Tag: objectivity

Categories
- Language - Science

Objective Spiritual Reality

Considering how difficult it is to judge objective statements about social reality, it is even more challenging with spiritual reality.  However, spiritual reality exists, human language can attempt to describe it, and therefore, it is possible to make objective statements regarding spiritual reality.  Throughout this blog there have been numerous such claims.  One simple one is that “justice is a faculty of the human soul that enables one to see with one’s own eyes”.  The nature of this statement is objective – it describes an ability of a human being to discern truth through an investigative process free from prejudice, an ability that is inherently latent and needs to be developed.  This type of claim, along with its implications, can be observed, studied, and analyzed.

Yet, not all statements about spiritual nature are objective – many, such as personal feelings when reading spiritual writings, meditating, spiritual experiences, etc, fall into the category of subjective yet valid statements.  However, the existence of this category of observations about spiritual reality does not negate the ability to make objective statements.  Thus, someone can describe a subjective spiritual response to a prayer, and also put forth a thoughtful objective claim regarding a human being’s relationship with prayer.  One has to distinguish between subjective experiences and objective claims, for – just like with social reality – many try and pass off vain imaginings as objective.

That some people disagree with some statement on spiritual reality also does not negate the objectivity of that statement.  As a parallel example, regarding the objective statements made about the interaction of light with an object giving rise to its property of color, most words used only have meaning to those intellectually trained in physics – for others, the statement is meaningless.  With spiritual reality, then, objective statements would be less meaningful to those whose spiritual susceptibilities haven’t been developed – they wouldn’t understand nor accept such statements.

To practice justice implies that one knows through one’s own knowledge, not through the biases of society’s classroom, pulpit, or media.  Just like with the science of physical reality, objectivity is not altered by subjective experiences nor by the disagreement of people.

What are some objective observations regarding spiritual reality?  How can you test them?

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Claims About Social Reality

The physical and material aspects of our complex reality are not the only ones with objectivity – the human mind is able to make objective statements about all of reality, including social and spiritual reality.  As an example related to social reality, one can claim that “one of the causes of violence in certain countries is pervasive social injustice”.  This statement contains a relationship between two observable phenomena, namely violence – demonstrated by crimes like robbery, murder, assault, and by increased need for police, security, and gated homes – and social injustice – shown by analyzing conditions of certain segments of the population, and interactions of certain groups of people with social institutions.  One can then observe societies to see if there is a positive correlation between the two.  Of course, correlation is not causation, but the statement claims that injustice is “one” of the causes, and therefore has some degree of objectivity to it.

One point to note is that objectivity is not synonymous with truth.  Furthermore, subjective statements can easily be presented as objective.  For instance, consider a hypothetical situation of a doctor who hires poor employees and pays them low wages, who sees poor people as patients and charges them high prices for unnecessary medical testing, and works in a system that blocks their progress.  This person would not make the subjective statement “I like to profit off poor people”.  Instead, this person would make the objective claim “poor people are lazy and uneducated and therefore stay poor”.  Because objectivity can be tested, it should be straightforward.  However, an observer can be biased by his or her own subjective judgements.  For instance, he might see that his family members worked hard and then became wealthy, or that a lazy person lost his job and became poor, or even notice a poor person who was also lazy.  From these limited, yet objective, observations, the observer would accept the claim that the poor are lazy.

However, a more thorough analysis will reveal this statement false.  Hard work is not the only factor in the generation of wealth – it also includes starting capital, access to credit, technical knowledge, fair wages, and a somewhat just social structure.  All of these factors need be to examined and controlled for if one is to scientifically and objectively link work to wealth; and even observations need to be made about the resulting amount of work done when opportunities are given to the poor.  It becomes clear that subjective prejudgements about social reality, often false, can be disguised as objective.

Can you think of other statements that pass as objective, yet in reality are subjective?

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Objectivity and Reality

Notwithstanding that all social conventions, including language, are built from shared understanding that are to some extent ontologically subjective, they are not completely arbitrary. Language – as well as social reality – is built upon objective reality itself. Words and conventions have become abstract representations and codifications, respectively, of the complex dynamics of human beings within reality. There are a number of realities that interact together to form social reality. Both physical reality and its forces along with spiritual reality and its forces influence human thought – which is the reality of a human being. These three realities come together to shape social reality, which itself also influences human thought. Language both builds and is built upon this reciprocal interplay between human thought and society – and ultimately, rests upon the objective spiritual and physical realities themselves.

Let us take our previous post’s somewhat objective statement a bit further. Instead of simply claiming the color of something to be “green”, the property of an object that determines it to be “green” can be explained:
The color of a thing arises from its interaction with light. In order for something to be visible, light – composed of packets of energy called photons or particles – hits an object, interacts with it, and emits photons back into our eyes. Visible white light from the sun (or a bulb) is actually a mixture of a range of frequencies by which its photons vibrate – each one corresponding to a color on a spectrum. Frequencies are measured by the photon’s wave cycles per second. When this white light interacts with something, some frequencies are absorbed and others are reflected. The frequency of the reflected photons determine what color this object appears to be in a beholder’s eye.

This explanation that accompanies the statement “that thing is green” is much more objective. It’s true, this paragraph – as with all of language – includes many names that are based on social convention. For instance, why is it named “light” or “frequency”? However, the naming included in this previous paragraph is not simply subjective social convention – there must be some agreement as to the underlying reality on which these names are based. One who agrees with this paragraph must have at least a basic level of understanding of physics to understand that “light” is made up of “energy packets” characterized by “frequency”. Furthermore, this paragraph goes beyond naming – it establishes relationships between concepts (X is composed of Y which is characterized by Z) and attempts to explain them a bit (Z is some unit of space per time). Regardless of the naming, these relationships and explanations are objective. To agree with this paragraph is not a matter of convention – it is based on reality itself.

.

Categories
- Language - Science

Language as Social Convention

In understanding the role of objectivity in language, two types of statements have been presented – personal preferences, which are entirely subjective; and social conventions, which are subjective in their creation or existence yet objective in their influence and knowledge.  Let’s move progressively towards a more objective statement.

Two examples of social conventions presented last post were traffic lights and money.  So, what about the statement “That traffic light is green” or “That dollar bill is green”.  This is certainly not a personal preference, nor subjective – all people looking at these objects can reach this valid conclusion.  Furthermore, this is not societally or culturally dependent; a green light or a green bill taken elsewhere will still hold the property of green color – it is apparently an inherent property of that bulb or that ink.

Is this, then, an entirely objective statement that informs us about reality?  Upon further analysis, this statement still is based on a social convention.  Language, as has been discussed earlier, is itself a social convention.  The main point of the statement about the traffic light or the dollar bill is its green color.  However, the term “green” is simply a name that, like all other names, was at one point or another agreed upon – the naming process of language, being a social convention, is also ontologically subjective and epistemologically objective.  Additionally, languages, both between and even within, contain myriad connotations, subtle meanings, and context-specific interpretations.  In order to understand the concepts, ideas, and underling reality being conveying through the vehicle of language, one needs to go beyond names…one needs to get to the objectivity that those names symbolize.

.

Categories
- Language - Science Development Discourse Human Nature

Social Conventions – Objective or Subjective?

Objectivity – another desired quality of the language of science – is a term loaded with connotations and interpretations; it’s rarely a straightforward concept.  It helps to contrast it with subjectivity.  An entirely subjective statement is one of personal preference, such as “daffodils are the prettiest kind of flower” – this might be a consensus among a large group of people, but is not in universal agreement.  Something that is in agreement with others is not necessarily objective, nor is it necessarily truth.

There are certain things, however, that are somewhat objective because of their agreement amongst individuals.  Social conventions are of this nature.  Money, for instance, is a great example.  A particular piece of paper is money not because of any physical qualities it possesses (it’s just a piece of paper with ink), but because social agents have agreed on it and created it.  In this sense, it is ontologically subjective – meaning, its existence is contingent on human consensus, and it has no meaningful existence otherwise.  However, at this point, determining whether a piece of paper is money isn’t a matter of personal preference; no one could say that a five-dollar bill isn’t five dollars.  It is epistemologically objective – meaning, our knowledge of this social convention, and its influence and effects, are based on ascertainable facts, independent of individual opinions. Because of it’s subjectivity, collective thought determines what society is; though because of it’s objectivity, collective thoughts are, in part, determined by society.  However, those of us who aim to contribute to the advancement of civilization will benefit from understanding the subjective aspect of society.

Social reality, including rules, conventions, codes, is built on shared understandings – it is an expression of human agreement.  A red light means “stop”, and a green light means “go”; but there is absolutely no reason that it couldn’t have been the opposite.  Yet, social reality shapes human relationships and interactions, forms human thought and understanding, and directs action and conduct.  There is a profound reciprocal relationship between human thought and social reality – each affects the other, and a change is either necessitates a simultaneous change in both.

What are the implications that social reality is ontologically subjective?

What are the implications that social reality is epistemologically objective?

If a large enough amount of people believe something to be true, does it become social convention?

What about the inertia built into the social structures that exist?

 

.