A Poster He or I wrote:Using your perspectives and definitions, the trouble here is that the Observer only exists qua Observer relative to whomever the situation designates as the Beholder. Who is doing the designating?

In other words, we are each of us Beholders to ourselves therefore my subjectivity (my view of the Beholder's false objectivity) becomes my own objectivity. But that same Beholder views my subjective assessment as false objectivity. It seems your scheme is caught in a trap of relativism.

A Poster He or I wrote:Well I can agree with all that but it's different than what your OP said. Your OP said "Objectivity is in the eye of the Beholder," not Truth. Truth is a VERY different beast than objectivity.

Spectrum wrote:

GodlessDeity wrote:I wish for others to try to contest a philosophical theory of mine: ''Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. Subjectivity is in the eye of the beholder's observer. We are both, the beholder, and the observer.''

Example: A Christian can live in the same world as any other person, and live under the same rules of reality and logic, but in their mind, there is an abstract model of abstract perception that allows them to create an objective image out of their subjective imagery without acknowledging it. They can say that their external image of God is real in their own eyes, while it may forever be, irrefutably, a denial of one's own false objectivism.

The Christian [Beholder; Observer] sees objectivity in their own subjectivism; where as others [Observers; Beholders] can see the subjectivity in the [Christian example] objectively, by using their own subjective objectivism.

I think you need to view from two perspective, i.e. empirical and non-empirical.

In the case of the objectivity of God, I can agree with your theory, since God is merely a delusional, non-empirical, and irrational entity, speculated (based on pure reason) in the mind of theists. Thus in the 'eye' of the beholder.

However, in the case of objectivity of the external empirical world, it is not so as straightforward as the case for God.
Note the general definition (wiki) of 'objectivity' in the philosophical perspective,

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious entity or subject.

In this case, objectivity is not 'in the mind' of the beholder, since objectivity is supposed to be "mind-independent". I agree with this definition if it is applied to the common and ordinary perspective.


From the philosophical perspective, the objectivity of the external world is reducible to subjectivity, i.e. inter-subjectivity. This is more complicated then simply, 'in the eye of the beholder'. Note one example, i.e. Hawking's 'model dependent realism', i.e. whatever is real to us objectively is as good as the models we establish to realize it. There are many other non-realists theories to counter why there is no pure objectivity.

A Poster He or I wrote:

People's ability to distort reality with this abstract tool of perception is exactly why I've mentioned that they can turn their subjectivity into objectivity [this alone is the act of false objectivity/truth], and that this falsehood of objectivity can become their own truth -- in their eyes.

You can argue all you may want that their God is inside their head, but you will not be able to budge them if they are convinced that what they see is what the truth reveals itself to be.

Unfortunately, this statement only has significance if there is an assumption of objective reality existing beyond the Beholder and Observer's beliefs. For anyone who does not believe in such a meta-reality (e.g., myself), these distinctions you erect between objectivity, false objectivity, subjectivity and truth become lost in the relativism of the entire situation of people and their beliefs interacting.

Scott wrote:It seems to me to be a clear oxymoron to say that objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. (I can always be mistaken though.)

Scott wrote:So you aren't talking about that which is usually referred to by the word objectivity but rather some other concept that you happen to be idiosyncratically referring to with the word 'objectivity'? What you say about this other thing that you refer to by the word objectivity may likely be true of this other thing even though it is clearly not true about that thing which most people refer to by the word objectivity. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

A Poster He or I wrote:

It is a clever theory of perception, that involves objectivity, when someone chooses to see - what actually comes from their head - as something that is a part of the objective realm.

But subjectivity already encompasses the belief that one's own subjective experience is objective. So corrupting the meaning of the word objectivity (as Scott pointed out) doesn't constitute anything clever.

Scott wrote:So you aren't saying that objectivity is actually in the eye of the beholder; you are saying that it is common for people to mistake subjective things for objective things. Is that correct?

A Poster He or I wrote:

Since when did subjectivity define the ability for people to see what they see objectively? Where does it state this?

We're not talking about "defining any ability;" we're talking about belief. Belief is subjective.

Scott wrote:

GodlessDeity wrote:

Scott wrote:So you aren't saying that objectivity is actually in the eye of the beholder; you are saying that it is common for people to mistake subjective things for objective things. Is that correct?

I'm saying that the abstract manipulation humans have over our world is what allows people like me to create contradictions out of naked definitions of every day words.

Either you are redefining the word in an idiosyncratic way or you have created a contradiction. I don't see your point.

GodlessDeity wrote:If they take their belief to a reality-opposing level? Then what?

You've got yourself a subjective objectivism.

Subjective pseudo-objectivism maybe...

Scott wrote:What you are describing is subjectivity not objectivity. The fact that one may be so misguided as to mistake their subjective opinions as objective facts doesn't mean they are actually objective facts, hence pseudo-objective.

Scott wrote:Then it is one of the many things I don't know. I don't understand the relevance. My point is simply that the alleged concept 'subjective objectivity' or 'objectivity in the eye of the beholder' is nonsense because it is an oxymoron.

A Poster He or I wrote:

If they take their belief to a reality-opposing level? Then what?

You've got yourself a subjective objectivism.

Once again, your statement is significant only if a backdrop of objective reality is assumed, independent of Beholder and Observer. Since I don't believe in any such thing, we're back to the relativism of answering whose reality is being opposed by whom, leaving your distinctions about objectivity, subjectivity and truth without much philosophical significance.

A Poster He or I wrote:

I do not understand how you are unable to believe in something that makes complete sense. Would you argue that truth is seen in many different colours and shapes? Then, would you not argue that the brain allows you to see what you want to see? And if you want to see what the brain allows you to see, then is that not an objective truth they chose to follow?

I do believe truth comes in many different colors and shapes. I do believe people see what they want to see. I do not believe what people choose to see is either objective or necessarily true. I frankly cannot fathom why you would think it is necessarily objective and true.

Because it is objective and true in their convincing mind. Ever heard of how 'If you lie to yourself long enough - it may become the truth?'

It makes alot of sense in my head for some reason, my intuition tells me that there is something far more than simply objectivism and subjectivism, because I know that people are reality benders when it comes from within.

I am sympathetic to the idea of people being reality benders. I am a holist and a materialist myself, so I believe that reality is the emergent result of consciousness operating as the complex feedback of a material substrate. I believe space-time itself to be merely an emergent epiphenomenon of consciousness. Therefore it makes complete sense to me that people interpret reality exactly as it suits them to do so, and that they should believe their interpretation is objective. But objective in any absolute way? Not a chance. I frankly don't see what significance the labels "objective" and "subjective" have, other than as orientational adjectives in a framework of relative perception and subsequent conceptualization.

I think you are having trouble seeing that life is a blank, white sheet of paper.

You seem insistent that objectivity can result simply from a Beholder's conviction coupled with an Observer's inability to insubstantiate that conviction. To me, objectivity has nothing to do with such a situation. Since I don't belief in any Absolute Reality or Absolute Truth, objectivity is merely a label for consistent predictability of experience, relative to some cognitive schema.

That is your mistake. You assume that absolute truth is absolute truth in all actuality. When absolute truth can be made from within a person.

My Intuition Says, in a world that is voided of answers, and left to only conjecture - one could say that there is no real truth or objectivity out of sight or out of mind. A world with an origin unknown to our own unknown origin, and it is that very essence of knowing as a fact that nobody has lived to see the world come to be, and as years turned over on their backs, you can see that life has not evolved; but changed in the limited area of access through human interaction. And even then, these actions are as plain and simple as the world we reside in, yet a storm of complexity continues to be left unheeded from the inner chambers of a human being's mind - in that life is nothing more, but an empty painting with a few of its own abilities - and we are what make this painting into something much, much more with our distinctive values and interpretation of what this painting is.

I agree with this, to the extent that I understand it (I don't understand why you think "life has not evolved; but changed in the limited area of access through human interaction."). But how does it follow from these statements that conviction without possibility of insubstantiation should yield objective truth?