Human objectivity is possible.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Human objectivity is possible. » Human objectivity is possible.

Human objectivity is possible.
objective necessitiies

Human objectivity is possible.

kNoctis
Threading

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005
Total Topics: 62
Total Posts: 518

Posted 06/04/07 - 08:19 PM: Subject: Human objectivity is possible.	#1
The skeptical challenge against accurate and true knowledge, is at least in part, a challenge against the possibility of objectivity, for objectivity is a necessary condition for knowledge. In this post, I intend to show why other actual necessities are themselves necessary conditions for objecivity, and in turn, refute skepticism about objectivity. NB: I will have to demonstrate actual necessities and in turn, imply - by my argument - that objectivity exists. This also assumes that conditions already meet for the remaining necessary conditions for objectivity, such as intelligence, etc... Necessity is a sufficient condition for objectivity, given the evolutionary function of objectivity in response to necessity. First, reason and rationality, are, at least in part, our ability to recognize necessary connections. Given whatever you think of the reliability of reason, that is in part, a working and adequate definition. Now, if necessity exists, then our survival has depended on spotting that necessity, and more importantly, spotting necessary connections. For if we were not spotting those necessary connections in the world, then our actions would not have been as functional in relation to that outside world. Thus we would not have survived. However, we have survived. Therefore, we have spotted those connections. Since those necessary connections are external to us, then, by definition, it takes an objectivity to logically "reach" them. Therefore, in order to spot those necessary connections that pertain to that which is external of us, we must be capable of some level of objectivity. Therefore, we are capable of objectivity. Finally, I will defend this argument to the death, because stubborness in thought is the most important virtue a person can have. Edited by Andy Pedersen on 06/04/07 - 08:31 PM

becomingagodo
Socratic method?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2007
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 52

Posted 06/05/07 - 07:27 AM:	#2
In this post, I intend to show why other actual necessities are themselves necessary conditions for objecivity, and in turn, refute skepticism about objectivity. You're attempting to prove yourself correct, not very objective. First stance would be to try and fine counter evidence. Trying to prove yourself is not objective because you have to determine if the thing your trying to prove is falsifiable. First, reason and rationality, are, at least in part, our ability to recognize necessary connections. Given whatever you think of the reliability of reason, that is in part, a working and adequate definition. Well, first problem is recognizing necessary connection. Their was test where adult sit in a room and pull levers and they would get a prize, after a ten minautes of doing this they started doing rituals. They connected the ritual to the prize like before that the childrent test and pigeon test did, now the point is the prize was givin out randomly. Humans made a faulty connection and thus could not determined the truth that the expriment was random and they didn't have to do the rituals to win the prize. This highlights to main problems with you're reasoining first is that making connection is bad when you are not trying to disprove yourself. The other is more serious which is you need to unconnect things to get to the truth off things as well as connect things. In the expriment to be truly objective after the people in question developed the ritual they should have tested it by trying to disprove it then finally unconnect it. Their is another expriment done with people in chess. They basically tested 20 people and found out that the higher you got up the rating the more the person questioned himself. Now, if necessity exists, then our survival has depended on spotting that necessity, and more importantly, spotting necessary connections. For if we were not spotting those necessary connections in the world, then our actions would not have been as functional in relation to that outside world. Thus we would not have survived. However, we have survived. Therefore, we have spotted those connections. Again unconnecting things are as improtant to survival as connecting things. Their is bear that catches fish however water bends light so the bear can't trust his sight. Now if the bear couldn't unconnect the fact that the position of the fish is not where the fish is then the bear would not survive. Again we react to the environment and adapt to it either by making connection or breaking connection, however spotting connection is not improtant here but using reflexes to survive. If you were endanger then you would need to unconnect it from being not endanger then you would go into a fight or flight reflex. Since those necessary connections are external to us, then, by definition, it takes an objectivity to logically "reach" them. Therefore, in order to spot those necessary connections that pertain to that which is external of us, we must be capable of some level of objectivity. Therefore, we are capable of objectivity. Again if you can't determine the truth you likely to make rash connection. At the end of the day if you don't try and disprove yourself you are likely going to make very poor connection like in the lever expriment and proberly won't advance much in chess. Also making necessary connections in the external environment is not a good example as you need to determined truth of external thing you're trying to connect and then you need to take steps logically to see if it true. If I brought a phone and started getting headaches I could connect the phone to the headaches so get rid off the phone, now I could conclude by you're standards that my position was objective. You can't reach objective truth only truth with scientific standards. Nice post by the way.
We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not. Heraclitus

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.