Philosophy Now Forum

To call a thing objective requires a form of description usually in the form of words.
No words have defintions that are not in some way referential to other words and all words are metaphorical in some sense.
Thus it is almost impossible to chose words which do not connote things beyond their direct denotation.
So how would it be possible to construct, say, a moral statement that is devoid of all bias?

Since we all rely on bias as the basis of our opinions, from what position would it be possible to stand that would remove us from our our personal interests to codify statements we could honestly claim to be objective.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 2:15 pm To call a thing objective requires a form of description usually in the form of words.
No words have defintions that are not in some way referential to other words and all words are metaphorical in some sense.
Thus it is almost impossible to chose words which do not connote things beyond their direct denotation.

It's much easier when you admit to yourself that words don't have a denotation.

They have a connotation - use in context.

Like the word "objective". It doesn't denote anything except a socially vetted idea.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 2:15 pm So how would it be possible to construct, say, a moral statement that is devoid of all bias?
Since we all rely on bias as the basis of our opinions, from what position would it be possible to stand that would remove us from our our personal interests to codify statements we could honestly claim to be objective.

You can't. To be unbiased is to be dead.

For every statement you choose to express; you are also expressing a bias AGAINST shutting up.

Bias is in essence choice. In the social sphere we use "bias" as a pejorative when we are trying to discredit the choices of others.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 3:42 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 2:15 pm To call a thing objective requires a form of description usually in the form of words.
No words have defintions that are not in some way referential to other words and all words are metaphorical in some sense.
Thus it is almost impossible to chose words which do not connote things beyond their direct denotation.

It's much easier when you admit to yourself that words don't have a denotation.

They have a connotation - use in context.

Like the word "objective". It doesn't denote anything except a socially vetted idea.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 2:15 pm So how would it be possible to construct, say, a moral statement that is devoid of all bias?
Since we all rely on bias as the basis of our opinions, from what position would it be possible to stand that would remove us from our our personal interests to codify statements we could honestly claim to be objective.

You can't. To be unbiased is to be dead.

For every statement you choose to express; you are also expressing a bias AGAINST shutting up.

Bias is in essence choice. In the social sphere we use "bias" as a pejorative when we are trying to discredit the choices of others.

Yes. Objectivity is little more than socially vetted. (good phrase)
There are possible exceptions in science, but since all science is "interested" too then, even here it is hard to see how perfect objectivity makes any sense.

It seems, gentlemen and esteemed colleagues, that we have finally arrived at that infamous and most unwelcoming of philosophical disputes, that of psychologism contra anti-psychologism. We wish to discern a difference, if be there a difference, between 'objectivity' qua human cognitive process, and 'objectivity' qua structured reality independent of our dubious but convincing experience of it.

Of all our dilemmas, this is perhaps the most difficult to overcome... as the great wittgenstein once expressed it 'in order to find the limits of language, we would have to get beyond it.' How, therefore, do we determine whether the rules of language and logic, which must be followed even in their violation (e.g., if the statement 'there is no objective truth' is true, then it is false), are merely products of the language user's typological psychology, or absolute features of the world itself which appear in the rules of logic. We ax as the great wittgenstein once axed 'is logic a body of doctrine, or a mirror-image of the world'.

Google, and discuss.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:20 pm How, therefore, do we determine whether the rules of language and logic, which must be followed even in their violation (e.g., if the statement 'there is no objective truth' is true, then it is false), are merely products of the language user's typological psychology, or absolute features of the world itself which appear in the rules of logic. We ax as the great wittgenstein once axed 'is logic a body of doctrine, or a mirror-image of the world'.

Google, and discuss.

All logic is conducted in the realm of the abstract - rules are just the "cutting knife" with which we chop up reality into categories - an act necessary for our primitive ape brains to comprehend a complex reality.

Logic doesn't have any rules that humans didn't conjure up - the rules/laws of logic and Mathematics are psychological entities. They are just grammatical consructs we use to describe regularities.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:26 pmLogic doesn't have any rules that humans didn't conjure up - the rules/laws of logic and Mathematics are psychological entities. They are just grammatical consructs we use to describe regularities.

Quite. Are the regularities objective?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 2:15 pm To call a thing objective requires a form of description usually in the form of words.
No words have defintions that are not in some way referential to other words and all words are metaphorical in some sense.
Thus it is almost impossible to chose words which do not connote things beyond their direct denotation.
So how would it be possible to construct, say, a moral statement that is devoid of all bias?

Since we all rely on bias as the basis of our opinions, from what position would it be possible to stand that would remove us from our our personal interests to codify statements we could honestly claim to be objective.

Almost all forms of communication by humans are by language which is dominated by a basis that is reliance on words. The other forms are based on numbers, and other symbols.
Thus the conclusion you arrive at, i.e.
"So how would it be possible to construct, say, a moral statement that is devoid of all bias?"
cannot be objective at all in accordance to your definition of what is objectivity.
Your question as is thus moot and a non-starter.

If what is "objectivity" to you is absolutely independent of human bias, then we might as well not raised any philosophical issue at all. It will be stupid of anyone in this case to seek such 'objectivity'.

Such an idea of absolute objectivity [totally unconditional of human bias] is a delusional idea. It is the same as theists claiming a God that in absolutely independent in-itself from all humans and its creations.

What is pertinent for philosophy is Philosophical Objectivity which has practical utility for humanity.
See: What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Notable, the definition of what is Philosophical Objectivity'

• A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

As such a proposition can have objectivity if more than one person [preferably sufficient number of persons] derived a conclusion from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] after filtering out as much biasness as possible.
Note the example of scientific knowledge which is accepted as the most objective and credible knowledge at present. The objectivity of scientific knowledge is conditioned upon the requirements of its FSK and consensus [intersubjective] of the relevant members.

So a credible Framework and System of Knowledge will remove all personal interests and bias to ensure the concluded knowledge is objective.
What is objectivity in this case is intersubjectivity conditioned upon a credible FSK.

For a moral statement to be objective, it must also be supported by objective scientific knowledge and be verified and justified within a moral framework and system.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:20 pm It seems, gentlemen and esteemed colleagues, that we have finally arrived at that infamous and most unwelcoming of philosophical disputes, that of psychologism contra anti-psychologism. We wish to discern a difference, if be there a difference, between 'objectivity' qua human cognitive process, and 'objectivity' qua structured reality independent of our dubious but convincing experience of it.

Of all our dilemmas, this is perhaps the most difficult to overcome... as the great wittgenstein once expressed it 'in order to find the limits of language, we would have to get beyond it.' How, therefore, do we determine whether the rules of language and logic, which must be followed even in their violation (e.g., if the statement 'there is no objective truth' is true, then it is false), are merely products of the language user's typological psychology, or absolute features of the world itself which appear in the rules of logic. We ax as the great wittgenstein once axed 'is logic a body of doctrine, or a mirror-image of the world'.

Google, and discuss.

Actually the dichotomy is reducible to Philosophical Realism versus Anti Philosophical_Realism.

All Philosophies Reduced to Philosophical Realism vs Anti Philosophical_Realism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

• Philosophical Realism is usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters. Realism about a certain kind of thing (like numbers or morality) is the thesis that this kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3] This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.
  Wiki

Philosophical anti-Realism comes in many approaches and my preferred one is that of the Kantian view [Transcendental Idealism].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:55 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 2:15 pm To call a thing objective requires a form of description usually in the form of words.
No words have defintions that are not in some way referential to other words and all words are metaphorical in some sense.
Thus it is almost impossible to chose words which do not connote things beyond their direct denotation.
So how would it be possible to construct, say, a moral statement that is devoid of all bias?

Since we all rely on bias as the basis of our opinions, from what position would it be possible to stand that would remove us from our our personal interests to codify statements we could honestly claim to be objective.

Almost all forms of communication by humans are by language which is dominated by a basis that is reliance on words. The other forms are based on numbers, and other symbols.
Thus the conclusion you arrive at, i.e.

THe other forms could also be body langauge.
THere is no confusion.
The confusion is yours.

"So how would it be possible to construct, say, a moral statement that is devoid of all bias?"
cannot be objective at all in accordance to your definition of what is objectivity.
Your question as is thus moot and a non-starter.

Sadly you flounder with supporting anything you are saying.
This is mostly true because you cannot read properly.
You are missing words such as "almost" and "most" in my text.
In your rush to criticise and be rude you have not bothered to engage with what I am saying.

If what is "objectivity" to you is absolutely independent of human bias, then we might as well not raised any philosophical issue at all. It will be stupid of anyone in this case to seek such 'objectivity'.

My view of objectivity is completely concurrent with satandard definitions:
not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Please supply yours

Such an idea of absolute objectivity [totally unconditional of human bias] is a delusional idea.

Yes, you are deluded - but we all know that

It is the same as theists claiming a God that in absolutely independent in-itself from all humans and its creations.

no it is nothing like that.

What is pertinent for philosophy is Philosophical Objectivity which has practical utility for humanity.
See: What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Notable, the definition of what is Philosophical Objectivity'

• A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

AND AS PER USUAL YOU TRY TO RELY ON COPY AND PASTE RATHER THAN ARGUE FOR YOURSELF

As such a proposition can have objectivity if more than one person [preferably sufficient number of persons] derived a conclusion from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] after filtering out as much biasness as possible.

Your personal bollocks. All you are saying is that any objective statements are objective only as they relate to your POV. In other words you are saying that OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE.

Note the example of scientific knowledge which is accepted as the most objective and credible knowledge at present. The objectivity of scientific knowledge is conditioned upon the requirements of its FSK and consensus [intersubjective] of the relevant members.

So a credible Framework and System of Knowledge will remove all personal interests and bias to ensure the concluded knowledge is objective.
What is objectivity in this case is intersubjectivity conditioned upon a credible FSK.

For a moral statement to be objective, it must also be supported by objective scientific knowledge and be verified and justified within a moral framework and system.

Okay give me some examples of objective statements not influenced by your personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:20 pm It seems, gentlemen and esteemed colleagues, that we have finally arrived at that infamous and most unwelcoming of philosophical disputes, that of psychologism contra anti-psychologism. We wish to discern a difference, if be there a difference, between 'objectivity' qua human cognitive process, and 'objectivity' qua structured reality independent of our dubious but convincing experience of it.

Of all our dilemmas, this is perhaps the most difficult to overcome... as the great wittgenstein once expressed it 'in order to find the limits of language, we would have to get beyond it.' How, therefore, do we determine whether the rules of language and logic, which must be followed even in their violation (e.g., if the statement 'there is no objective truth' is true, then it is false), are merely products of the language user's typological psychology, or absolute features of the world itself which appear in the rules of logic. We ax as the great wittgenstein once axed 'is logic a body of doctrine, or a mirror-image of the world'.

Google, and discuss.

So are you saying yea or nay?

I am not prepared to answer the question just yet, sir. I shall think on it. Please be patient.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 2:42 pm I am not prepared to answer the question just yet, sir. I shall think on it. Please be patient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUG9VzHoEoc

Can I have a stab?

Since objects of phenomena and apprehending mind arise simultaneously, their appearance gives rise to the discriminating mental factor together with feeling. Out of mental habit we collectively discriminate with common appearance and assent to that appearance.

If, with mental intention, a person looks into his own thinking, he can still have the appearance of phenomena arising but cease to assent to its inherent, or objective, discreet, independent appearance and see that its cause, conditions, name and basis of imputation all give rise to an imputation we incorrectly assent to.

With this mind, a discrimination on the mind of discrimination itself, we can investigate the ultimate nature of objects.

I realise this removes the label of self, and with no raft to cling to, these grand ideas are leaves floating on the stream of mind.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:06 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:55 am If what is "objectivity" to you is absolutely independent of human bias, then we might as well not raised any philosophical issue at all. It will be stupid of anyone in this case to seek such 'objectivity'.

My view of objectivity is completely concurrent with satandard definitions:
not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Please supply yours

You should do a quick survey my whole post before you responded.
I had posted my definition but you did not read it then.

Such an idea of absolute objectivity [totally unconditional of human bias] is a delusional idea.

Yes, you are deluded - but we all know that

Where is your argument?

Your absolutely absolute objectivity is an impossibility to be real, thus it is delusional to insist it is real.

It is the same as theists claiming a God that in absolutely independent in-itself from all humans and its creations.

no it is nothing like that.

It is along the same vein.

What is pertinent for philosophy is Philosophical Objectivity which has practical utility for humanity.
See: What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

Notable, the definition of what is Philosophical Objectivity'

• A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

AND AS PER USUAL YOU TRY TO RELY ON COPY AND PASTE RATHER THAN ARGUE FOR YOURSELF

What is wrong with that?
I totally agree with the definition above so I reference it [intellectually honest].
I could have rephrased it another way in my own words with the same meaning.
Your point is toothless in this case.

As such a proposition can have objectivity if more than one person [preferably sufficient number of persons] derived a conclusion from a credible Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] after filtering out as much biasness as possible.

Your personal bollocks. All you are saying is that any objective statements are objective only as they relate to your POV. In other words you are saying that OBJECTIVITY IS RELATIVE.

Yes! OBJECTIVITY IS always RELATIVE to a Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] and 'objectivity' cannot be absolutely absolute independent by itself without a FSK.
Can you counter this?
Give me an example of objectivity that is absolutely absolute and independent and without any reference to a FSK?

Note the example of scientific knowledge which is accepted as the most objective and credible knowledge at present. The objectivity of scientific knowledge is conditioned upon the requirements of its FSK and consensus [intersubjective] of the relevant members.

So a credible Framework and System of Knowledge will remove all personal interests and bias to ensure the concluded knowledge is objective.
What is objectivity in this case is intersubjectivity conditioned upon a credible FSK.

For a moral statement to be objective, it must also be supported by objective scientific knowledge and be verified and justified within a moral framework and system.

Okay give me some examples of objective statements not influenced by your personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

All scientific facts [e.g. water is H2O] are objective and are not conditioned by my or any INDIVIDUAL scientist's personal feelings or opinions, i.e. it is not dependent by "a" sentient being as defined above.
All objective scientific facts are relative to the scientific framework constructed and sustained by a community scientists who are human.
There were no objective scientific facts prior to Bacon [dcd 1292].

The objective fact that Joe Biden is the 46th President of the USA [do you deny this?] is not influenced by my or any other person's personal feelings or opinions.
But this objective political fact is relative to the political framework and that of the USA and conditioned by the underlying political feelings, opinions, judgment, biasness of those who voted for Biden.

Some Americans may dispute and will not accept it as an objective fact at all citing cheatings, etc.

However, in general you cannot deny "Joe Biden is the 46th President of the USA" is an objective political fact, and you cannot deny its objectivity is RELATIVE as conditioned upon a framework that is conditioned upon the collectively feelings and opinions of human who voted for Biden.

As such there are also objective moral principles that are leveraged upon a moral framework conditioned by humans.

So what could make ANYTHING objective is intersubjectivity conditioned upon a framework and system of knowledge, e.g. scientific, MORAL, political, legal, social, economics, medical, etc.

To insist objectivity can exists as real independent of any framework and system of knowledge [FSK] is delusional! Counter this point if you can.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 8:37 pm Quite. Are the regularities objective?

Difficult to tell. Unless you have some procedure to distinguish objective from non-objective regularities.