Talk:Objectivity (philosophy)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Moved this

Moved this from the article:

Overly enthousiastic persuit of objectivity also leads to the use of ensembles of e.g. universes in conventional statistics. Bayesian probability ensures objectivity with much less complex concepts. It is gaining in popularity.

I am sure it means something, but I'm not sure what. The Anome

I know something of the topic. "Ensemble" in the sense used here is a physicists' term, not used by statisticians, and Edwin Jaynes, a physicist, used it often when he wrote about statistics. A reader of Jaynes' works might get the impression that statisticians use this term. A reader of Jaynes' works might also think that Bayesian's generally advocate objectivity -- the opposite of the truth: Jaynes was an "objective (or "logical") Bayesian"; most Bayesians are overtly subjectivist. Jaynes was a charismatic writer and his readers often know nothing of his topics except what they learn from him, and therefore do not know that Jaynes' conventions are not conventional among the practitioners of the fields he wrote about. My guess is that one such reader wrote the passage above.

But why are the philosophy mavens on Wikipedia not working on this page?? Michael Hardy 22:38 25 May 2003 (UTC)

The current synopses of epistemic and metaphysical objectivity appear to be semantically identical: If we assume the following as being adequate substitutes:

(objects and events)                           => (entities)
(anyone's awareness)                           => (anyone's perceptions)
(do not depend)                                => (independent)
(are)                                          => (exist)
(is the recognition that)                      => (means that)
(To say that 'x exist o' means that they 'y')  => ('o' means that 'x y')

We can recombine the two sentences to say: Objectivity means that entities exist independent of anyone's awareness of them. (20040302)

I disagree. When a lawyer asks a prospective juror "Can you be objective in judging this case?" he's talking about an epistemic virtue. The sentence Objectivity means that entities exist independent of anyone's awareness of them is badly formed and confused. It's like those sentences I've sometimes fixed that say "In physics, inertial mass is a particular thing's resistance to acceleration" or "... mass means a thing resists accelaration", rather than "... and object's inertial mass is its resistance to acceleration". Michael Hardy 20:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I won't argue the case - merely to say that the current article is an unmitigated disaster - a complete mess. It is not meaningful to the layperson, and very dubious for philosophy altogether. I won't defend the sentence - I was just pointing out that the basic structure was identical. I certainly agree that both Epistemic and Metaphysical objectivity differ, and have their respective schools of thought. The tension between them also would warrant discussion. (20040302)

Usually I sympathize with complaints to this effect, but I fail to see that this one is a mess. Why is it not meaningful to the layperson, if one understands "layperson" to mean an intelligent non-philosopher? Michael Hardy 22:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Epistemic virtue'? Please don't use Ayn Rand's idiosyncratic terms to explain something in a general philosophy, it's not helpful. The lawyer is using a *different* sense of of term 'objective', that of being impartial. This is not the epistemological flavour of metaphysical objectivism, it's a different sense of the word. Note that the lawyer isn't asking the the case be considered mind-independent (which is impossible), but only that someone approach it without invoking their particular biases and partiality. 'Unbiased' and 'impartial' are easily understood whereas distinction like the epistological virtue of mind-independent objects is overly confusing and not helpful at all.

A better way to phrase the sentence might be Objectivity is an approach 1) that assumes that certain entities exist independent of anyone's perception of them or 2) that is impartial. Chiok 05:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is a mess. The lead does not conform in the slightest with WP:LEAD. On the whole the article is not written in a way which would allow anybody to know what it was talking about and does not engage with any of the major ideas about objectivity in philosophy. --Fastfission 03:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Circular definition

Metaphysical objectivism: "Metaphysical objectivism holds that the universe exists objectively."

Can we define this without using 'objectively'? Chiok 03:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Still a mess

Regardless of Hardy's position, it astounds me that an article on objectivity does not even mention relativism, but appears to wish to divide philosophy into the false dichotomy of subjectivity/objectivity.

I am not a professional philosopher, but I can identify a weak article. I complained about this article months ago - and something needs to be done about it. (20040302 19:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC))

Agreed. This is a mess. The main problem is that it sounds like it was written by a fan of Ayn Rand for fans of Ayn Rand. Most people in philosophy use 'objectivity' to mean unbiased or mind-independent and real. This is closer to what Rand called 'intrinsic'. Things like "epistemological objectivity" do not make sense to anyone outside Rand's Objectivism. The examples are also bad. Is sound or the tree intrinsic? It's even confusing for an article internal to Rand's Objectivism.

"Objectivist political philosophy" should not be listed at all.

When people look up 'objectivity' they should not see an article on Rand's concept of objectivity. Perhaps there should be a short paragraph distinguishing Rand's concept with common usage, but the article shouldn't be devoted to ideas internal to Rand's Objectivism.

I vote we either move it to something like 'Objectivity (Rand's concept of)' or flag it for deletion. Chiok 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Defining the term "objectivity" within the context of philosophy is a very broad and general task. Each branch of the discipline is going to treat the term differently, and ironically, philosophers may have different ideas about objectivity. The article is weak, but terms like "impartial" and "mind-independent" are also weak. If I state that "it is cold outside", coldness may be relative to my perception of coldness. Not everyone will agree that it is cold. However, if I state that "I am cold", I am asserting a true statement, irregardless of the fact that it is based upon my perception of coldness. At what point does coldness become an objective fact, that is, that point where anybody stating that "it is cold outside" is asserting a proposition as true and their statement "I am cold". Does intersubjective knowledge, or perhaps concurrant agreement among the populous, constitute objectivity?? Is this mind-independent?? What is the relation between truth and objectivity?? Truth and subjectivity?? Amerindianarts 06:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow this is bad

I was so marvelled at this article that I made a livejournal entry making fun of it. [1] Chiok 05:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Article

The word objectivity admits at least two related meanings in philosophy.

Doesn't continue thought. What are the two things?

Objectivity is the belief that the existence and nature of reality do not depend on anyone's awareness of it

I'm not sure what 'existence and nature of reality' refers to here. Objectivity usually refers to classes of things, properties, events, etc. Existence and natural of reality is too general.

For example, the old saying: "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". The answer, according to the purest form of objectivism is yes - because objects will continue to exist whether or not they are actively perceived.

This is irrelevant. The tree might be objective, but the phenomenal experience of sound is not.

billions of miles from Earth. ... through a telescope, it is not being filmed, aliens are not aware of its existence

I think this was an attempt to sound clever. It doesn't add anything.

No one is looking at it presently

Assumes observer-independent measure of time.

discovered nor

Unnecessary. We would discover it by perceiving it. This doesn't add anything.

By the philosophy of subjectivism... because it is not and has not been perceived

Replaced with "According to subjective theories,"

By the philosophy of objectivity,

Replaced with "According to objective theories,"

For a dulled down example: by according to the idea of objectivism

Replaced with "With objectivist theories,"

Its existence is taken for granted;

We should not grant the existence of a particular thing in a particular place if it was never perceived.

It does not simply cease to exist because it is not being actively perceived.

Since it has never been perceived, subjectivism doesn't believe it ceased to exist as it never did. The contrast doesn't work.

as an epistemic virtue, is the recognition

The words 'virtue' and 'recognition' are biased. Changed to "is the belief". This line has been moved to beginning of the article.

or one's personal feelings, opinions and beliefs

As far as I know, this doesn't add anything to the definition.

Such objectivity is generally regarded as essential to science, to philosophy, and to justice (see scientific method.) When a lawyer assessing the fitness of a potential juror asks "Can you be objective in judging the facts of this case?", it is this sense of the word objectivity that is being used.

Not true. Scientists reject the idea of immeasurable quantities, entities, and events since they figured out QM and relativity. Metaphysical objectivism is not respectable in philosophy departments. In justice, 'objectivity' has a completely different meaning, that of impartiality.

Metaphysical objectivism holds that the universe exists objectively.

Circular

In psychometrics a measure is objective to the extent to which different users estimate the same value when they use it. The extent of agreement and the likelihood that it is non-random can be estimated mathematically.

This is a completely different sense of the term, closer to 'consistent'. This should be elsewhere and only on this page as a disambiguation.

That should not be confused with Ayn Rand's systematic philosophy called Objectivism,

Irrelevant.

which distinguishes among three views that it characterizes as intrinsic, subjective, and objective.

Even more irrelevant.

For information on the Objectivist political philosophy, see Ayn Rand

Completely irrelevant.

Chiok 09:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (Appended Chiok 11:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC))

Thanks for the start

Anything was better than nothing in this case. I wish I knew the area enough to join in more proactively - my partner was surprised that I opened my mouth at all, knowing that I do not like to criticise where I am unable to improve - but I guess there are exceptions to that rule (20040302 20:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC))

No problem. I just took out the parts that were awful. This doesn't mean that I like what is left. Actually, I'm not sure why this is even an article. Subjectivity and Subjectivism (philosophy) both redirect to Subject (philosophy) I think this is the right way to go, delete this and redirect it to Object (philosophy). The important part of objectivist theories is that it make certain things (mind-independent) objects and really has nothing to do with beliefs about "the existence and nature of reality" (whatever that is). The only philosophically interesting thing is what do objectivist theories claim are objects. Make the articles about that, the objects. We might also create Psychometric objectivity and Intrinsic-objective-subjective distinction to separate those different topics and move the Searle bit to John Searle. Chiok 21:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Epistemic objectivity

Okay, John Searle says that consciousness can be studied by epistemically objective means, but what does that mean? How is consciouness objective but not metaphysically objective? What are epistemically objective means? It sounds like he is equivocating the two different sense of 'objective', mind-independent real objects and an unbiased approach. Can we describe what epistemic objectivity is? Chiok 21:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not consciousness that is held to be epistemically objective; it is the means of studying consciousness. More later...... Michael Hardy 21:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This distinction is not listed in the John Searle article. Why does the distinction warrant its own article when it not even listed under John Searle? Chiok 21:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What is this article for?

I don't understand where this article is going. First the term was defined in terms of Ayn Rand, and then Searle, as if these philosophers had provided the definitive description of objectivity. This article has no clear cut objective. The truth is, the term "objectivity" is usually referred to objectivism, or its use in different branches of philosophy. It doesn't even rate article space in dictionaries or encyclopedias of philosophy. All philosophers have their idea what objectivity is and it will be difficult to provide a definition that is a NPOV. At best it should serve as a page referring to other topics associated with objectivity, and leave individual philosophers out of it. Amerindianarts 22:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Surely objectivity is a reasonably important concept in philosophy? Or is it not? (20040302)

The Object (philosophy) - Subject (philosophy) distinction is important. I'm not sure what objectivity adds to that distinction. Chiok 23:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay I see that - though as I (pitifully) understand it, there is a difference between "the existence of objects", and "objective existence" - or am i missing something? For me, it would be difficult to deny the existence of objects (I am sitting on a chair) but not hard to question their objective existence (the chair's existence does not require an essence, an intrinsic nature, - it is hard to imagine it having an acontextual existence). I am merely a lay person, using these terms as a lay person would/could, as pretty baubles. If these uses of objectivity are covered by Object (philosophy) or Objectivism, then this article should definately be a redirect. (....) Well, I looked at both articles, and felt that the first was what I expected it to be, and the second is what this article shouldn't be. However, I guess a load of the issues that are relevant to my understanding of the term are dealt with under Objecthood. Having said that, all of those articles are marked as needing to be cleaned, or in some form of poor health or another. (....) I guess what I was actually looking for was more adequately dealt with in the article Substance theory. Ah- language. So, it may be useful to use this article as an introduction to the various different threads of 'objectivity' within philosophy - and to provide links to them. Certainly the way in which the term is used by lay philosophers is dissimilar to the views of Rand or Searle. (20040302 00:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

'Object' has several senses. Perceptional/psychological objects refer to how we perceive objects as whole rather than a collection of sensations. Metaphysical objects have an essence or are a 'res' (that's a latin technical term for 'thing'). There is also the linguistic sense where object terms refer to some thing. I think your "existence of objects" is closer to the linguistic sense and your "objective existence" to the metaphysical sense.

All the object-subject articles need work. Substance theory, in contrast, is a pretty good article. I think that objectivism is more general than substance theory, so it deserves a link to rather than a redirect. Chiok 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea, thanks Chiok - nicely stated. I found Substance theory a good, entertaining read - though limited in terms of the history of it's development and it's proponents. Btw - "Res" currently redirects to a singer - seems a bit silly for it not to have at least a redirect to a page that deals with it's philosophical import. (20040302)

Yes, the object-subject is more important and more commonly used. It is not that objectivity is not important, it's just that it is such an ambiguous term, and other terms and concepts are preferred e.g. truth, certainty, objective statements, etc. Amerindianarts 02:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

So, maybe this article should be an extended disambiguation page, which would suit me fine. (20040302 09:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

Current rewrite

I have rewritten this article within the narrow scope of the term "objectivity" with the intent of not having it confused with various objectivisms and notions of objective knowledge. The article was up for deletion and this is an effort to save a definition of the term in philosophy. Possibilities for expansion would overlap with many other concepts in philosophy and I think this page would serve best a link depository for those concepts. Otherwise, it could be merged into an article on the various notions of the term "objective", but it would probably lose its identity in doing so.Amerindianarts 21:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's much better. Thanks. Chiok 04:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the notice of clean-up needed. If anyone disagrees feel free to reinsert. I have considered a section on primary qualities, but only in regard to the tradition in philosophy of substantives as introduced by Galileo's notions that truth can only be by mathematical measurement (description by mathematical propositions). I have hesitated because of the need of introducing further definitions which would in turn require explanations of objective relativism, taking the article out of its current scope and range. Amerindianarts 03:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes; forgive me for my ignorance: Regarding the conclusion of the article ...it is doubtful that such knowledge would be considered as attaining the precision experienced in the natural sciences, and would probably be referenced by a name other than "objectivity". What is meant by this? And is it necessarily true? I am under the impression that many scientists believe that at it's best, science is concerned with modelling via experimentation rather than discovering truths thereby, or am I missing the point? (20040302 15:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Modeling by experimentation is supposed to be value free. There is also, however, such principles as the "Heisenberg", etc., showing that experimental method can be tainted. The point is that value tainted statements will be qualified by another term, e.g. historical objectivity, objective relativism, ethical objectivism. The natural sciences try to use mathematics and its propositions, even statistically, and these are propositions supposedly of timeless truths. One can argue, e.g. that Euclidean geometry is not accurate within the domain of a universe of curved space, but this does not negate the point that the axioms of Euclidean geometry are still timeless, neutral propositions.Amerindianarts 18:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah.. but - keeping with science - I went over to Scientific Method after I asked - and I feel that the way in which science is typified in this article doesn't reflect the views of Heisenburg, Kuhn, etc. - that observation is necessarily theory-dependant; a view which I would subscribe to. As I understand it, Mathematics is a well-developed modelling language, though maybe I am still missing the point! Thanks for taking the time to explain this stuff to me, AA (20040302 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Which article is "this" article? Observation may be theory dependent. If it is does it qualify as objectivity in the sense of philosophy? The point is, the compatibility of propositions, or basically "in comparison to what?" How do we know whether or not the compatibility of our propositions is dependent on our propositional acts? Natural sciences may not be entirely precise in the sense you seem to take the term, the article states "attaining the precision experienced in the natural sciences". This does not explicity state that they are precise per se, but only by comparison. "Probability" is not precise, nor is induction, but we know this only because of some idea that there is timeless truth which acts as a guide in an effort to gain truth. I will try to work on the conclusion some more in the future, or feel free to make a contribution. I think there may be some questions here regarding the distinction of "truth" and "knowledge". Natural sciences in some regards may provide a "working knowledge" which at the time is as precise as can be, but the effort to gain a more precise formulation I think is what philosophy terms the "propensity to be objective". Amerindianarts 20:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the point you may be making is that according to the definitions of the article, then the natural sciences cannot fall under the term "objectivity". If so, that is a good point, but the philosophical notion of objectivity I think should reveal this. Philosophers will be the first to critique scientific method. I really don't like the current article, I just wanted to save the term. Input from other philosophers would be welcome but as I warned prior to the revision, being specific about the term in philosophy is tenuous. The task of philosophers trying to be more all-encompassing in its definition is usually pertinent to a particular school of thought.Amerindianarts 20:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Still lousy

Improved, but still worthy of deletion. The opening discussion is too technical to be intelligible to non-philosophers, while not being informative or interesting for professionals. A more accurate rendering of the opening sentence would be "in philosophy, objectivity is a term with no widely agreed meaning."

No, it is not lousy. Technical maybe, but it is a technical discipline requiring clarity. Philosophy concerns clarity of thought, and this article may then be problematic for a non-philosopher, but then, non-philosophers may not really be interested in "objectivity" in philosophy. I really don't know how you can see it as non-informative to the professional. Objectivity is a product of the language. Anything less is not objectivity, but something of another name. The article is still a work in progress and your opinion is noted, but it is also a minority opinion.Amerindianarts 07:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you care to be more specific I would be glad to discuss this. I think the statement "in philosophy, objectivity is a term with no widely agreed meaning" is the least informative of all. I don't think there can be much argument that objectivity is a product of language, i.e. communication, so what it is is more clear than its inclusiveness. Philosophers such as Kierkegaard have held that it is possible for a subject to be objective about themselves. Thus, the statement "I am cold" is me viewing my current situation objectively, and given that I am not trying to deceive anyone, it can be considered a true statement, but it may not be compatible with another who states that they are not cold. So, as long as I keep the notion private, it is objective and true, but once communicated it becomes subjective (and objectivity would tend toward a discussion of the universalization of coldness). Given the notion of a universal coldness, further discussion may yield agreement, but this is something that would be of another name, e.g. truth by agreement, or intersubjective knowledge, or whatever. This is also a problem for the linguistic relativists. To subsume notions of relativism, conceptualism, intersubjective knowledge, truth by agreement, etc. under types of objectivity just muddies the waters and need to have a name of their own for the sake of clarity. Historically, the notion of objectivity begins with Humboldt's notion that objectivity consists of the totality of every utterance spoken and understood. He was attempting to reconcile the problems of the subject/object split born out of Fichte's objectivism, which was the result of his denying the Kantian things-in-themselves. Humboldt's position should be considered distinct from the notion of independent propositions, but his influence outside of Germany was not in philosophy, but in linguisitcs. In short, the question of "objectivity" is that it concerns the compatibility of propositions. What is arguable is their independence or dependence upon propositional attitudes, but the article states this:"Whether or not there are propositions is one of the most disputed questions of philosophy." Anything less than independent propositions is something of another name. To not realize this is to lack clarity and naturally lead to the view that "in philosophy, objectivity is a term with no widely agreed meaning." It is correct that "objectivity" as a term usually doesn't rate article space in most publications, but that doesn't mean that research will not yield any results. Most of the confusion seems to be related to confusing "objectivity" with "objectivism" or "objectivist philosophy", or simply contrasting it with subjectivity. It's true contrast is relativism which has it's own name for "objectivity". Amerindianarts 08:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article definitely needs work. But it shouldn't be deleted, as it is a major concept. After all, a neutral point of view does means objectivity. Lapaz

I do not agree with the comparison to Kant's ideas. What you are looking for here is his schemata, not Ideas. It needs to be changed. I also disagree with the substitution of universal for timeless. What Euclidean geometry once was and the subsequent discoveries of other geometries is an example of this confusion. "Objectivity" is not that important to philosophy. It is as hard to define as "philosophy" itself and doesn't rate article space in most philosophy dictionaries and encyclopedias. It has become too relevant to particular philosophies, in other words, it is too difficult a term to be described objectively (meaning it may mean, non-philosophically, a neutral point of view, but it cannot be described in a neutral point of view as a term in philosophy).Amerindianarts 03:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I made changes to the recent edits. The body cannot maintain objectivity about the term "objectivity" in philosophy and reference particular philosophers. That's the name of the game in this article. The term is used differently by individual philosophers and reference to their definition of "objectivity" is "loose usage". The addition at the beginning of the article "Objectivity is a quality of truth" is not NPOV if you consider the additions of "social interactions". As a matter of fact, it is a contradiction to those additions. If Foucault was right, for example, then it is possible that truth is a quality and function of objectivity. I will sleep on it, but I think the addition of "Objectivity is a quality of truth" may need to go.

At the level of social interaction one has to consider particular cultures and societies. Philosophic anthropologists and philosophers alike will seize this as an opportunity to seek cross-cultural indentifiers, or propositions that are true of all cultures or socieities. Meaning, they will still seek independent propositions, regardless of whether or not they exist. Anything less may be referenced by individual philosophers as themes of objectivity, but this use of the term confuses it with other names. That is why if there is to be an article on "objectivity (philosophy)", it's scope has to be limited. Otherwise the article will be like before, a hodge-podge of mishappenstance and loose usage with random reference to particular philosophers. Objectivity requires this: if the article names one philosopher's concept of objectivity, then you have to name them all, and this is loose usage of the term (in philosophy). Amerindianarts 06:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't think objectivity qualifies as an essential characteristic of truth, and don't accept to replace "timeless" with the much more precise and determined concept of "universal" (which means: the same in all times and all places -!), then I understand why this article is in this shape. Your comments about professionals are quite irrelevant: professionals will certainly not find here much more than what they already know, and beginners just scratch their head at such non-sense. I'm not telling that my edits about Foucault are marvellous, but really, they can't do get the article lot worse than it is already here. As i tell you, if you don't think truth is essentially defined by its objectivity, than their is absolutely no reason to talk (and therefore to link to Habermas). Lapaz

"In philosophy, it is generally considered as the compatibility of propositions distinct and independent of propositional attitudes or acts." Compatibility is surely a main component of truth. We're not talking about mystical absolute truth here, rather we're trying to approach something like what does "scientific objectivity" means? And this, of course, leads to a debate on social forces, which, instead of displacing to some other place in the article, you simply delete. Lapaz

If I state that "I am cold" am I stating something true? If I am, How is it objective? I left "universal" in the article, but only because it is qualified by "temporally neutral". You may consider universal more precise, but it doesn't always necessarily have anything to do with the truth. Did you not understand the example of Euclidian geometry? Its propositions may be universal, but the application of Euclidean geometry in measuring the physical world is no longer the universal truth. It works, but it becomes pragmatic. References to individual philosophers are not NPOV. You cited the article (neutral point of view), but it doesn't appear you read it. This article has varying viewpoints which you have defined as "Objectivity is a quality of truth", and this is an error because some of the viewpoints will assert the contrary, that Truth is a quality of objectivity. You are contradicting your later edits and the article as a whole. It lacks credibility. I'm not saying it is not true. I am saying that it states either too much or too little and doesn't make sense in its context.

"Mystical" is something you have read into this, I don't know why. "Compatibility" is a fairly neutral term and doesn't really pin down the notion of truth to any certain terms. I find it ironic that you cite objectivity and NPOV and then insert the article with obvious opinion, and that is what was deleted. Your comment about Kant was not only not NPOV, it is simply wrong. "Usually" qualifies in no uncertain terms by what Wiki refers to as a "weasel word". It is loaded with opinion and was changed to state a historic fact.

References to individual philosophers and what they call "objectivity" is not what the article is about. If you want to write a paragraph on what a particular philosopher calls "objectivity", then go to that philosopher's article and write it. It doesn't belong here. What a particular philosopher calls "objectivity" is based upon the presupposition of tools and apparatus utilized in order to arrive at what they call "objectivity", and this is what "objectivity (philosophy)" means. "Objectivity (philosophy)" is what is used by philosophers in order to arrive at what they call "objectivity" and what a certain philosopher defines as "objectivity" does not define "objectivity (philosophy)". Objectivity is an infinite regress. If you consider all the different notions of "objectivity" by different philosophers as a possible worlds scenario, and then take a group of philosophers to analyze these worlds and abstract a defintion of "objectivity", you still have in no uncertain terms something called "objectivity", but it is distinct from "objectivity (philosophy)". This distinction is so obvious that it is humorous that it is confused, and the problem with this article is the layman who continually confuses the distinction when editing this article.Amerindianarts 01:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Your own definition of philosophy & objectivity is baffling. You don't want particular philosophers' conceptions of objectivity to be stated here, declaring yourself to be in favor of a "general definition of objectivity in philosophy". This first presupposes:

There's is such a thing as philosophy (or as a definite philosophical field of study). This is contradict by almost all philosophy teachers, which all claim that philosophy speaks about everything. If you really want ref, i'll advise you Derrida on this one.
Something can be said on philosophy in general. This has been discussed by Foucault, Deleuze, etc, for whom universals do not exist, henceforth, nothing interesting can be said on them. It's akin to the talk on the angels' sex.

However, your definition of objectivity in philosophy as being 'generally considered as the compatibility of propositions distinct and independent of propositional attitudes or acts. A proposition is an objective constituent the meaning of which is the same as the object being named by it, and is either true or false." is certainly not uninteresting. However, as a philosophy expert, you should be aware that this is only one definition of objectivity according to your philosophy. I simply think that there should be place in this article for both this quite interesting - because of its coherence - specific definition, and for a broader discussion of objectivity in various fields (journalism, history, science, value of truth itself in philosophy, etc.) The reason for this is that philosophy is not defined to a particular field, this is especially the definition of philosophy (of not being defined). I'm sure you are familiar with those concepts. Regards, Lapaz

Ayn Rand Lovers

I am not happy about pretentious Ayn Rand lovers...

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 02:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Splash linked to the wrong page. It should be here Chiok 04:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Now what?

The article is still here, so what do we want it to be? Whatever happens I don't want it to be Ayn Rand centric. The old article looked liked someone's handout given out at an Ayn Rand salon or a participant's sponsored session at a TOC conference, but Wikipedia is not an Ayn Rand salon. I also don't particularly like Lapez's additions. I'm not sure what it is, but I find them confusing. The last version I like was this oneprimarily written by Amerindianarts, even though it is a little focused on propositions. Something also should be said about perceptional objectivity and moral facts. It would be nice if we could add a few people with a philosophy degree to the conversation.

I should also point out that there is an article on Objectivity in both the Routledge encyclopedia (by Alexander Miller) and in the The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Objectivityby Dwayne H. Mulder). We will be better off if we try to emulate those two articles for now. We should also try to avoid listing particular philosophers' unique meanings of Objectivity and only mention, at first anyway, the philosophers mentioned in those two encyclopedia articles. Although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy doesn't have an article on Objectivity itself, there are 141 articles that mention the word The articles that use the word the most are about the Feminist critique of objectivity and this is not discussed in either the IEP or Routledge encyclopedia article.

I also want to point out that I still don't know exactly what objectivity is. Is there a difference between something being objective and the objectivity of a something? If Objectivity is merely "The state or quality of being objective" wouldn't it be better to redirect this article to something on the subjective-objective distinction (and that article improved)? If objectivity refers to the objectiveness of something, what can be objective? For example, things (in the technical scholastic res sense), intentional objects, propositions, (moral) beliefs, facts, or mathematical objects? Does objectivity concern propositional truths or the property/predicate of existing? Does it require mind-independence or, at the very least, consistency over some/all observers? Does it require unbiased beliefs in the weak journalistic sense, a value-neutral sense, an emotionally detached sense, or in the stronger sense that includes no perceptual biases? Is "a view from nowhere" needed? Can phenomenal objects have objectivity or just noumenal objects? Does the philosophy of science discussion of verifiably versus falsifiably come into play at all? Okay, I think you got my point. We need to figure out what this article is about. Chiok 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As you point out, there are various definitions of objectivity. The one listed by the Encyclopedias are certainly interesting, and goes toward Amerindianarts' previous definition. However, it would be a huge mistake not to take into account what you qualify as "weak journalistic objectivity", historical objectivity, "view from nowhere" (universal point of view in philosophical terms), etc. Propositions and propositionals acts is only one side of the question. Furthermore, i certainly do hope that people contributing to the PhilosophyWikiProject have philosophical degrees. Lapaz 17:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I dropped the word 'more' when I said we should get (more) people with phil degrees. I didn't mean to suggest that you or the other people here don't have one. Whoops, my bad. I have no problem with the journalistic section, instead I was talking more about the first paragraph. I think it is trying to say too much in one paragraph and I don't know what "quality of truth" means, so I get kinda confused reading it. Sorry if I was unclear and came across as overly dismissive. It's good to have you aboard. Chiok 20:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

mergefrom Objectivism (metaphysics)

The Objectivism (metaphysics) seems very short and stubby. I think that article would work better here where there is a more context about objectivity in general. Indeed the objectivism section here is almost the same as in the other article. --Salix alba (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a tendency in Wikipedia which seems to favorize -isms articles, which is not a very good idea except for people who love categorizing others people in little cases which suit their nice little point of view. I don't think either that "objectivism" is a valid term, and it surely need to be sourced in order to remain as it is. This being said, objectivism may design something different and should be completed (however, it could be listed as a subsection, both alternatives are similar). Take for example subjectivism which has been merged with subject (philosophy): while subjectivism design a specific philosophical stance, subject is a core-concept shared by most if not all modern philosophers. Lapaz 13:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The main school of objectivism seems to be the Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, Objectivist metaphysics, Objectivist epistemology. This starts from a position that reality is objective, but quickly adds a rather subjective conclusions. In Rands school the -ism does seem correct in that its a particular philosophical position. I'm unsure if any other major philosphers have started from the position. --Salix alba (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that I never heard of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy (although I do study philosophy); although there is no harm in Wikipedia having articles on it, it certainly shouldn't modify the content of other philosophical pages! I think objectivisim should be merged here. Lapaz 22:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

merge from Objective approach

Objective approach should be dealt with here. Lapaz 21:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Objectivity (philosophy) is about whether it is posible to be objective and if there is an objective reality. Objective approach is more about how to be objective (assuming its possible). --Salix alba (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. This means that it's exactly the same debate (how is different the question of "whether it is possible to be objective" and "how to be objective (assuming its possible)"? I agree that the question of an "objective reality" is somewhat different, however, it may be adressed in a objective reality article if someone sees the point in making it differs from this one. No point in dividing the word "objectivity" in forks when it usually means what this page defines it as. Lapaz 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How about we keep Objectivity as an overview on all the related topics. With brief sections on

Philosophical basis for objectivity
Objectivity in practice
- In journalism
- In science
Movements which claim to be objective

And keep this article for a more in depth treatment of the philosophical basis. --Salix alba (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea, because most of the time objectivity means what objectivity (philosophy) is discussing: this is why it should redirect here. Objectivity is not a big problem, to the contrary of what the above debate might incite to believe. It most commonly means, according to its philosophical and ordinary definition, neutrality as in suspension of bias, or qualifies truth. There aren't a thousand definitions. Actually, the only others senses in the disambiguation page are objectivity (journalism) and New Objectivity, which is a 1920 German movement. Lapaz 01:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From a more general point of view, the philosophical sense of objectivity can only be discussed it relating it to the "other senses", which actually are all common formulations of its philosophical sense. Philosophers just discuss the problem more in depth, questionning themselves how objectivity can be achieved in scientific discourse, in journalism; how truth itself can be said "objective"; etc. But these questions do not give to the word "objectivity" ten thousand meanings: whether in history, journalism, science, etc., while it is doubtlessly not the same kind of objectivity, you can hardly divide them as if they had nothing to do between themselves. The point of having this philosophical page of objectivity is precisely in having a clear discussion of the concept, which is why we have philosophers for in the first time! In other words, it is not as if we were discussing metaphysics questions such as which sex do angels have, which I agree are not of much concern to most mortals... Lapaz 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Overview

This article has lost direction. It contains a lot of extraneous bull that has nothing to do with objectivity (philosophy) per se. First, when searching Wiki for the term "objectivity" you are taken to "objectivity (philosophy)", There are other conceptions of the term in general and this shows a complete lack of understanding of what the term means for PHILOSOPHY, and not the layman or any other discipline. Next, you get the pathetic statement that in philosophy the term "objectivity" is a synonym for "neutral point of view". This is complete bullshit and once again shows a complete lack of understanding for the term qua philosophy. The smatterings and samplings of individual philosophers has now added a bias in point of view. The article is no longer a neutral point of view and it is a disgrace to Wiki to have an article on "objectivity (philosophy)" that is not a tribute to objectivity (philosophy) itself. Sections have been added that are irrelevant. This article has become a hodge-podge of mishappenstance which looks like it was thrown together by a large, diverse group of philosopher wannabes. The article is slanted and the samplings of different philosophers by no means is representative of philosophy as a whole, therefore it does not represent a neutral point of view.Amerindianarts 11:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite agree, I think this article should focus on specifically on the philosophical dimension. I've cut out some of the non philosophical intro material which is now in Objectivity which severs as an overview of related concepts. --Salix alba (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Do you know how to fix the search mechanism?? A wiki search for "objectivity" needs to go to the disambiguation page for that term. Not directly to "objectivity (philosophy)"Amerindianarts 13:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

- It still sucks. The first paragraph refers to the subjective/objective dichotomy but this relation is not "obectivity". The term is not limited to this relation, private lives, private languages, or solipsism, etc. Objectivity requires more than one subject and notions otherwise are confused, e.g. the "objective approach" here is confused with objectivity, and is basically a simple confusion akin to confusing means with ends.
- This confusion carries over into the next two paragraphs which make no sense at all. There is absolutely no mention of discourse or the Socratic method, which is the means in arriving at the truth, i.e. objectivity as Plato would regard it. This is something taught in Philosophy 101. The writer of these paragraphs has not utilized an objective approach. These two paragraphs are loaded with unsubstantiated person opinion and do not conform to Wiki standards.
- Why is there a section on "politics"? Politics is a very minor element of philosophy and belongs to a division of philosophy called "ethics", but I see no mention of objectivity in ethics, but only jibberish which smacks of personal agenda. The example of "democracy" has no meaning. Can't democracy be simply 50.1% of a majority, which is not even a high degree of probability? How is this associated with objectivity? There is no mention of laws and its distinction with morality. A law may be in a propositional form a representative of a majority rule, but what is illegal may not be immoral, and morality is not the same as legality.
- I have not read the section on Journalism yet, but I fail to see its relevance here, especially such a long section, and it would do better elsewhere in another article. I have also not studied the section on "objectivism" yet, but given what was previously deleted by its author I suspect that it is confusing referent and meaning of the term "objectivity". I will continue, when I can find time, to revamp this article so that it conforms to Wiki and philosophical standards. If anybody disagrees with this, then a notice can be put on the article head that this article needs to be brought up to Wiki standards. Amerindianarts 05:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I think refering to subjective/objective is important to go at the top. This is one of the big debates in philosophy which can be traced back to Plato/Arastotle.
Political philosophy is one of the major deciplines in philosophy. Section has move to objectivity now, as has journalism.
Search now goes to objectivity, theres no way I know of to modify how search works.
Maybe its time to be bold in updating pages and have a crack at bringing some more order to the page. --Salix alba (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A resume of objectivity in journalism, history and politics should be maintained on this page. Welcome back Amerindianarts, but maybe you should be a bit more careful making changes which you know are discussed. Of course be bold and the article can surely be improved; but the "propositions" section on objectivity is not all that there is to say about it. Again, it is completely artificial to radically distinguish objectivity in philosophy from objectivity in journalism and, in a general sense of the word, "neutral point of view". Philosophy also discuss the possibility and the manner to attain this neutral point of view. Some, such as Foucault, think it is an illusion, although it may be, as marxists would argue, an "objective illusion" (an ideology). Others, such as Habermas, believe dialogue is a sure way to attain objectivity, while others underline the manners to achieve "scientific objectivity", through contradictory debate, peers' review, etc. Why delete ALL these discussions about objectivity? How can you justify your statement according to which it is irrelevant to the philosophical discussion of objectivity? How do you maintain such a difference between philosophy and non-philosophy? Do you think you're decision is really more NPOV than mine? And how would you justify this? Lapaz

Yes, I am correct. You have taken an article with "philosophy" in its title and thrown in everything but the kitchen sink. I suppose if you throw in enough bull you're bound to hit a few points, but the article is a mass of confusion. Your narrow focus on certain philosophers has slanted the article. I made a correction on the Lukacs entry, check it out, the previous entry is what I warned you about in citing individual philosophers and the entry was bias. I really don't see that much discussion on the talk page to support you and it appears to me that this article was taken on by someone with a personal agenda. It will either be changed or icons designating the article as not NPOV and needs to be brought up to WIKI standards will be placed. Your personal observation about Plato and subjective knowledge as an oxymoron is also a personal observation with no real, cited foundation. I am going to remove it right know, because it is a personal comment, it stinks. I suggest you expand the scope of your readings. Amerindianarts 21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I also suggest to user Lapaz to refer to the Wiki policy for "weasel words", e.g. entries such as "usually" (that was a really bad sentence), "doubtlessly", etc., are weasel words. Why is discourse and the Socratic method (the dialectical method of arrving at the truth)omitted from the first three paragraphs? This shows the writer as having no understanding of the fundamental concepts of philosophy. I quote "or insisting in other ways of achieving objectivity, for example by intersubjectivity ". This may have been read somewhere but it is a statement that is exceedingly negligent of Plato's method of arriving at the truth through dialectical discourse and thereby eliminating personal sentiments and doxa. Don't read about Plato-read Plato. This is compounded by the statement "This meaning of objectivity refers to the supposed division of the world into subjects and objects, and poses the problem of consciousness". Is that all objectivity is? No. Objectivity and an objective approach do not exist without communication.Amerindianarts 22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- A note on Plato. It is a misconception that Plato would have considered "subjective knowledge as doubtlessly an oxymoron". Knowledge is something that everyone is born with and is brought to light through recollection by discourse. This formulation on the innate is a classic in philosophy. Thus, the aforementioned statement is simply doxa, and references that Plato ignored intersubjectivity are also wrong (innate ideas are an unconceived sharing of knowledge by subjects). In effect, this article has achieved a violation of Occam's razor. That is basically the principle that objectivity can be achieved through the least number of principles being introduced. The more you bring in, the more you have to explain in order to be objective. This is the problem of introducing the positions of individual philosophers. Individual philosophers may have the intent of descibing objectivity, but their position itself is akin to a "propositional attitude".Amerindianarts 22:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- A note to user Lapaz. My comments are not a personal point of view. For the passages from Plato that repudiate the second and third paragraphs refer to the dialogues Meno and Phaedo. Philosophy is divided into its main branches; Logic, Epistomology, Ethics and Aesthetics (Axiology), and Metaphysics or Ontology. This is standard. Politics is just a small part of these main branches (this can be verified in just about any article on philosophy in general). Philosophers are quite often apolitical and look past the ideological (the subjectivity refered to in a paragraph of this article) aspect of politics and seek to find the ethical or moral precepts that are presupposed in the ideology. So rather than accuse me of doing what you are doing in regard to NPOV, do your homework and try to refute the citations I have made.

This article needs massive work and CITATIONS

The largest problem with this article is its lack of citations. It only has 1!

Secondly, its written in a rather obfuscated manner that I doubt most laymen would appreciate.

I think it ought to be flagged and rewritten.

I agree.Amerindianarts 02:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing "Objectivity (philosophy)"

Changed a section to "constructivism", a term which encompasses much of what competes with objectivism. The examples given in this section displayed a narrow focus. The problem with this section is that it can really be over expanded with the further introduction of individual philosophers. It would better represent "objectivity" with the inclusion of schools of thought rather than individuals.

I have tried to preserve past edits, but nonetheless edited in the spirit of the page name and article title "objectivity (philosophy)". I did not move the section on objectivity in science, but I will also not dispute the move. Objectivity in science and math is predominately based upon the acceptance of scientific method, rules and axioms (propositions), etc., by the scientific community. It is better covered by links to these articles and the philosophy of science.

The first three paragraphs still need work. Paragraphs two and three are unusually superficial. Plato's thoughts changed over time and these two pargraphs will be largely contradicted by his dialogues Meno, Phaedo, and Theaetetus. Amerindianarts 19:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

- The following is an inquiry made at my talk page. I am moving it here because this is where it is appropriate:
  - Thanks for your expertise, all Wikipedians are heavily indebted to you. What would we do if such professional philosophers as you didn't correct our mistakes? Funny however how such a wiseman as you didn't think of quoting Plato to speak about objectivity. Maybe it was just too obvious for your expert knowledge? Lapaz
  - Given the incredible amount of discussion concerning not citing individual philosophers in the article discussion, especially between yourself and I, I think the reason I didn't previously cite Plato should be quite obvious, but you seem to have ignored those discussions, or just completely missed the point. The article is far from being finished, and the second paragraph's presence is tenuous, at best. The point about primitive knowledge is good, but it has no relevance in a section on subjective knowledge. Amerindianarts 16:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  - The point about primitive knowledge and your comment above bring up a point that should be further discussed. The initial limitation of the article to propositions and propositional attitudes was because it can be applied across the board in all of philosophy, no matter what the school of thought. Primitive knowledge is an excellent example. Take for instance the Zuni. They have a body of knowledge that has been handed down for centuries orally, and recited by rote. The body of knowledge is based upon what has worked in ritual and recitation by a desert based agri-community. Failure to properly perform ritual, or errors and attitudes in recitation is the reason for failure. Does this make such a body of knowledge subjective in any way? Or should it be considered as a construction based upon principles of intersubject concepts? If it is based upon some unconceived, or preconceived notions, or ascribed to innateness, then the propositions of their knowledge is perfectly objective (and intersubjectivity becomes a moot, non-relevant point) and the subjective are those errors, or propositional attitudes, that cause failure in performance. If innate ideas exist, or preconceived principles exist, they are objective. I included the quote of Plato because he makes this point in contradistinction to the garbled second and third paragraphs, which need to be rewritten to properly reflect this, or just removed altogether.
  - In another approach, what if the culturally relative is still consided as subjectivity? Consider each culture as an example of the best of all possible worlds. Those researchers of cultures are not going to view each one as subjective, but will seek those propositions in a culture that reflect its values (their objectivity) and compare those propositions with the propositions of all cultures in an attempt to arrive at a true notion of the objective in contrast to a group cultural attitudes. But what is their criteria?? They still have to have a group of propositions (the objective) to point to. It is an infinite regress that is characteristic of philosophic inquiry. Thus, propositions and propositional attitudes can be applied across the board. It is always the impetuous in seeking the objective in a summation of different notions of objectivity (the objective). Amerindianarts 17:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Amerindianarts, since you insist in having a public response, i'll answer to you personally wherever you deem it preferable (i.e. i'm not sure anybody else is interested by this "debate"). Your comments are very interesting, but you are advised to refrain from personal attacks (i'm sure you'll understand why, eitherwise just look up the Wikipedia policy). A bit more seriously than name-calling, you are the first Philosopher i've met so long that is able to make general definitions of objectivity without quoting any particular philosophers; that is, you are the first expert on philosophy i've met that doesn't need to back-up his claims and interpretations on specific texts. This is most surprising, as your theory should therefore carry more truth and objectivity than what specific philosophers can say. Your theory on propositions and propositional acts is very interesting indeed, but your intent on universalizing it and claiming it is the only neutral objective definition of objectivity is most surprising, to say the least. I assume that if you don't need to refer to specific philosophers, it may be because surely you hear the voice of the Greeks themselves in your mind? Seeing the amount of words you write each time you feel the need to answer something, I'm sure you must be right, and will hereafter demonstrate it to all of us. Take care, the love of wisdom is a never-ending path, which has made crazy more than one person Lapaz 12:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see where there has been any name-calling. Just a response to your attempt at demeaning sarcasm. Like I said, my entries on Plato were an attempt to repudiate the misinfo of the second paragraph. I have tried to be as generous as possible with those edits but my patience is waning. I haven't checked the history, so I don't know who wrote those paragraphs for certain. But,if the author considers theirself as a philosopher, and the paragraphs as doing philosophy, they should be ashamed. The third paragraph, and many other edits which were deleted, refer to non-philosophers. Strauss was a formidible figure, but not a philosopher. The continual reference to politics and sociology has a relevance that is tenuous. It gives the article a slanted view which can only be construed as a personal agenda. The section on subjectivity is screwed up but I am trying to figure out a means to salvage "primitivism". If the culturally relative is considered important it can be done in terms of that culture and its body of knowledge. I again cite the Zuni. The objective constituent of their reality is a body of PROPOSITIONs in ritual and chant, and objectivity is perfect recitation. Their language is quite lyrical, but the lyricisms and locution are propositional attitudes that have been absorbed into the objective. Make no mistake, it is no coincidence that a Zuni member was the winner of recent recitation competitions (Zuni Pueblo junior wins recitation contest).

By analogy, consider Kant. Things themselves may be unknowable, but they are not something which doesn't exist. Thus, the boundary between the known and unknown is not stricted demarcated. There is always possible conditions for expanding knowledge, whether or not it is considered as an objective reality or not. And whether or not it is considered as an objective reality, it still points to the things themselves. But this is a minefield, as is any position of any philosopher in regard to "objectivity (philosophy)". Amerindianarts 18:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing Objectivity (philosophy), April, 2006

Moved here for discussion. To define "objectivity" in terms of subject-object relationships oversimplifies the concept. It is questionable that in an isolated object-subject relation that objectivity has any meaning at all, thus introducing the notion of subject to subject relations and the extent of objectification (reification)

Rewrote intro. Moved old intro here for possible discussion

"Objectivity has various meanings in philosophy, and is surely one of the most important philosophical problems, since it concerns the epistemological status of knowledge, the problem of an objective reality and the question of our subjective relationship to other objects in the world."

Platonic epistemology section

On one hand, objectivity may define the status of knowledge, as opposed to subjective knowledge. In this common usage, (scientifical) knowledge is considered to be objective, while personal opinions are said to be subjective. The paradigm of this definition of objectivity can be found in the Platonic epistemology, which takes as model mathematics. Plato was famous for considering knowledge of geometry as a condition of philosophical apprenticeship, both being concerned by universal truths. Thus, Plato's opposition between objective knowledge and doxa (Greek word for "opinions") would become the basis for later philosophies intent on grappling the problem of reality, knowledge and human existence. Episteme is the Greek word for knowledge, and may explain why, according to Plato, there can be only scientific or philosophical knowledge, but no "subjective knowledge". Personal opinions are simply, in Plato's mind, irrelevant, since they belong to the changing sphere of the sensible, opposed to the fixed and eternal sphere of intelligibility. Henceforth, Plato's conception is often the core of the modern ideology of science, which considers only scientific knowledge to be legitimate and disqualify common, layman knowledge as ideological. However, various philosophies of science disagree with this Platonic epistemology, claiming its constitutive dualism is too simple.

Subjective knowledge

The expression "subjective knowledge" may refer to false claims of knowledge, as in Plato's critique of the doxa. However, critics have argued against the political implications of such an epistemology, claiming it legitimates technocracy if not scientism or positivism. Indeed, several authors have pointed out that such a conception, deeply embedded in Occidental ethnocentrism, is not only anti-democratic, but also intellectually insufficient. Famous ethnologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, for example, demonstrated in The Savage Mind (1962) that "primitive" knowledge was just as valid and objective as scientifical knowledge. Michel de Certeau also argues in favour of a type of arts and crafts empirical knowledge; a position shared by Harold Garfinkel's "ethnomethodology", which focuses on the ways in which people already understand the world and how they use that understanding. The Greek metis (which can be roughly translated as "ruse") has also been defended by some authors as a practical form of intelligence and knowledge, opposed to scientifical knowledge ^[2].

In another, weaker sense, "subjective knowledge" refers to introspective knowledge. Objective knowledge than is knowledge of objects, including others subjects, while subjective knowledge would be knowledge of oneself. This meaning of objectivity refers to the supposed division of the world into subjects and objects, and poses the problem of consciousness.

Constructivism

Could be renamed "historical variations". The problem with this is that objectivty and objectivism are terms that were not introduced in Philosophy until the 19th century.

(See also: constructivist epistemology, intersubjective verifiability, social constructionism, relativism, conceptualism)

Objectivity, as the act of, or propensity for being objective, may not be identical with, or may preclude the notion of an independent and timeless objective reality. The possibility of a complete objectivity has been often debated, in particular in the fields of history, journalism, epistemology, and the philosophy of science. It has been considered as the result of a specific historical method or scientific method, or even, as in the classic marxist conception, as the result of social interactions. In this sense, the discourse's objectivity is the result of social interactions, and scientific discourse can't be disassociated from the social context. In philosophy, constructivist epistemology is a view that reality, or at least our knowledge of it, is a value-laden subjective construction rather than a passive acquisition of objective features.

Jürgen Habermas believed in a dialogue which could be isolated from power relations, and reach a consensus considered as the condition of possibility of the discourse itself. He thus thought that objectivity was achieved through a continuous dialogue, which would only lead toward further improvement and accuracy. According to this conception, objectivity requires communication and good faith. Even if one does not accept the existence of independent propositions or timeless truths, this does not exclude the possibility of viable communication or knowledge.

This optimistic view of necessary progress through conversation was criticized by philosophers such as Michel Foucault or Gilles Deleuze, whom solidified an alleged definition of philosophy as "marketing" or as simple "democratic conversation", where everyone would expose his personal point of view.

Objectivism

Moved a paragraph here for consideration and discussion. The sentence "Realism sides that perception is key in directly observing objective reality" is problematic. For example, the term idealism is derived from the Greek ίδέα which means something seen. Plato used it as a technical term to mean universal as opposed to particular. His Ideas, or Forms, where a reality that existed independent of the mind. This is not idealism. It is a form of realism. The term idealism and its association with Plato was made by Leibniz in the 18th century, and can only be true to the extent that Plato's reality was the Ideas. The ideas were not mind dependent, but could be apprehended by the intellect as the archetypes of the objects of perception. While Plato downplayed perception, it is evident that it was secondary and not necessary for "directly" observing "objective reality". Plato and Aristotle were miles apart on many things, and both were closer to Realism than to anything.

"The importance of perception in evaluating and understanding objective reality is debated. Realism sides that perception is key in directly observing objective reality, while instrumentalism holds that perception is not necessarily useful in directly observing objective reality, but is useful in interpreting and predicting reality. The concept that encompasses these ideas is important to philosophical foundation of science". Amerindianarts 04:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are unilaterally imposing your POV on this page. You should take into account that your so-called general definition of objectivity is worse than any specific philosophers' definition that could have been quoted, for the simple reason that Amerindianarts is not a known philosopher. The insistence on the debate on the existence of "objective reality", and the other section on propositions is, as already said, of course interesting. But it is only one side of the definition of objectivity. You simply removed any reference of objectivity to what could be summed up as "neutral point of view", although this is an evident and most important aspect of "objectivity" (which, under whoknows which standards, you seem to consider as "not part of philosophy" - thus imposing your definition of what is philosophy, quite interesting since "in general", as you like to talk, philosophers have quite a difficult time defining philosophy. And everybody knows (well, every dumb-ass people like I) that philosophy feeds on everything, in particular on non-philosophical stuff. I'll stop here this mostly senseless debate, but you should, if you had any attempt in being NPOV and working in community, accept that your definition of objectivity is just that... yours. And that your conception of writing a "general" article is totally POV. In my opinion, nothing good can be written "in general" especially concerning this subject, and in my mind philosophy is about books and philosophers, so they should certainly be quoted. Of course you can always debate interpretations, and that is what philosophy is about. If you accept that Wikipedia is not a place to go in deep debate (do you want to debate if there is an "end of history" in Hegel's philosophy, a widely-accepted fact although many specialists now refuse it?). I'm sorry, but I work with specific philosophers, as i'm not smart enough to have a "general view" of "what is philosophy" and "what is objectivity", and deleting the debate between Foucault, Deleuze and Habermas about the possibility of objectivity in discourse is simply a unilateral move. A page on objectivity in philosophy which does not discuss this debate (i'll remind you that according to Foucault, an "objective pov" is quite impossible and senseless, while for Habermas the simple possibility of discourse shows that we agree on certain facts, and that this consensus is the basis of objectivity) would be really poor. Lapaz 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph you referred has not been deleted from the article. The question is is to come up with a place to put it and a name for the section, possibly, "historical variations". So why don't you correctly read the above discussion and come back with something constructive?
As for the rest of the paragraphs, they are not only poorly written but they contain info that is questionable and erroneous.
No, there is no philosopher named "amerindianarts". In order to find the philosopher represented by this ID you would have to know my name and search for it in the Index for American Philosophers as well as search the member archives of the American Association of Philosophy Teachers. I make no claims to being famous.
I suggest you read the intro definition again, objectively. It refers to "possible" objective reality. It doesn't state there is one. Did you miss that? It culminates in "single reality", not "objective reality". Did you miss that also? The part about references to what might be considered as an objective reality takes into account any notions of reducing the concept to an object-subject relation, which is an over-simplification. I think you are confusing objective reality and objectivism. "Objectivism" is a term that wasn't used in philosophy until the 19th century. "Objectivity" is not a popular term in philosophy, but the concept has always been present. Searching for a content for the concept in the history of philosophy and individuals will be original work (against Wiki policy), that is why I voted for deletion. When I was recruited by other users to do this article I advised deletion. So here we are. Points you have made should be considered and paragraphs were moved here for constructive consideration, or as you say "working in community". I'm sorry that you are pissed-off because a lot of your crap was deleted or subject to revision.Amerindianarts 18:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
By your own citation of Foucault where "an "objective pov" is quite impossible and senseless" you have provided enough criteria to eliminate "neutral point of view" as a criteria for a definition of "objectivity" in philosophy. It simply isn't correct. It is a suitable criteria for writing in journalism or editing at Wiki, but is once again not appropriate in philosophy. This tendency towards a contradictory point of view was prevalent throughout the article. Amerindianarts 18:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pr. Amerindianarts, may I point out that your affirmation that quoting Foucault is "enough criteria to eliminate "neutral point of view" as a criteria for a definition of "objectivity" in philosophy" is highly POV, that is not objective. It is a wonder that you don't (or won't) admit that. "It is a suitable criteria for writing in journalism or editing at Wiki, but it is once again not appropriate in philosophy." I never said that a philosopher should write with a NPOV policy! I am saying that philosophy is not a separate field from other human activities (apart of university philosophy, which, may I point out, is only a historical form taken by philosophy today?). And I am saying that, apart of various debates on "objective reality" and the subject and the object, the term "objectivity" has a meaning which is broadly shared in all fields, that of neutrality of point of view. A judge should be "objective", journalism (if not advocacy journalism) should be "objective", historians should be "objective", etc. Now, I never says that philosophers "should be" this or this, and, to the contrary of you, I am not saying either that "philosophy is this or that". I am not giving any moral prescriptions. Some philosophers never pretended to be neutral and objective. Objectivity, in this sense, is usually an ideal of science. However, you'll probably agree that philosophy has been linked since times past with science, and that Plato probably thought his discourse was "objective": he was describing the objective reality, which happened to be Ideas. Hegel certainly did think he was objectively describing reality. It is astounding that you refuse to integrate this plain and simple aspect of objectivity in this entry. And, beside, separating as you do separate fields (history, scholarship, journalism, etc.), you impede the possibility of a philosophical discussion of the way these specific "sciences" acquire objectivity, mainly through modelization. Being Pr. Amerindianarts doesn't stop you from refraining from personal attacks, if you're explaining philosophy to your students by insulting them I doubt you have many people assisting to your classes. Lapaz

I do not agree with you. You might consider it not NPOV, but let me put it to you this way. Sooner or later, some one else would have come along with a knowledge of philosophy and either tagged your version for clean-up or made mass edits anyway. I am performing the inevidable. Quite simply, your edits were non-professional and non-philosophical. I gave two months for this article to take shape without saying anything, and the results were miserable. That is pretty much the story. If you don't agree, try the mediation process and file a complaint against me.

The article is not complete, needs work based on further research. SOme of the edits above inserted here for discussion may be used after a rewrite, and some won't. I have tried to be as generous as possible. I suggest you read the section on ethics. A neutral point of view just doesn't apply.Amerindianarts 18:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. I do not care about your deleting text (that's what Wikipedia's for!) I'm just trying to point out that maybe your definition of objectivity is limited, mainly because you refuse to integrate to the article a part on its sense as "neutrality of perspective". You don't have to argue hours, you very well know what I'm talking about: how (if, but I assume it is possible) can sciences, history, journalism, and even Wikipedia while we're at it, which should in theory be a total disaster since so many ignorant people as I do repeatly do "non-professional and non-philosophical" edits and even stupid - and sometimes even funny - edits but... but Wikipedia still manages to have Nature write an article about it comparing it to other standard encyclopedias. So how is objectivity achieved on Wikipedia if it is at all achieved? And you don't think discussion of this fits in this entry? And you don't think either that it's worth of philosophical attention? Please adress these points instead of concerning yourself with my state of mind (psychology is not the best occupation for a philosopher, but of course, this is only a personal opinion...) Lapaz 03:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I conferred with two colleagues about my opening paragraph. One is an active phil. prof (non-analytical Aristotelian) at a university in Philly, the other a retired phil. prof. at a major Midwest university. The paragraph works. Subject-object dichotomies confuse the issue and neutral point of view doesn't work. The subject-object relationship in isolation doesn't have any meaning for objectivity in philosophy. Objectivity occurs in discourse. This is the major point Plato tried to make in the dialectical, or Socratic method. NPOV is necessary to write an article on objectivity in philosophy by good editorial standards (and Wiki), but it is not an important part of its definition. What it involves is important-possible objective reality, references to it (discourse), and a reconciliation of these two points. This does not entail not taking a position between opposing position, it requires further discourse and assertion.

Both colleagues agreed that the concept would require original work and considerable research (which I have done and I have sources I need to cite), but both also felt that I should forget about Wiki (poor forum for phil) and publish the finished product to one of the philosophy sites instead. I spend way too much time on talk pages. Amerindianarts 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[2]