveyed with the same word?

 

[Man.0]

Why can't multiple truths be conveyed with the same word?

The way I see it is that in an objective, absolute sense there can be only one truth for one word. Objectively speaking, there is only room for one definition; otherwise there is contradiction - if there are multiple definitions. It is contradictiory to say that a certain word means something and that it also means another thing.

Take the word 'strike' for instance. Either it means to hit or attack something or someone; or it means a refusal to work, as a form of protest; or it means the best move that one can perform in the game of bowling. It cannot mean all three - not in an objective sense. You see, objectivity, being exclusive by nature, cannot accomodate more than one truth for the same thing. The world cannot be round, flat and oval, all at the same time. Neither can a word have multiple objective definitions attatched to it.

If I asked you for an objective meaning of the word 'strike'; what would you tell me? You wouldn't be able to say 'Well, it has several meanings, according to the context in which it's used, and one of those meanings is...[then you pick one of its definitions].' You wouldn't be able to say that because what I'm asking you for is an objective, not a relative, definition. And you wouldn't be able to isolate one definition of the word and present it to me as the objective one; because each definition, being relative, is as valid as the other - so I'd want to know why you picked one and not any of the other definitions.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The way I see it is that in an objective, absolute sense there can be only one truth for one word. Objectively speaking, there is only room for one definition; otherwise there is contradiction - if there are multiple definitions. It is contradictiory to say that a certain word means something and that it also means another thing.

Take the word 'strike' for instance. Either it means to hit or attack something or someone; or it means a refusal to work, as a form of protest; or it means the best move that one can perform in the game of bowling. It cannot mean all three - not in an objective sense. You see, objectivity, being exclusive by nature, cannot accomodate more than one truth for the same thing. The world cannot be round, flat and oval, all at the same time. Neither can a word have multiple objective definitions attatched to it.

If I asked you for an objective meaning of the word 'strike'; what would you tell me? You wouldn't be able to say 'Well, it has several meanings, according to the context in which it's used, and one of those meanings is...[then you pick one of its definitions].' You wouldn't be able to say that because what I'm asking you for is an objective, not a relative, definition. And you wouldn't be able to isolate one definition of the word and present it to me as the objective one; because each definition, being relative, is as valid as the other - so I'd want to know why you picked one and not any of the other definitions.

Are you teaching English lessons or are you just messing with Posters minds?

 

[Town Heretic]

... Let's say that I decide to call a gorilla a fish, am I wrong for doing so?

Yes.

If so, why?

Because the point of a common language is first and foremost communication and what you're doing is contrary to that primary pursuit. Or, to put it another way, banana blue the up nostril feather.

Also, when it is said that society makes the definitions, well, which society is it that possesses the correct definition? Modern society? If so, why is modern society right and past societies wrong? Take the word 'gay', for example. A past society defined this word as meaning 'happy'. Modern society defines it as meaning 'homosexual'. Which society is right?

Both. It's a matter of usage. Many words change in the vernacular over time. Many simply stop being used and some new words spring into existence. It's the nature of a language that isn't dying.

But it may be said that both are right. That words can have double meanings; that 'gay' can mean both 'happy' and 'homosexual'. Not objectively they can't.

Yes, they objectively can. You do realize words often have primary, secondary and tertiary meanings...so it can be objectively true that the word bread is, within a context, either a food item or spendable currency, by way of. There is no objective truth in the sense that a series of sounds must have been assigned to a particular meaning, but when they are it becomes an objective fact.

Objectivity deals with truth, and there cannot be two truths for the same thing.

Sure there can. Objective is a term descriptive of a thing existent. This isn't some ideal form we've butchered. This is a decision we've made or moved and it's objectively true.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

How about "Orwellian Double Speak and Newspeak?

 

[Town Heretic]

How about "Orwellian Double Speak and Newspeak?

That's what I say, "How about that!" :thumb:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That's what I say, "How about that!" :thumb:

That's some really cool stuff.

 

[Roadrunner]

You see, objectivity, being exclusive by nature, cannot accomodate more than one truth for the same thing.

I disagree. Snow is both white and cold, how can both not be true?

 

[Stripe]

The Macmillan online dictionary defines objectivity as 'a state or situation in which something is based only on facts and evidence'. The Collins online dictionary defines it as: 1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.

I, for one, believe that in the following areas: language, mathematics, music, and art, there exists no actual objectivity. In language, for example, who decides that a particular word should mean what it means? Let's say that I decide to call a gorilla a fish, am I wrong for doing so? If so, why? One might say: ''Because society says so - society defines the meaning of words''. Well, why is society right and the individual wrong? Why is the majority correct, and the minority incorrect?

Also, when it is said that society makes the definitions, well, which society is it that possesses the correct definition? Modern society? If so, why is modern society right and past societies wrong? Take the word 'gay', for example. A past society defined this word as meaning 'happy'. Modern society defines it as meaning 'homosexual'. Which society is right?

But it may be said that both are right. That words can have double meanings; that 'gay' can mean both 'happy' and 'homosexual'. Not objectively they can't. Objectivity deals with truth, and there cannot be two truths for the same thing. Thus there cannot objectively be two meanings of the same word.

Because society is relative, it cannot objectively define a word.

Another example of relativity is cultural languages, or tongues. Consider thiis: which of the following is the correct word to call the four-footed, furry animal which barks? Is it 'dog' (English), 'hond' (Dutch), chien (French) , jukel (Slovakian), or perro (Spanish)? Or is the correct answer found in another language apart from these? Which language is right? Objectively speaking, only one can be right; they can't all be. And in a relative sense they can't all be right - that would be contradictory. When it comes to what is right, what is correct, and what is objective, there can only be one truth.

What are you, 18 years old?

 

[Cons&Spires]

Yeah.. based on objects- hence the word 'objectivity'. Your worldview is based only on material.

A sad view if you ask me.

 

[Danoh]

I disagree. Snow is both white and cold, how can both not be true?

Place your hand in water colder than snow and the coldness of that snow feels warmer than it would have without the resulting contrast. Compare the white of that snow with an even whiter white and that snow's white appears a kind of a very light grey.

Ever look for a passage only to find it not in the chapter "it should be in" only to realize you only thought you were in "the right chapter," if not "in the right book"?

Thus, our supposed objectivity is often greatly impacted by whatever impacts first, our sense of perception, often, unawares.

A great deal of differences between us on the various forums and their threads would be avoided if we but kept this in mind.

 

[daqq]

The Macmillan online dictionary defines objectivity as 'a state or situation in which something is based only on facts and evidence'. The Collins online dictionary defines it as: 1. existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions 2. undistorted by emotion or personal bias 3. of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.

I, for one, believe that in the following areas: language, mathematics, music, and art, there exists no actual objectivity. In language, for example, who decides that a particular word should mean what it means? Let's say that I decide to call a gorilla a fish, am I wrong for doing so? If so, why? One might say: ''Because society says so - society defines the meaning of words''. Well, why is society right and the individual wrong? Why is the majority correct, and the minority incorrect?

Also, when it is said that society makes the definitions, well, which society is it that possesses the correct definition? Modern society? If so, why is modern society right and past societies wrong? Take the word 'gay', for example. A past society defined this word as meaning 'happy'. Modern society defines it as meaning 'homosexual'. Which society is right?

But it may be said that both are right. That words can have double meanings; that 'gay' can mean both 'happy' and 'homosexual'. Not objectively they can't. Objectivity deals with truth, and there cannot be two truths for the same thing. Thus there cannot objectively be two meanings of the same word.

Because society is relative, it cannot objectively define a word.

Another example of relativity is cultural languages, or tongues. Consider thiis: which of the following is the correct word to call the four-footed, furry animal which barks? Is it 'dog' (English), 'hond' (Dutch), chien (French) , jukel (Slovakian), or perro (Spanish)? Or is the correct answer found in another language apart from these? Which language is right? Objectively speaking, only one can be right; they can't all be. And in a relative sense they can't all be right - that would be contradictory. When it comes to what is right, what is correct, and what is objective, there can only be one truth.

This is why the Scripture as a whole creates its own "society" which is the family of God. The Scripture is the only truth within itself and it likewise interprets itself. Many words are used in many different ways but the branches or vines of subsequent forms of words always have a root meaning. Thus words do have multiple meanings but they are defined by the "Leader" and Father of the family, clan, or society. Outside are other societies which have nothing to do with those who follow the Scripture. Society defines its own meanings of words based on popular opinion or "democracy" which is essentially the 51% "mob rules" and can change when and where 51% of the mob changes its mind. It is sometimes violent and rules by force because the mob makes the laws and rules and they are seldom fair. Therefore be in the world but not ruled by and of the world because in the Scripture is a totally different and fair society and brotherhood.

 

[Man.0]

Originally Posted by Man.0
... Let's say that I decide to call a gorilla a fish, am I wrong for doing so?

Yes.

Well, if I say, 'No, I'm right', what makes you right in saying that I'm wrong?

Because the point of a common language is first and foremost communication and what you're doing is contrary to that primary pursuit.

But you're not explaining why a gorilla has to be called a gorilla, and not a fish.... or a pillow? Or a gorella, gahrilla, gazilla, or galilla?

Also, couldn't it be that the person, or group of people, who first gave it that name, could have used the word 'fish' instead? If so, gorillas would have been known as fishes (that is if 'fish' hadn't already been taken). It just so happens that he/she/they chose 'gorilla', and not another word.

And let's say that they did call a gorilla, a fish - despite there already being the existence of the word 'fish'. According to what you say later on in your post, the word 'fish' could refer to either a silverback or a shark, depending on the context.

Now let's say that you're going outside, to somewhere. Someone asks you, 'Where are you going?' You reply, "I'm going hunting" "What for?" "Fish".

The person you are talking to wouldn't understand if you were going to hunt gorillas, or actual fish. You would have to explain to them exactly what 'fish' you are talking about.

If something is called a 'fish', but a different thing - a very different thing - is also called a ' fish', how can it be determined what is actually a fish?

Do you now see the importance of not having multiple meanings attatched to one word - and the confusion that it avoids?

Or, to put it another way, banana blue the up nostril feather.

'banana blue the up nostril feather' doesn't make sense to us, only because of the specific grammatical & lexical framework that we have constructed for ourselves, as a society. But to a society, whose framework was different to ours, that sentence could make perfect sense.

Both. It's a matter of usage. Many words change in the vernacular over time. Many simply stop being used and some new words spring into existence. It's the nature of a language that isn't dying.

How can both societies be right, when each of their definitions do not agree with other?

Yes, they objectively can. You do realize words often have primary, secondary and tertiary meanings...so it can be objectively true that the word bread is, within a context, either a food item or spendable currency, by way of. There is no objective truth in the sense that a series of sounds must have been assigned to a particular meaning, but when they are it becomes an objective fact.

I don't think you grasp what the meaning of 'objectivity' is, as defined by our society.

A word cannot objectively have primary, secondary, and tertiary meanings that are all equally true. The answer to 1+1 cannot be 2, 8 and 13. The world can be both flat, round, and square. When you're making, or attempting to make, an objective claim there has to be one objective, definitive answer. The meanings of 'bread' cannot all equally be true. It cannot mean a food, or a currency, all at the same time. There cannot be the contradictory co-existence of two meanings. It must be either one or the other. If the meaning of a word is deemed as being true for that word, that meaning can't only be applicable in one context, and not applicable in another context. If something is universally and objectively true, it must be so across all contexts - not just in one isolated context. The statement, 'the world is round' is true in all contexts - whether it shown in the context of viewing a photographic image of the earth, or in the context of observing it yourself, from space. Objectivity deals with universal truth. That's also my concern. I'm trying to determine what constitutes universal truth - and who, or what, defines that truth.

Say that you go to a bank, and say to the cashier, 'I want to take out some bread, please'. To you, you're using the right word, but to the cashier - who doesn't know your slang (let's presume that he doesn't) you're using an incorrect word for 'money'. Who is right, you or the cashier?

Objective is a term descriptive of a thing existent.

You've worded this sentence in an objective way - without the usage of personal language, like 'I' . But do you realise that what you've said is your own subjective definition of the word 'objective'? That's quite ironic.

 

[chair]

Sounds like Humpty Dumpty to me.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

 

[Interplanner]

Man.O,
one thing you didn't do in your intro is factor in history. There is a difference between you coming upon a word, and that word's history.

that means the subjectivity of your limited experience with it created your questions. The other people using a word have had a huge number of experiences and reasons for settling on what they did.

Dr. Middelmann from L'Abri Fellowship says it this way: 'My perception of truth is to be based on a wide range and number of experiences, over a wide range and number of people and time, including the Bible, so that each of these is stronger by their affect on each other.' In his book PRO-EXISTENCE written back when modern skepticism was settling in pretty deep in the 70s.

for ex., on the mordern usage of the word 'gay' you will want to compare Reichminister Goebbel's techniques with words to get the masses to think certain ways. It has affected the Western population the same way as he did Germany.

 

[journey]

Many words have different meanings - depending on the context in which they are used. This is true with any form of communication.

 

[Town Heretic]

Well, if I say, 'No, I'm right', what makes you right in saying that I'm wrong?

It helps if you read to the end of the answer.

But you're not explaining why a gorilla has to be called a gorilla, and not a fish.... or a pillow? Or a gorella, gahrilla, gazilla, or galilla?

I actually addressed that further on. Necessity doesn't enter into it, only the assignment and consistency. It's fine to answer on the go, but only if you go back and edit once you have a larger context.

Most of what followed the above by you was answered both by the point of language and how it functions and is measured in definition, which I provided prior.

If something is called a 'fish', but a different thing - a very different thing - is also called a ' fish', how can it be determined what is actually a fish?

Fish contains subsets. If you want to distinguish between a trout and a catfish, well, there you go. Beyond that a fish is a fish, it's the sounds/symbols that, within the way we arrange language has been decided as the fit.

Do you now see the importance of not having multiple meanings attatched to one word - and the confusion that it avoids?

Language can be messy, but context usually clears up any ambiguity. It's harder for those who aren't native speakers, but they do all right.

'banana blue the up nostril feather' doesn't make sense to us, only because of the specific grammatical & lexical framework that we have constructed for ourselves, as a society.

It doesn't make sense because you can't rely on the meaning of the sounds/symbols I've used and, as you understand those sounds/symbols they aren't conforming to rules established to facilitate communication. And that's what language boils down to in the end. That is it's truth and measure.

How can both societies be right, when each of their definitions do not agree with other?

Because the truth of language is in its function, which relies on rules of construction and a common lexicon.

I don't think you grasp what the meaning of 'objectivity' is, as defined by our society.

But you think all sorts of things.

A word cannot objectively have primary, secondary, and tertiary meanings that are all equally true.

And yet it does and they are.

The answer to 1+1 cannot be 2, 8 and 13.

Right. And yet is objectively true that any number of words have primary, secondary and tertiary meanings and that understanding which is being applied is contextual.

When you're making, or attempting to make, an objective claim there has to be one objective, definitive answer.

The objective truth of language is that words have meaning and that meaning can change depending on usage. The truth of a word is found within that understanding.

The meanings of 'bread' cannot all equally be true.

Only if you misapprehend the truth you're looking for.

It cannot mean a food, or a currency, all at the same time.

It doesn't. It is, to the one currency at that time. It is to another food at that time. And so on.

There cannot be the contradictory co-existence of two meanings.

There's no contradiction. And if you understand the context there's no confusion.

Say that you go to a bank, and say to the cashier, 'I want to take out some bread, please'.

Today the banker would likely give you a funny look, then confirm the context of the request when you specify the amount. Or, context would out.

To you, you're using the right word, but to the cashier - who doesn't know your slang (let's presume that he doesn't) you're using an incorrect word for 'money'. Who is right, you or the cashier?

That's not a meaningful question. There's the intended communication and either a deficiency in presented context or some other impediment in play that brings a momentary confusion. But it should only be a momentary one, if that. It would be odd for a banker to suspect the man approaching him had mistaken his place of work for a bakery and odder still for the man to have made the mistake.

You probably should have used a bakery and a fellow down on his luck actually hoping for cash, but even then the rest of the brief conversation with quickly contextualize the intent.

You've worded this sentence in an objective way - without the usage of personal language, like 'I' . But do you realise that what you've said is your own subjective definition of the word 'objective'? That's quite ironic.

Rather, you removed it from the context, the sentences in support an illustration. Without context language is fairly pointless.

 

[journey]

Man.O

Your argument fell apart in case you hadn't noticed. It was silly to start with.

 

[Selaphiel]

It would probably help if you knew the most basic distinctions between signum and res, signifier and reality. That the actual animal 'cat' has several words for it, and that these words in some sense arbitrary (they are conventions), what they signify is not. Whether someone use the signums 'cat', 'felis catus' or 'katze', they refer to the same reality or res, it is this common act of reference that is objective. It is not claimed that the word chosen in a particular language is objective.

I assume you make the same argument for mathematics, because number systems work as different signums. You would be equally mistaken. It is not the numbers themselves that are objective, but rather the relationships between them and reality they point to. I've yet to see a non-insane argument for the actual subjectivity of mathematics, that would make for some ridiculous coincidences in the history of mathematical discovery.

Yeah.. based on objects- hence the word 'objectivity'. Your worldview is based only on material.

You got that the other way around. We call material things objects because of the definition of objects, not the other way around. Philosophically speaking, an object is that something which a cognitive act is directed towards. That is not necessarily limited to the material.