The Power Behind The Eye Of The Beholder

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.

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.

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.

Your objectivity is only subjectivity in the beholder's observer's eyes.

You can not contest this. You do not share the same mind as them, therefore you can not contest what they see as objective truth.

It is all false objectivity, when you see that truth is in the eye of the beholder.

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.

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.

When it involves irrelevant contexts, sure.

Not in this given situation though.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ahh, yes. Many people are pulled away from the sense my theory creates, because they only look at the terms 'objectivism' and 'subjectivism' with their naked definitions. They do not see the clever twist I've made to conclude objectivity as a false, but otherwise, type of perception that people aren't aware of. If one were to convince themselves that what they see does not come from their own heads, that is a sense of objectivity in their own eyes. Regardless what the definition of 'objectivity' says, this is where objectivity derives from.

Saying that it is good enough for 'me' is irrelevant to what one chooses to see and not see.

-- Updated May 5th, 2012, 3:07 pm to add the following --

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.

It is not a meta-reality.

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.

[Scott]

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.)

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.)

You are falling prey to the socially accepted definition of objectivity. Objectivism, of course, is not a perception, but an object of perception that isn't obfuscated by personal bias.

If a person convinces themselves that what they see does not derive from their head [subjectivism] then that is a source of objectivity, regardless if it is false in reality.

The objectivism derives from the ability people have to distort their reality in their favor, regardless if we share the same exact un-bias world.

[Scott]

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.

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.

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.

Point - people can turn reality into something that it is not. Some things they distort, they turn it into their own objectivity, because they truly can not see the subjectivity involved.

Point B - this is the clever part, they manifested an interpersonal form of objectivism out of their subjectivism, thus saying that objectivity can exist in the eye of the beholder.

Point C - they are not - at all - aware of this, so their subjectivism is objectivism in their eyes, and your subjectivity will not have the ability to contest what they see in their own eyes as objective.

-- Updated May 5th, 2012, 9:53 pm to add the following --

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.

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

[Scott]

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?

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.