Relative (relatively to something) is the opposite of absolute (absolute scale).
Subjective (relatively to the subject) is the opposite of objective (no bias).
Speed is relative and objective.
Can something be both subjective and absolute?
Asked
Active
Viewed 1,318 times
0
-
3I suppose, [cogito ergo sum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum), "I think therefore I am", is a "subjective absolute" of sorts (at least to some). Some other contingent tautologies ("I am here now", etc.) might also be construed this way, see [Distinction between tautologies, a priori and necessity?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29210/distinction-between-tautologies-a-priori-and-necessity/29245#29245) – Conifold Apr 20 '17 at 21:58
-
"I am here now." – Apr 21 '17 at 18:32
3 Answers
1
Yes: society. the rules of society (laws, behavioral codes, etc.) are objective in the sense that they do not depend on the subjective states of individuals. an individual can decide that murder is just fine, but the law - external to the individual - says otherwise. otoh, social rules are also subjective. it is only because individuals bind themselves to the law that it has force.
p.s. you've conflated "objective" and "absolute". the rule against murder is objective but not absolute (it is not a law of nature).
for example you could argue that our sensory perceptions (i feel pain) are both subjective and "incorrigible" (Rorty) and thus absolute.
-
-
-
Sorry, I mis-read your first sentence as an affirmative answer to the question: "Can something be absolute and subjective?" – MmmHmm Apr 23 '17 at 21:31
-
-
agreed - ambiguious use of absolute. Looking at the question again, since "absolute scale" is identified, I think a precise answer is just a matter of definition, seeing as absolute scales and relative scales are simply defined as mutually exclusive, yet the "can something be..." isn't limited to considerations of scale... – MmmHmm Apr 23 '17 at 21:38
-
1yeah,. in fact op's use of "scale" is understandable but wrong. scales are about measurement, not objective v. subjective. – Apr 23 '17 at 21:43
0
Everything subjective is also an objective truth. Subjective truths are a category of objective truths, not an independent set of truths.
Take any subjective truth T. That will be true in contexts A, B, and C but not true in contexts X, Y, and Z. It is, therefore, an objective truth that T is true for A, B, and C but false for X, Y, and Z.
Fundamentally, the only input humans have from the universe is the evidence of our senses (construed broadly). This is subjective. However, from this input, we are able to derive the objective fact that the universe must be such that we have the sensory input we do have. This means that any state of the universe that would not result in us having the sensory experiences we actually have cannot be the objective truth.
David Schwartz
- 1,926
- 11
- 11
-
sorry, this is qildly wrong. you're mixing things up. the "objective truth" in your 2nd para is about contexts, not T. you're just saying "it is an objective truth that T is a subjective truth". but that completely misses the point. for example, there is no way anybody other than me can adjudicate my claim "I feel pain", other than me. so that claim cannot be objective. it may be true that it is objectively true that i made the claim, but that does not make the claim objectively true. – Apr 23 '17 at 19:46
-
You are conflating the epistemic with the ontological, i.e. statements with the thing stated, e.g. the literal statement "the earth is ~93 million miles from the sun" and the actual distance between the two objects. The former is an objective measure relative to the names of the objects and the system of measure, the latter is the actual distance between the two objects regardless of naming or measuring. Also, your first sentence is false, the opinion that Ruebens was a better painter than Van Gogh is subjective and not an objective truth. – MmmHmm Apr 23 '17 at 21:33
-1
Objective truth is unknowable from a human perspective, all we can do is classify almost certain probabilities as objective, which is the pragmatic manner of dealing with these things in order to avoid constant doubt.
From our perspective many things appear absolute, yet are ultimately subjective, and that is the best definition we can come up with for anything, really. All human thought is subjective in that it all stems from the human bias of existence, meaning our definitions of objective/absolute are ultimately irrelevant when discussing empiricism.
I would say that most things we take for granted are treated as absolutes, whilst ultimately being subjective, such as 'the sun will rise tomorrow', 'I will wake up after I go to sleep', 'If I eat when I'm hungry, I won't be hungry anymore'.
Realistically these are just subjective opinions, yet they're often considered absolute. Really everything has a bias, even if it's just confirmation bias, and so I think the whole question is dependent upon humans being able to identify or quantify objectivity in a meaningful manner - which cannot be, as we are not omniscient.
Callum Bradbury
- 267
- 1
- 5
-
This answer would gain a minimum of authority by backing it up with references. As it stands, this is just your opinion and therefore not suitable for this site. – Philip Klöcking Apr 24 '17 at 11:43
-
I would argue that when discussing philosophy everything is just someone's opinion. If you can discredit the reasoning given feel free to do so, otherwise you're just falling victim to confirmation bias, I'm afraid. – Callum Bradbury Apr 24 '17 at 12:06
-
It is not me holding any position here, it is, as a matter of fact, just a nod to the policy of this site, see [this post in meta](https://philosophy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/474/friends-we-are-not-philosophers). In addition, I do not see a line of reasoning, only a number of statements. And these statements have been held by famous philosophers. Calling a referenced answer "falling victim to confirmation bias" is not helpful as well. It actually prevents it, especially when other positions and arguments are referred to as well. Something you do not, holding a minority position. – Philip Klöcking Apr 24 '17 at 14:30
-
I don't really follow famous philosophers, if someone else wants to edit with references I would not object. There is a line of reasoning, perhaps you are simply not following it, which may be due to an inability on my part to express it - if that's the case, what can I do. I didn't state that 'referenced answers' are falling victim to confirmation bias, I stated that 'you discrediting my answer due to a lack of references' is falling victim to confirmation bias, there is an important distinction between the two - you appear only interested in authorized opinions, which is counter productive – Callum Bradbury Apr 24 '17 at 14:38
-
First, I did not downvote, bc I think it is more helpful to point out weaknesses in comments rather than simply downvote. The help center is speaking of "objective" answers and forbidding mere opinions. The best way to do so is by using sources to prove that it is not your own subjective idea only. I now get your point about the bias, speaking of authority may have been unfortunate. Regarding reasoning, your background idea seems to be empiricism is right and the sole true position, absolute and objective are identical and purely idealistic. Few share this position, as you say at the beginning – Philip Klöcking Apr 24 '17 at 15:00
-
After googling empiricism, I agree it's basically what I'm saying, although I wouldn't say I know for sure that it's the sole true position, only that it seems the most likely - to me. Absolutes do seem idealistic, unless you have omniscience, but I also can't discredit the possibility that the human senses are capable of viewing their environment on an objective level. I have reasoning as to why few share my position on this, but that would be an answer for another question, and also without references, so I shall leave it at that. I don't mind downvotes, they come with the territory. – Callum Bradbury Apr 24 '17 at 15:09