I don't think it is completely, we all have our bias, but for sure it's something to strive towards and become a little better at it.
I always remember those old Kung Fu movies where they would say cheesy crap like "You must rid yourself of desire". It was many years later that I learned the truth of this. It may just be a bad translation, but I think what they are really getting at is that you should understand that you see things as you expect to see them (not necessarily how you want to see them) so maybe expectations is a better word than desire, but still not perfect. Maybe preconceived notions.
For example, if your best friend in the World comes up to you and says "Hey, asshole", you have a completely different feeling about that than if your worst enemy in the World says the exact same thing. Your preconceived notions about their feelings and intent and going to color your understanding of that particular communication. You see this a lot when one person is kidding and another believes they are serious. Now, you may be absolutely correct about the intent of the communications in the above example, but understanding that you have preconceived notions about what you expect them to say and mean will help you come closer to understanding the truth.
Are we all enlightened now? Your Kung Fu is strong.
Most Helpful Opinions
Objective reality exists and that is the only thing that can be known.
We evolved to sense what we need for our own survival. It doesn't matter that we dont know what particles are made of or how the universe really works.
What matters is we exist and experience existence. What matters is our own survival and pursuit of happiness.
It doesn't matter whether you can come up with theories that say we can't "objectively perceive anything."
What does that even mean to objectively perceive something?
I think the definition of "objective perception" is "what would god see and know? What is the truth of reality from god's perspective?"
That is the only way to know the absolute objective truth about anything.
And yet, here we are. Living, creating. Building, technology, understanding our existence.
But because we dont see what god would see, our perceptions must not be objective.
I think you must define objective better. Right now it's a purely mystical term that has no basis in reality. Objectivity in and of itself is not objective. It requires further definition in my opinion.
Great question; very philosophical!
It actually reminds me of Plato's allegory of the Cave (if you haven't read it, I suggest you do)
The allegory states that there exists prisoners chained together in a cave. Behind the prisoners is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners are people carrying puppets or other objects. This casts a shadow on the other side of the wall. The prisoners watch these shadows, believing them to be real.
Plato posits that one prisoner could become free. He finally sees the fire and realizes the shadows are fake. This prisoner could escape from the cave and discover there is a whole new world outside that they were previously unaware of.
This prisoner would believe the outside world is so much more real than that in the cave. He would try to return to free the other prisoners. Upon his return, he is blinded because his eyes are not accustomed to actual sunlight. The chained prisoners would see this blindness and believe they will be harmed if they try to leave the cave.
Plato uses this allegory as a way to discuss the deceptive appearances of things we see in the real world. Through it, he encourages people to instead focus on the abstract realm of ideas.
Yes I believe people are capable of putting aside preconceived notions, or bias, but are they willing? I donβt believe there can ever be TRUE objectivity! But for the standards of daily living within a modern society, yes I believe a reasonable version of objectivity can be achieved!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
46Opinion
Take something like gravity. We can experience it & it can be studied. And the math is logical. Which makes it quantitative rather than only qualitative.
So, when it comes to defining objective truth, I like to think it's something that is not only backed up by our general perceptions of reality, but multiple different angles of our interpretations of it.
So, it would be a fundamental truth that people of all backgrounds could agree upon. For instance, pain and suffering is an objective truth that nobody can escape.Yes. We experience many things objectively on a daily basis. When we go to a restaurant that serves food, we have never seen or tasted; we go in with an objective mindset. We have nothing to compare it, or any previous experience with something similar, so we judge it based on the experience we have.
When we have major projects to do, and there are problems to solve with those projects we normally look at them in an objective manner, in order to help us find the solution to the problems at hand.
These are just a couple of areas where we experience things objectively.I don't think so. We can try to be as objective as possible when making observations, and there are such things as objective truths. But our experiences are subjective. They are our own. Each person perceives things differently based on their physiology, life experience and personality.
I do not think it is possible because everything is subject to interpretation. I give a term paper for my students and I discovered it was more difficult than I thought because I looked at so many different things including grammar and spelling. Finally I had to devise a set of expectations that I gave to the students and used it as the criteria for grading.
Yes. Deductive arguments and pure scientific inquiry requires one to deal with the premises or evidence as presented, not as on feels. You can feel one way or another about a proposition, but it doesn't change the validity of the proposition. The biggest problem I see in postmodernist society is emotion based facts. These are not facts, and "your truth" is just your opinion, not reality.
We have made emotions objective and truth subjective, which is exactly backwards. That's why I say we live in the upside-down.as plato already said. there is an "objective reality". however with our human senses, we can at best approach it and not 100% understand or even just 100% experience it.
we do however have established a method with which we can long term find out if something we observe is close to objective reality and if our explanation is concordant with the observed reality and if it's reliably testable as true or if it's objectively wrong and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. we call that process "science".
so it is relatively hard to find something that's close to objectively true. but it's really simple to find that something is definitely not right.About the only way to experience an "objective" ANYthing even close to that would be to arrange a three or four level system of double-blinded steps removing influence from that which is being experienced.
In short, it's darn near impossible.Not sure. Are you really asking this question or is my brain simply conjuring all this up? Do you really exist at all? Do any of you exist or is it just my brain in some vat and all the world is only my imagination. Or maybe it's your brain in a vat and none of us are real. Maybe we're both real, but your objective reality is my subjective reality and vice versa. I have to stop again. With these discussions the longer they go on the less sense they make. And I need more coffee.
No, but there are varying degrees of experience, as well as varying degrees of bias and perspective.
This is why double-blind studies are considered the gold-standard. Even the most rigorous study can be tainted by an unconscious bias of some kind.
So, nope.The answer seems to be no. One prime example of course is the enormous polarization that exists between conservative and liberal politics. There are other examples that are more obtuse. Such as a group of individuals who are shown the inkblots in a rohrsatcht test. Each individual will see something different.
No as everything is subjective up to a point. Mainly that you can agree with a large enough crowd and reach a consensus.
But even then the madness of crowds could be seen as a bias.
Hence why court cases rely on a jury and not a scientist or professor.Absolutely as long as you are a baby with zero life experience. Everyone else will always have biases towards everything from life experiences, no matter what.
The trick, if you can actually accomplish it, is to put your biases aside and look at things logically and scientifically. Not many people can do that.Yes itβs called being an Engineer.
step away from your emotions, from your belief and expectations of a given situation.
Base it on factual and evidence based decisions,
DetachmentNo. Our sensory receptor inputs are filtered through the distorting lenses of our past experiences. As a result our perception is far more warped than we would care to admit.
Well, of course, NO!
Our perceptions are colored by our experiences and our knowledge of the world. There's no two ways about that.Anything, one person? I don't think so. Maybe one will be able to look at it objectively while for the other person there might be more meaning to it, a context, story, a symbol
I think we can all objectively experience subjectivity.
We can all objectively observe one form or the other of inequality.
We can all objectively observe one form or the other of inevitability.Hard to determine based on your upbringing and view of the world. Plus even if you think a robot or artificial intelligence could be objective then you are short sighted by the fact that a computer is only as good as it's programmer.
Sorta... and so much depends on your perspective, which has been formed over your lifetime, and the context in which you are faced with the issue.
It's a good goal to have but... it's not always possible.Nah. People will always bring their biases. Thats just a fact of life.
Learn more