# Is objectivity possible?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 2, 2006)

Can one be completely objective in their observation of phenomena?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 2, 2006)

No


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 2, 2006)

No. It is impossible to separate observation from interpretation. A distinction can be made between the two, but not a separation. Therefore as one observes he also interprets, and this always involves subjectivity.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 2, 2006)

So if objectivity is impossible, would it follow therefore that everything is relative?


----------



## mgeoffriau (Mar 2, 2006)

No, it does not follow. One need not be _completely objective_ (as you specified in your question) to have real knowledge. Complete objectivity is the red herring of modernism and scientism (specfically the logical positivists).


----------



## crhoades (Mar 2, 2006)

What of God? I'm thinking about the whole archetypal/ectypal distinction. If we are to think analogically and creaturely then that doesn't reduce knowledge to complete relativism.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Mar 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Can one be completely objective in their observation of phenomena?



I don't understand why everyone is so quick to state their idea on this. 

There is a distinction to be made that is not being made. 
I know that something exists, and this is not disputed by any rational being. 
Is this not objective knowledge completely devoid of subjective interpretation . . . thus making objective observation of phenomena possible?

So far no one has thought about shorter catechism Q101. 
God is to be glorified "in all that whereby he maketh himself known . . ."
In order to glorify, one must know. God certainly makes himself known by creation . . . So, to glorify him as is our duty, are we not to glorify him by knowing him as he reveals himself in creation?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



It seems that you are either not considering the word "completely".

Saying that something exists is a long way from saying observation is completely objective.



> So far no one has thought about shorter catechism Q101.
> God is to be glorified "in all that whereby he maketh himself known . . ."
> In order to glorify, one must know. God certainly makes himself known by creation . . . So, to glorify him as is our duty, are we not to glorify him by knowing him as he reveals himself in creation?



Because not one cannot do observation completely objectively does not mean that we cannot know or be certain of things.

CT


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 3, 2006)

Whenever we hear something, we interpret the sound differently than someone else may. The same with taste, touch, etc... No two people see the same thing at any given time.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 3, 2006)

No. It goes back to brute factuality.


----------



## Civbert (Mar 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...


The knowledge is not the object itself, but your interpretation of your senses. And since this interpretation is relative to many things, it may not be objective. And it may not be the case that what you think you see is what it in fact is. 

Your interpretation is subject to you prior experiences and knowledge and the conditions under which you made the observation, both external (the physical environment) and internal (your emotional/psychological state). 

The only counter to the subjectivity of your observations would be if the thing you are observing is a symbol that you already have knowledge of. In that case, you know that what you observe can be the same as what another person observes when they see the thing, assuming they also know a-priori what the symbol means. But if the object has not fixed meaning as a symbol, then your observations will be different to the next mans. Where you see a tall green bush, he will see a short blue tree. Written text may represent objective knowledge, where looking at fish swimming in a pond will covey no knowledge at all.


----------



## Puritanhead (Mar 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Can one be completely objective in their observation of phenomena?



Men can, women cannot...


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Mar 3, 2006)

This is certainly one of the longest running debates in philosophy.
right back to Aristotle and Plato, of course, aren't we all just footnotes to them?



> The knowledge is not the object itself, but your interpretation of your senses.



This is the idealism position.



> Because not one cannot do observation completely objectively does not mean that we cannot know or be certain of things.



and this is the expression of naive realism.



when the thread solves this problem, can you email me? i'd really like to know how it works out in the end.

*grin*


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...


----------



## JohnV (Mar 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by knight4christ8_
> ...



I see, then, two different questions:
1. Is objectivity possible? to which the answer is 'yes';
2. Is complete objectivity possible? to which the answer is... 'NO'? That can't be either, for then objectivity would not be possible. A thing can't be partly green if green does not exist. 

This, then, forces us to change the question to:
3. Is complete objectivity possible for man? to which we may answer 'no' without harming the fact that complete objectivity is possible for God or the angels who are in the presence of God. 

Does this help the situation at all?


----------



## knight4christ8 (Mar 4, 2006)

Is the question: Is exhaustively complete objectivity possible for man? If it is, then of course not. However, there are propositions which do not depend on one's existence and ability to percive that one can know. Thus, such propositions are able to be known by the finite in a complete objective way.
It definitely seems that there is a bit of stichomythia going around. We do need to define complete . . .


----------



## JohnV (Mar 4, 2006)

Gregory:
What would be of interest for me would be that truth, goodness, and beauty find their fulfillment in the Godhead. Or you could say they are completed, or exhausted, or consummated, in God Himself. If, then, truth is completely exhausted in God, and if the Scripture is the self-attestation of Christ, who has revealed the Father to us, and who illumines us through the Spirit, then it follows that we have complete truth revealed to us. Not that everything that God knows is revealed, but that what is revealed is completely true. 

So we have completely objective truth revealed to us, and we believe it. It is now ours. So, though we are not capable of complete objectivity, yet we have it because God has given it to us and illumined our hearts and minds to it. We have completely objective truth. 

Does this sound right to you?


----------

