Is the conflict between subjectivism and objectivism real or are they just ways of describing diferent topics?

aren’t all things subjective? since one’s reality is based purely on one’s own solitary perspective of the universe, can anything ever be stated as purely and wholey objective?

That debate is dead to me. It’s been resolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

Is real. There are people who believe there is just one reality and we are the ones how see reality disorted. There is the other kind of people which believe reality is what you believe it is. An objective reality is the one where you approach the most to the absolute reality. Subjectivity means that everything depends on the individual and on the circumstances. I believe there is really a conflict between those, ethics for example, tries to define the universal human values. Some people may say this is imposible, other say there are some universal values for everyone.

When I approach a topic objectively, I try to see it from all perspectives. When I approach the same topic subjectively, I only see it as it applies to me personally.

Sometimes the results are similar but often they are completely different.

So I would say the conflict is real.

@rooeytoo – Objects don’t have perspectives so how are you supposed to approach it from said (non-existent) perspective? I think you just men “neutrally”.

@Jiminez – I think we mean the same thing but are using different words. Objectively to me means impartial, without injecting my own feelings or inclinations, that is what I meant when I said from all perspectives, not just my own.

I don’t understand what you mean by saying objects don’t have perspectives, everything has more than one view as long as it is viewed by different people. There are no absolutes so to speak.

@jiminez – ‘Objectivity’ does not mean of or pertaining to the perspective of an object – don’t use your own mis-interpretation of a word to call out someone using it correctly.

Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Put another way, objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created.

From Wikipedia

@rooeytoo – “Objectively to me means impartial, without injecting my own feelings or inclinations, that is what I meant when I said from all perspectives, not just my own.”

You’re telling me what the cultural conception of objectivity is. Of this, I’m aware. But what I’m saying, as a person who has explored this topic extensively, is that objectivity is impossible. And pretending that it exists is only harmful. If you’re talking about looking at something from other perspectives, say that. Objective implies authoritative. It implies that it is THE neutral perspective.

@benseven – No, I’m not mis-interpreting it. Objectivity, as a perspective, doesn’t exist.

@benseven If it is objectively true it is verifiable by others. If it is subjectively true it is because it comes from the person seeing the truth and it is true to him. It could be verifiable or not. What you buy is objectively real but is decided on subjective grounds. Somebody else might agree with the idea that you bought the right thing for yourself or they might not. It is still true at that moment that it was the true thing for you to buy to benefit you most. That subjective truth might change for you and you decide to return it. That is also a subjective decision.

@rooeytoo Objectivity is very possible. It is not by election but I am saying that it is objectively true when anybody who checks up on it can verify it. Of course some don’t have the ability to reason things out and will say it is not but they don’t count when verifying a truth is concerned.

@Jiminez Truth can not be mind independent because it is a concept of the mind. That does not determine it’s objectivity. The truth is created from the facts by the mind. It must put those facts together according to the laws of the mind(reason). What I brought up in this question is that human action is of a different nature that is physics and therefore requires a different method for it’s understanding and I contend that that method is a combination of subjectivity and reason. While arrived at in that way the truth is still objective and I do not see a conflict in that.

@Jiminez Your wiki article simply dismisses arguements it does not refute them. It might be right in it’s conclusions but presents no rational argument to support it’s so called truths. When an article does that I find it impossible to read it’s details because it has made it’s self a non argument from the beginning.

as long as the two philosophical positions have weighty ideological undertones, you can be certain the debate will continue, as long as either position is considered as an absolutey irrefutable truth, the debate will continue, as long as one camp becomes popular and blindly accepting to the point of moral and or logical absurdity you can be sure the debate will continue

@mammal Sciences have boundarys beyond which they become indeterminate. What really happens at the limits is not like what happens in the middle. Newtons physics is fine for most ordinary uses. Einsteins is needed when you approach the limits ane when you get ther you get string theory or the electric universe or dark matter. Who knows.
The same thing happens with philosophy’s. They do their best to include everything but to do so they stretch their chains of logic so far that they are easily broken.

The Privilege of Experience

by Theodor W. Adorno

`In sharp contrast to the usual ideal of science, the objectivity of dialectical cognition needs not less subjectivity, but more. Philosophical experience withers otherwise. But our positivistic zeitgeist is allergic to this need. It holds that not all men are capable of such experience; that it is the prerogative of individuals destined for it by their disposition and life story; that calling for it as a premise of cognition is elitist and undemocratic.’