User:Otheus/objectivity

Objectivity
The adjective objective and corresponding noun objectivity are often used in reference to a person's argument or person in context of a debate. In this sense, it is meant to refer to a person's unbiased and "fair-minded" treatment of the material or topic and is used in contrast with subjective. However, ultimately a person must either be subjective by taking one or a set of viewpoints, or the person takes no viewpoint. But what utility is gained when a person takes no viewpoint? Therefore, the best one can do, in most cases, is to be pan-subjective, that is, to hold a point of view which encompasses all salient viewpoints (pan is the Greek prefix meaning "all").

Utility of Objectivity
Since objectivity would seem to imply holding no viewpoint, one may rightly ask, "Of what use is being objective?" During mediation and dispute resolution, it is often useful for a 3rd, uninterested party, to help clarify and delineate the issues from non-issues, and to re-state and re-phrase the various subjective viewpoints so that all interested parties can become less narrowly subjective, ie, more pan-subjective.

Of course, maintaining such objectivity is difficult, for it is right and natural for humans to make decisions and view things subjectively. But such a state of affairs does not take away from the utility of objectivity, only the effectiveness of trying to attain objectivity.

Furthermore, objectivity is not desirable for reaching a conclusion. A conclusion is inherently encompassing one or more points of view, and such conclusion is subjective, though with effort and attention to detail and fairness, it might also be one that is pan-subjective.

COMMENT: there no such thing like objectivity in itself apart from a person uttering it and a person always finds itself in numerous situations in which objective contents are concluded. furthermore objective utterances can never be seen detached from a person´s experience in the past and if a person just repeats socalled objective contents, what was written above applies to the person who said it originally.

Subjectivity: Not always a bad thing
To hold a viewpoint is known as being subjective. Now normally what this means is that one holds a viewpoint that is greatly tied to one's personal existence or material interests. So for instance, if one holds stock or shares in Ford motor company, one might hold a subjective viewpoint about that company's products. (Of course, that might be the cart pulling the horse -- that one's view of the products led to one's views of the shares as being valuable; often the person has difficulty telling which came first.) And for a more general example, since all humans require water for survival, it is a necessary subjective viewpoint that water is good. (Of course, too much water is bad, subjectively speaking.) Such a viewpoint is often called a "Universal truth", and holding such a viewpoint does not lessen one's objectivity (that is, unless humans are no longer part of the conversation, such as whether water is good for computers).

Subjectivity and ego
As mentioned above, subjective viewpoints are (often) ones that are tied to one's material interests. These material interests may also include, well, non-material intangible interests such as emotional well-being. This follows from the fact that humans are emotional beings, and that our emotions play heavily into our energy levels, moods, and ultimately, productiveness. Thus, indirectly, something that undermines our emotional well-being can affect our ability to provide for ourselves.

Furthermore, in modern Western societies (and other, but not all cultures), one's emotional health is ultimately tied to one's holding correct viewpoints. This follows from the fact that our emotional health is often a reflection of or self-concept (or ego, but not in the strict Freudian sense), and that our self-concept is greatly determined by our every-day and moral judgements, and that judgement and decision-making is largely the result of information and viewpoints. If one holds such a viewpoint that is ultimately considered incorrect, then such a person's self-concept may be seriously threatened, and thus, the person feels threatened.

Since holding such a subjective viewpoint, ie, one shown to be false, can lead to a defensive response, attacking such a viewpoint is often tantamount to making a personal attack, and is therefore often counterproductive. Instead, the approach should be to make the other party aware of the validity of other viewpoints.

Pan-subjectivity
Thus, the utility in pan-subjectivity is to separate one's ego with one's non-universally subjective viewpoints, (Obviously (?) water must still be valued.) with the end result being that subjective conclusions can be then drawn rationally and civilly, without the need for re-construct one's self-concept. Likewise, helping others attain pan-subjectivity allows them to potentially draw more correct conclusions and to do so without defeating them personally.

Please leave comments on discussion page --Otheus 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)