3 Answers

  1. It boiled. Khlivky shorts

    They were stabbing at nava,

    And the greenies grunted,

    Like mummies in mov.

    (Lewis Carroll, Jabberwocky, translated by Dina Orlovskaya).

    Here's the strange thing: if you ask “How to prove that there is hiveness?”, people will immediately have a lot of questions: “What is khlivkost? What is the sliveness of what you are interested in? What kind of proof of clarity do you have in mind? ” and so on, but when it comes to objectivity, they behave as if everything is absolutely clear and obvious. However, the term under discussion is certainly not the same.

    I have already answered quite a lot on this topic, for example here, here, here and here, you can read it. In short, I adhere to the paradigm of experimentalism in this matter, which states that people know reality primarily at the basic level of categorization and creating kinesthetic figurative schemes, only these symbolic structures are ” objective reality “for our species, while the rest of our ideas about the world are built from this experience of our organisms, that is, they are”imaginary”.

    Now for the proof of objectivity. I will assume: the question of how to show empirically (by experiment, observation) that there is such a phenomenon, that it is not just a figment of fantasy, like “superluminal movement”, “anti-gravity”, “philosopher's stone”, “invisibility cloak” or “magic carpet”. Judging by the objections and discussions with some experts, they believe that we are talking about such a phenomenon, so we can only talk about objectivity as a philosophical category, but not a scientific one. However, in the above-mentioned cognitive paradigm of experimentalism, the following concepts are presented:facts that prove the existence of a basic level of categorization and kinesthetic image patterns, as well as that people have no other access to reality than the body. Even the most complex concepts of modern physics or mathematics are built on the basis of these simplest structures and abstracted from them in one way or another (for example, by means of metaphors). The objections to this statement that I have encountered so far are based on simple ignorance, a lack of critical view of the implicit popular theories that circulate in our culture and philosophical notions of objectivity.

    For example, what is the “basic level of categorization” and what observations and facts justify the existence of this phenomenon:

    The child's categorization of the world begins “at the level of discriminative actions,” such as flowers, cats, and dimes, and then extends up to more general categories (such as PLANTS and ANIMALS) and down to narrower categories (such as DAFFODILS and SIAMESE CATS). as a result of “achievements of the imagination”.

    For these latter categories, there do not seem to be any characteristic actions” (Brown 1965, p. 321). This” first level ” of categorization is seen by Brown as having the following related properties::

    • This is the level of discriminative actions.

    • This is the level that is most easily learned and where things first get their names.

    • This is the level where names are shortest and most frequently used.

    • This is a natural level of categorization, as opposed to the levels created by “imaginative achievements”.

    The work of Brent Berlin and his coauthors provided the next important impetus to the study of basic-level categories:

    • People are predisposed to name things at this level.

    • Languages have simpler names for things at this level.

    • Categories at this level have great cultural significance.

    • Things at this level are remembered more easily.

    • Things at this level are perceived holistically, as a single gestalt, while for identification at a lower level, specific features (called DISTINCTIVE PROPERTIES) must be selected that distinguish, for example, one type of oak from another…

    • Children learn the names of things at this level before anything else.

    (George Lakoff, “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things”).

  2. We can say that neither objectivity nor subjectivity exists. This is a typical practice of dichotomous separation. There is an existence. Undivided.

    We humans try to share everything with our minds, that's the way our minds work.

    That's the first thing.

    Second, the concept of “proof” itself is very shaky. It was invented to train thinking by the ancient Greeks, and modern comrades have raised it to the rank of almost Absolute. Just something, please, like, prove. But, in my opinion, proof requires, first of all, the very concept of “proof”. It is just one of the abstractions among many others (Faith, Love, Beauty, Harmony, God, Truth, Point, Number, Space, Time, Matter…).

    But if you are still trying to prove it, then third, you can use different methods, depending on the predisposition of your mind, on your temperament.

    If you are inclined to the humanities, then I advise you, for example, to prove the objectivity of a perfect performance of a perfect piece of music in ordinary everyday conditions. Mozart, Bach, maybe something from modern music will do. But here I advise you to listen to the voice of Gurdjieff, who claimed that there is a so-called ” objective art (music, architecture, painting, literature)”, which at the moment of its actualization has exactly the same precisely verified (regardless of time and epoch) psychic effect on living beings (not only people), which, by the way, he witnessed repeatedly in his travels to monasteries and other interesting places.

    If you are prone to mysticism, then I advise you to become Objective, with a capital letter. This will be a very long process of identification with abstraction, during which you will gain an incomparable sense of accurate and unmistakable knowledge of objective facts in situations that are relevant to you. It is only important not to miss a pinch of humor in the salt of your Objectivity, otherwise you risk getting into a well-known institution in the clutches of psychiatrists.

    If you are inclined to science and exact disciplines, then you are already in the clutches of objectivity. Therefore, simply demonstrate your mind to your counterpart by developing, for example, some related scientific discipline at the intersection of basic sciences with your impeccable mathematical apparatus and market-motivated ideology.

    If you're a philosopher like me, then just be a bit of a fool. Think of Socrates, who said that he knew, that he knew nothing. Think of Pyrrhus, who supplemented his teacher by saying that he didn't even know that he didn't know anything. Remember me, who says that a person has just some information, nothing more, nothing less.

    Objectivity simply exists without any evidence. It just needs to be noticed, as for example, the objective beauty of a passing girl!

  3. In philosophy, “objective” means something like “mind-independent, “whereas” subjective “means” mind-dependent.” Of course, there is objectivity.Subjective fact: I love coffee.Objective fact: there are chairs.If all the minds in the universe suddenly ceased to exist, the chairs would still be here, so it doesn't make sense to say that objective facts are just the sum of all subjective ones. I think if you're not an idealist. (But no one is an idealist anymore.)

Leave a Reply