Forgive me but I had a hard time trying to understand your post. Are you questioning the existence of objectivity? That the way we process information is a symptom of solipsism, making everything subjective?
In any case, I think we need to draw the line between objectivity and subjectivity. When it comes to truth, it must be objective, absent of emotions and feelings. When emotion is intertwined with truth, then it is not truth. We have to understand what something means before we define it.
It is an abuse of language when truth is being sprinkled with subjectivity.
Great stuff by the way. Probably going to need some time to digest all of it.
Oh no, I am saying that both subjectivism (like solipsism, etc.) or objectivism (like materialism, etc.), are reductionist and don't encompass everything.
The firsts illogically believe that there is no external world, and the seconds forget that the external world is perceived by our senses, and therefore, the object itself is not completely knowable, although of course, such an object exists and it is knowable, but not completely.
I also agree that objective truth lacks emotions, what I mean is that there is an objective truth about emotions and feelings.
The subjective truth is opinion, and not truth. Although being subject there is always some subjectivity in what we say.
I will try to make the second part more understandable.
Regards!
100% this.
How does a man arrive at objectivity? He must rely upon the consensus of others to validate his subjective observations. Is objectivity mere consensus amongst subjective perceptions? When all of man's truths, by necessity, must depend upon his aubjective perceptions and interpretations, can there be true objectivity? If so, from whose perspective?
Consensus is not required to arrive at objectivity. Objectivity is a perception devoid of emotion and feelings. I can arrive at objectivity by saying 5 + 5 = 11, but that doesn't make it true. However, consensus is required to arrive at truth but only from objective perceptions so I agree with you there.
I can count a crowd and can objectively state, that 100 people are standing on a field. But objectivity nowhere stands alone. Measurements and numbers are always connected to other statements which include some kind of goal or opinion. Man himself is, from what I think, by no means capable of being purely objective and I am asking myself if it were the case, would we not lose our humanity as being detached from emotions and would this not require a notion onto life which does not care about human affairs?
If we as humans count, measure, estimate or discuss matters we always attach something to it which we would like to express, prove or gain. If I would count those hundred people and announce it out loud this would be connected to some desire to transport a message, like "these are many people!" or "only hundred people watch this event" or "100 people create a certain atmosphere" and so on. The objective truth that the earth circulates around the sun has always a meaning. In the sense that it changes perception and evaluation of the humankind itself over the course of time. Before we had the heliocentric view of the universe we had the notion that earth was the centre of the stars. In that sense, arriving at truth through objective perceptions alone, I find, is not taking place as it always is attached to something subjective which is what the individual gives it. Those two go together in the same way mind and matter aren't separable.
Physics answers the question that a branch which falls from a tree does make only a sound if an ear is near by which has the form and function to perceive this sound. No ear, no sound. This leads me to the question: is there any objective proclamation at all which stands alone just so? I cannot think of any. Can you?
There's already a name for that, and it's called intersubjectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity
Intersubjectivity
Intersubjectivity, in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, is the psychological relation between people. It is usually used in contrast to solipsistic individual experience, emphasizing our inherently social being.