Is Thought Objective?

[wildcat]

"Objective" and "subjective" are sometimes used to describe both the functions themselves, and where they were used. I was trying specifically to understand how they shaped directing and informing communications in the eight three letter groups (STJ, SFP, etc) that Keirsey had identified. So I began paralleling things up along the line of subjective and objective. (I had thought that "directing" communications, such as S and T together might have had to do with "objectivity". Turned out it might work to some extent for judging functions, but it seems for perception it is the opposite).

"extraverted attitudes" (outside use) are considered "objective", while introverted attitudes are considered "subjective", because they are taking place within the person. Jung had originally defined the attitudes as being focused on "the object" and "the subject". (For perception, the attitude is the "source" it is taken from, and for judgment, it is the source of the "standard" it is based in, and in some descriptions, the "realm" it is used in).

Thinking is also frequently condsidered "objective", based on logic and facts, while Feeling is considered subjective "values".

Sensing (concrete perception) is also occasionally considered more "objective", while iNtuiting (abstract) is considered subjective, because it involves the person drawing from patterns and stuff.

Then, perception in itself can be considered objective, because it is taking information (of an object) in, while judgment is what the subject does with the information.

With this:
Objective processing=Perception (P)
Subjective processing=Judgment (J)
Objective data=concreteness (S) or logic (T)
Subjective data=abstractness (N) or value (F)
Objective source=external (E)
Subjective source=internal (I)

Objective processing of Objective data from Objective source (OOO): Se
Objective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (OOS): Si
Objective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (OSO): Ne
Objective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (OSS): Ni
Subjective processing of Objective data from Objective source (SOO): Te
Subjective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (SOS): Ti
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (SSO): Fe
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (SSS): Fi

This basically reduces the four dichotomies down to one!

Yes.

 

[wildcat]

I can usually follow wildcat, but here I am grasping at straws.

A few thoughts occurred to me regarding his OP.

1) The objectivity of "pure thought." --that is thought without error or "contamination," a perceptions of pure truths that perhaps finds codification in mathematics.

There are a few issues here...

Is math really the "universal language?"

Is it possible our mathematics is simply our mathematics and that it is based on the visceral notions brought forth by the human mind embodied in a human body?

But since the body is brought forth through nature, and subject to its constraints, is it merely a reflection of the objectivity of nature?

Then what about dance, sport, music, and other forms connected to this visceral nature? Is it as objective as thought?

Is objectivity, a perception of the visceral without judgment or contamination? --a seeming contradiction, as this is often very emotion laden.

2) Our "thoughts" are illusions. They are what we perceive after our brain/body has done what it has done to create the thoughts. Thoughts are echoes of our own biological processes.

There is actually a large fraction of a second between when an event actually occurs and when we perceive it to occur. In this delay, our brains do a sort of perceptual "pipelining," to keep our senses of time coherent.

Again, I come to the same questions. Does objectivity come from a tacit trust of our instincts?--the very things we consider so "subjective?"

3) Many religious people believe that we (or our souls) are reflections of God. As a scientifically minded person, we can look at our make-up and see how we are similar to (even made up of) our environment.

This reflection of the divine...does it give us objectivity?

I have no disagreement.
The object does not have a hand.

Is it out there?
Not in the hand.

 

[wildcat]

Objectivity could exist if a person managed to find a subject to which they felt very little emotional connection I suppose.

Or if you want to get into it- perhaps you could be objective about a situation that is human but you are not connected with the humans involved.

Of course, the question would be- are ideas of morality and justice subjective? In which case, most forms of human observation- with the rare exceptions of some documentary photographers- would be subjective.

For instance, this photograph is objectively taken, but generally provokes a subjective response in the viewer (or objective, depending on how you're looking at it- if identification with the fact that human suffering could affect any of us could be considered objective- as it is the straight truth with no tinting, the response is objective as well)

Cooking from a recipe book is objective- cooking without a recipe is subjective. Showing what's there, or merely following instructions is objective- an inclusion of passion subjectifies it up, it seems.

I agree.
The subject does not condition the object.

We think objection is freedom.
Subjection is.

 

[Llewellyn]

Objectivity is a concept. In language. Language is practical and leads back to a truth.

Objectivity could be "what has the least life".

Objectivity is: shared subjectivity (I like this one a lot).

Objective is "from the outside". But still it is an impression.

It is what can be derived with as little force as possible.

(Where have I taken this one sentence structure from?...)

 

[wildcat]

Objectivity is a concept. In language. Language is practical and leads back to a truth.

Objectivity could be "what has the least life".

Objectivity is: shared subjectivity (I like this one a lot).

Objective is "from the outside". But still it is an impression.

It is what can be derived with as little force as possible.

(Where have I taken this one sentence structure from?...)

I say a good observation.
The linguists say etymology is about the origin.
Origin is only by the way.

Life is behind.

 

[Siegfried]

Objectivity is a concept. In language. Language is practical and leads back to a truth.

Objectivity could be "what has the least life".

Objectivity is: shared subjectivity (I like this one a lot).

Objective is "from the outside". But still it is an impression.

It is what can be derived with as little force as possible.

(Where have I taken this one sentence structure from?...)

Definantly these are some coherent definitions from linguists. The one that catches my eye though, objectivity=shared subjectivity, it sounds an adequate definition in most situations, but it can prove questionable. For example Galileo, believed the earth was round, if we take this definition of objectivity, the Earth was flat. Galileo was being subjective.

To take CaptainChick's quote. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens. (Great quote btw )

Shared subjectivity couldn’t change the fact the Earth is round, so if objectivity is the closest thing to truth, this perspective is contradicted by factual scientific observation. So who is really objective here? Its an interesting question, if we take the position that objectivity is shared subjectivity then that means subjectivity doesn’t have to be emotion filled, it is logical, in certain variables.

 

[miss fortune]

I agree.
The subject does not condition the object.

We think objection is freedom.
Subjection is.

True- and beautifully concise

There's fewer paths by which to be objective- the difference is like the choice between traveling on foot or by car- the car may be more efficient, but you can only go on certain paths with it- feet will take you anywhere.

 

[wildcat]

True- and beautifully concise

There's fewer paths by which to be objective- the difference is like the choice between traveling on foot or by car- the car may be more efficient, but you can only go on certain paths with it- feet will take you anywhere.

Exactly.
Walking is freedom.
Only your feet can take you to the thick forest or to the top of the mountain.

They built a new highway that units Turku and Helsinki. Very efficient. Now they complain you see nothing from the road. If you had walked that stretch before the highway, you could have seen a lot of wildlife. Not any more.

 

[miss fortune]

Exactly.
Walking is freedom.
Only your feet can take you to the thick forest or to the top of the mountain.

They built a new highway that units Turku and Helsinki. Very efficient. Now they complain you see nothing from the road. If you had walked that stretch before the highway, you could have seen a lot of wildlife. Not any more.

what a shame- sometimes when you give up on rushing everywhere you see and learn a lot more- not to mention that you enjoy things much more as well.

Walking will take you closer to things than driving, just as subjective approaches will let you approach a subject of study closer than objective ones at time. Like an anthropologist living with a remote culture as opposed to a visitor interviewing villagers and photographing them.

I rarely drive on the interstates when the backroad is an available option

 

[wildcat]

what a shame- sometimes when you give up on rushing everywhere you see and learn a lot more- not to mention that you enjoy things much more as well.

Walking will take you closer to things than driving, just as subjective approaches will let you approach a subject of study closer than objective ones at time. Like an anthropologist living with a remote culture as opposed to a visitor interviewing villagers and photographing them.

I rarely drive on the interstates when the backroad is an available option

A good choice.

In the 50s Finland had only backroads. When you took the bus to Tavastland you could sense the huge forests. It gave you a queer feeling of participation.

When I lived in Valko I used to walk to the nearby town through the backroads.
It was very rarely you encountered a car on those roads.
Once I did, but that was only because I was crossing a highway. The driver was my neighbour, and he picked me in his car.
He thought I had been walking along the highway!

I did not tell him the truth.

 

[miss fortune]

I used to run on the back roads at home- the views were more interesting and it was quieter out there.

My sis and I always took back roads anywhere we ever went- it was more of an adventure than driving on the highways.

Now I drive the back roads to take photographs- the real culture of the area is seated around the back roads, not the interstates.

By foot though, you can walk beside the river in the sand with bare feet and feel the mud between your toes. You can never do that in a car

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

SO...

What are you trying to say, exactly?

 

[wildcat]

I used to run on the back roads at home- the views were more interesting and it was quieter out there.

My sis and I always took back roads anywhere we ever went- it was more of an adventure than driving on the highways.

Now I drive the back roads to take photographs- the real culture of the area is seated around the back roads, not the interstates.

By foot though, you can walk beside the river in the sand with bare feet and feel the mud between your toes. You can never do that in a car

How true.
Experience is inborn.
Objectivity is an exclusion.
Life is within.

It is as you said.

 

[Xander]

Woudl it be true to say that thought is objective but the conclusions it draws are not?

 

[Siegfried]

Woudl it be true to say that thought is objective but the conclusions it draws are not?

It depends on what type of thought it is. INTPs (Ti) is more objective than (Ni) INTJs. In any situation, depends also on what basis the thought is made, on what stimuli was it quantified on. There is something lost in the movement from thought to conclusion, definantly. Since a subjective conclusion, is being made (a personal choice), it is less likely to be accurate as the thought, it has taken on a possibility. On the flip side, wouldn't say INTJs thoughts become relatively more "objective" for them with Te?

The question really being asked is it possible to be "truly" objective? Or is objective thought the best subjective approximation.

 

[Xander]

Perhaps a refinement to my original statement should be that perhaps concept is objective?

 

[wildcat]

Perhaps a refinement to my original statement should be that perhaps concept is objective?

What makes you think concept is objective?

 

[wildcat]

Woudl it be true to say that thought is objective but the conclusions it draws are not?

Thought is subjective.

Does the mirror turn the side?
It looks like it.

The mirror does not turn anything.

A component is one.
Number two is not a component number.

What is the number of a dichotomy of a component?
It is one.

 

[Xander]

Thought is subjective.

Does the mirror turn the side?
It looks like it.

The mirror does not turn anything.

A component is one.
Number two is not a component number.

What is the number of a dichotomy of a component?
It is one.

Mirrors don't do a thing except reflect. Using mirrors is a poor analogy anyway because the image is turned upside down by the eye looking at the mirror.

Thought is objective... it may not produce objective results but that's in a different arena is it not? Would it not be true to say that it would be objective in the context of the internal world regardless of if it is in the external world. Ergo concept would be objective at least initially.

Oh and those numbers... a component is one a dichotomy is one... so the component which must by nature consist of elements of both sides of the dichotomy also equals one? If only such were believable.

 

[INTJMom]

I was thinking that thought can be subjective because part of what initiates the thought process is what we see or take in with our other senses. Everyone looks out at the world through a glass that is colored by their own pre-conceived ideas and beliefs. So the thought-sample is tainted upon receipt.