Objectivity is a funny way of people justifying their own subjections. Edmund Husserl is the guy to talk to if you want to be confused by what “objectivity” means. I say confused, because Husserl’s path through the end product of the phenomenological reduction leads him to contradictions, which generate revisions of his investigation. Eventually his revisions lead to a happy phenomenological-objective ending and will be discussed along with another objectivity viewpoint: The View from Nowhere. Lastly I’ll give you my objective/subjective opinion on which “objectivity” I think is more convincing. Objectivity to Husserl is what he considered the phenomenological reduction. “The aim of the initial ‘phenomenological’ reduction is to individuate correctly the domain of pure consciousness as the domain of meaning-constitution”(Moran 78). I’ll attempt to use logic as an example: the proper object of logic is to study the relationship between the contents of expressions and what is being expressed; Modus Ponens states that if p then q is accepted, and the antecedent p holds, then the consequent q may be inferred. Logic is only interested in the functional relation between the truth-value of p and q in the domain where Modus Ponens is applicable. Because logic, in one domain is only interested in the functional relation between p and q, its overall truth-value is limited to a one-sided truth. “Logic deals with validities and the laws in which hold between them. Ideal laws of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
In the essay of “The Poison of Subjectivism” by C.S.Lewis, he says “it is useless to compare the moral ideas of one age with those of another: progress and decadence are alike meaningless words.” Our society constantly changing, people’s view follows the change and it also produces action. We can’t be shifting around by what the world views are. We must have a biblical worldview which we can find from the Bible. As I am studying theology it is my responsibility to bring the biblical worldview to those who have a different worldview.
The theoretical orientations I will primarily use when counseling students are Person-centered and Existential because I believe people have control over their lives and they need to learn to adapt to their environment both of which is done through a positive counseling environment that focuses on the whole student rather than just the problem (Corey,2012). Although this could be difficult in the school setting, the student has to come first and some will need more counseling sessions than what is typically used and every student should feel empowered and learn to take control over their lives. I will consider culture in my theoretical orientation of Existential and Person-centered by include the student’s culture within the environment and
In, your post you state that you agree with Novick’s idea of objectivity and abandoning our biases to give a neutral perspective of an event, however, my question is can a historian present this idea of objectivity without leaning to a specific view? I think that while a historian can present both sides of a perspective of an event, I consider there will always be some bias that the historian will lean towards. This bias relates to Haskell’s statement “that most of us cannot avoid constructing the world regarding right and wrong,” on objectivity (Haskell, 151). In a sense, this connects to your supportive view of Haskell’s view that history should not be neutral. By having different views on historical topics. I believe this allows new questions, assertions, and research to be discovered leading a historian to a new viewpoint on an
Psychotherapy and counselling are inseparable. The effectiveness of a counselling program is not just based on the connectedness and interaction between a therapist and a client, but also the framework of the counselling approach in helping the client improving his mental health or overcoming personal problems. There are an extensive number of psychotherapies developed by past researchers, with each therapeutic concept offering unique contributions in understanding human behaviour and useful implications for counselling practice (Bedi et al., 2011).
Pojman talked about why he thought subjectivism was a useless concept, and pointed out the absurd consequences of the theory. He said if we agree with subjectivism, then there can be no argument nor interpersonal judgment. By reason of subjectivism does not depend on social agreement of principle, and the situation could only be considered as wrong, if one failed to live up his or her principles; if the person felt right then it would be impossible for him or her to do wrong. By strengthen his argument, Pojman indicated subjectivism has disregarded a vital fact, that which people often share commonalities, including, common language, institutions, and habits. He then quoted John Donne, “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man
With all due respect, whose perspective are you arguing from? You were homeschooled. I attended a public high school in a left-winged town. However I had much more freedom of speech there then I do at my private christian university.
How should we live our lives? Do you live for others or for yourself? What do you deem to be the ideal: selflessness, or selfishness? Why? Ayn Rand’s novel The Fountainhead addresses these issues and her philosophy behind it called Objectivism. Her rebellious rhetoric is to convince us that the only true virtue is selfishness and that we should abide by its standards and live for ourselves.
The philosophy of objectivism is to be selfish for yourself and to work hard to achieve a life of purpose. Howard Roark, the main character in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead is the perfect personification of this philosophy. Rand made Roark to be the ideal man based on her own beliefs. Ayn Rand's immoral ideology offers pursuing your own happiness as your highest moral aim and not caring for how other's feel about your own actions. Objectivism adheres strictly to the path of rational self-interest that is to benefit of every human to seek his own pursuits alone. Rand doesn’t believe that a person should in any way sacrifice others for himself, but she rejects any form of moral altruism. The novel represents objectivism in all its iniquitous glory.
Perception is defined as how you look at others and the world around you. Being able to select, organize and intercept information starts the perceptual process. Perception affects the way people communicate with others. An individual’s pattern of thinking can affect their perception of others. Most people communicate best with people of similar cultures.
There are four different sources of knowledge: perception, introspection, reason and memory. All our knowledge roots from our perception. Perception is the way humans sense the world outside the body. We perceive through our five senses: see, hear, smell, taste, and touch. Humans gain knowledge through experiences and experience through perception. Usually we can trust our senses to perceive our surroundings effectively but there are times we misperceive. Illusions, hallucinations or impediments of the accurate flow of information to our senses are examples of misperceptions. For example if someone hits their head causing their vision to blur or impedes them from effectively processing what occurring around them, then they shouldn’t trust their senses. Another example would be an anxiety attack causing a signal of threat to the brain also preventing the person from correctly processing their surroundings. If nothing can prove we are misperceiving then we have good reason to be believe our senses.
In respect of the theory of cognition, where Duns Scotus had placed between the perceiving subject and the object perceived a "sensible species" and an "intelligible species," Ockham considers these as superfluous machinery. Objects call forth sense-impressions in us, which are transmuted by the active intellect into mental images. These images are thus a product of the intellect, not species which flow from the object into the intellectus possibilis. The reality of these images is thus, in the modern use of the terms, not objective but subjective. This is true not merely of the "terms of first intention" formed directly from sense-impression, but also of the "terms of second intention," i.e., the abstract terms which take note of common attributes, or universals. These latter correspond to a tendency of the human mind, which can not perceive individuals without at the same time attempting to form a general concept. A white object simultaneously suggests abstract whiteness; an extended, related, enduring object forces the conception of extension, relation, duration. The result of this line of reasoning is the absolute subjectivity of all concepts and universals and the limitation of knowledge to the mind and its concepts-although these are real entities because of their subjective existence in the mind, reproducing the actual according to the constitution of the mind. Thus Ockham is really the pioneer of modern epistemology. The
Philosophers have always been concerned to establish a means by which the world can be understood objectively. The problem is that it is difficult to establish the extent to which the physical world exists independently of perception (Brock and Mares, 2007, p. 34). Philosophers identify a ‘perceptual barrier’ preventing knowledge of whether or not what can be perceived is an accurate or literal representation of the true nature of reality; a barrier known in philosophical discourse as the “veil-of-perception” (Bennett, 1968, p. 98). In 1689 Locke wrote An Essay Concerning Human Understanding as a means of explaining this barrier, using a theory categorised by philosophers as “a form of representational realism” (Brock & Mares, 2007, p. 49). In order to analyse the potential (or otherwise) of this approach, a philosopher needs to understand what Locke intended by his thesis of primary, secondary and tertiary qualities and consider the extent to which these may be inherently part of an object, and thereby the degree to which that object might correspond in reality with the way it is perceived. Locke’s work has been significantly critiqued (either to extend the ideas, or to refute them) ever since its publication. Currently the technologically augmented insights of information theory responses to Locke’s Essay use scientific evidence as a basis for both accepting and refuting Locke’s theory, making it a perennially stimulating subject.
In “Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium,” Donna Haraway profiles the “modest witness” of science, a self-invisible inhabitant of an unmarked category who is authorized to establish facts about the world without his own embodiment clouding or biasing the world’s objective truth. “His subjectivity is his objectivity” (24). Historically, his objectivity has been contrasted with the subjectivity and special interests of women and people of color, among other marginalized people. Thus, they have always been excluded from science and used as determinants of what can and cannot count as knowledge, of scientific fact and popular culture (28-30). Feminist epistemologists such as Haraway call the (lack of) subjectivity of this modest witness into question