Is this community cool with philosiphizers joining the philosophers in the conversation?
Isn't it basically what two people can agree on that is outside themselves? As in, how a thing is observed from a third person perspective? Seems like a necessary component of being able to communicate with one another. I think therefor I am doesn't say anything about how anyone else experiences the world. But we can both perceive a ball fly through the air after either one of us throws it.
Welcome! Philosophy is for everyone. If any philosopher tells you otherwise, they are not a philosopher.
Also your definition sounds good to me. I especially like your use of shared experience as a first principle, because cutting the knot this way at least has the virtue of beginning with the existence of others’ perspective. In contrast, Descartes’ tortured cogito apologia doesn't make it past the starting gate, and misses how deeply our perception of self is indelibly bound to those around us (as in Camu’s Stranger and Buber’s I and Thou).
My definition of "objectivity" is "the approach towards a philosophical matter that seeks to minimise the role of the subject in said matter".
For example:
- If I say "two plus two equals four", I'm being objective. My statement should be true regardless of who is saying it, who's doing the maths, etc.
- If I say "In my opinion, green apples are great", I'm not being objective. I'm being subjective: I'm acknowledging that the statement "green apples are great" is accurate for one subject (me), but it might not be accurate for other subjects (perhaps you don't like green apples).
what do you think of it?
Truth is objective and should be handled objectively. Gravity doesn't stop working because you're in a bad mood; 2+2 doesn't fluctuate between 3 and 5 depending on the observer; either a past event happened, or it didn't.
Other philosophical matters are better handled subjectively. For example, morality; something can be good or bad depending on the subject, and there's no way to handle this objectively.
If I say "two plus two equals four", I'm being objective. My statement should be true regardless of who is saying it, who's doing the maths, etc.
Even this is quite subjective, as it builds on the (subjective) acceptance of axioms. To most reading this, they would've been educated using the 8 Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) axioms, with the controversial 9th axiom of choice.
Being able to take a step back and see subjects, siuations and problems as what they are, based on facts, proofs and truths, unfettered by personal experience, opinions or anecdote.
I think it's a worthwhile pursuit, but I also accept that we often fail to be truly objective for reasons of expediency, motive or more commonly, emotion.
Depends. Who’s askin?
But in seriousness, I would prefer its usual connotation of a perspective's universality, real or imagined, i.e. the degree to which it might be considered a view from everywhere, which is to say a view from nowhere. If such a vantage point exists, who might tell us where?
I don't think there is such a thing, but there are degrees from subjective to objective.
