Talk:Objectivity (philosophy)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 14 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stewartjordan625. Peer reviewers: Bekah01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on Possible Sources
Hi, I am a student in a Wikipedia course and I will attempt to add to this article. I found these three sources. Will they be good sources to use to add information for this article?

Moral Objectivity, Nicholas Rescher

Rescher, Nicholas. “MORAL OBJECTIVITY.” Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 25, no. 1, 2008, pp. 393–409., doi:10.1017/S0265052508080151. Is Moral Obligation Objective or Subjective?

ZIMMERMAN, MICHAEL J. “Is Moral Obligation Objective or Subjective?” Utilitas, vol. 18, no. 4, 2006, pp. 329–361., doi:10.1017/S0953820806002159. Constructing Normative Objectivity in Ethics

Wong, David B. “CONSTRUCTING NORMATIVE OBJECTIVITY IN ETHICS.” Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 25, no. 1, 2008, pp. 237–266., doi:10.1017/S0265052508080096. Stewartjordan625 (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Some example of objective truth
"There is consciousness"

"There is thought"

"There is experience"

One of these has to be objectively true from an existential perspective. --2A02:AA1:1624:5C9D:F996:45CB:4017:5377 (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that per WP:TALK, talk pages are not for discussing the topic:
 * You are welcome to edit the article, but please make sure that, if you add claims, you support them with citations to to WP:RELIABLE sources. If you have questions, please ask away. You can also use the introduction at WP:NEWBIE. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

No critique, just thought
Isn't it impressive that the page about objectivity in Wikipedia had a total of 1156 words as of two days ago? I agree with some of the comments made in the two archived Talk sections that discussed this. I find it particularly problematic that Wikipedia's NPOV principle is used by the editors' community as a way to strive for perspectives that align with the prescriptive model of life and thought that is overrepresented in modern society's narratives, media, culture, and formal structures. This article and its discussion in the talk page seem to enforce a perception of objectivity that dismisses subjectivity and that assumes that it is possible to reach a universal description of objectivity in a Wikipedia article, without worrying much about consulting the components of society that might not be part of the discussion because of language barrier, information inaccessibility, or other form of constraint. The question is here, who do we trust to generate the knowledge about Objectivity, and which other voices are absent? Why is the average Wikipedia user more qualified –or at least more trusted– to define objectivity for the rest of The Free Encyclopedia community? Padmet (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what you're getting at or implying. Be more clear in your messaging. As far as many people across various cultures around the world understand objectivity, it is the "truth" of the matter, whatever it may be. For example, math is almost entirely objective, i.e: 2+2=4, and I don't mean the 1984 meme there, I literally mean adding say 2 oranges into a group of 2 oranges gives you 4, that is truth. There is no room for subjectivity there since we're talking about raw initial values that do not change. People across cultures can understand 2+2 equaling 4, math is universal in that sense since it does not require the English language. Some more objective truth: fire is hot, ice is cold, living beings require energy to survive, we're using the internet to communicate this conversation. All these truths are objective, they do not change and are fundamental to our reality and world. In terms of what is subjective, that could be construed as objective, you could say, "the sky is blue," or, "apples are red," but what about color blind people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatopsia, I could go on but I think you get my point, something things are utterly objective, other things are seemingly objective, but can still be subjective in niche scenarios. I did not even cover feelings either, which are entirely subjective from person to person. Modern NFL Historian (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Weird overfocus on the topic of ethics
The article as it currently stands seems to wear off course significantly to write on the narrow topic of objectivity in the philosophy of ethics, to the exclusion of all the rest of philosophy, despite objectivity itself being such a fundamental concept of all philosophy about this world (or maybe even the next). The initial discussion of Plato is a good start, but the sections about ethics belong in a different article. Jbohmdk (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)