What an objective assessment. Subjective and objective opinion. Claim to originality
SUBJECTIVE
SUBJECTIVE
(from Latin subjectum - subject). Having a personal point of view on things, as opposed to an objective one.
Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. - Chudinov A.N., 1910 .
SUBJECTIVE
in contrast to the objective, personal, different from others by the characteristics of a given person; arising from the mood, resulting from the tastes, habits, inclinations, desires of a given person, etc.
A complete dictionary of foreign words that have come into use in the Russian language. - Popov M., 1907 .
SUBJECTIVE
from lat. subjectum, subject. Originating in the personality itself.
Explanation of 25,000 foreign words that have come into use in the Russian language, with the meaning of their roots. - Mikhelson A.D., 1865 .
Subjective
[from Latin. subjectum ] – 1) personal, peculiar only to a given person, subject; 2) the opposite of objective; subjective idealism - a direction in philosophy
Large dictionary of foreign words. - Publishing House "IDDK", 2007 .
Subjective aya, oh, ven, vna ( German subjektiv, fr. subjectif lat. subjeclīvus added, attached).
1.
Partial, biased; opposite objective. Subjective opinion.
2.
Pertaining only to a given person, subject, . Subjective sensations.
Subjectivity- property of the subjective 2.
||
Wed. objective .
Dictionary foreign words by L. P. Krysin. - M: Russian language, 1998 .
Synonyms:
See what “SUBJECTIVE” is in other dictionaries:
See biased... Dictionary of Russian synonyms and similar expressions. under. ed. N. Abramova, M.: Russian Dictionaries, 1999. subjective individual, taste, personal, one-sided, tendency, personalistic, personal,… … Synonym dictionary
SUBJECTIVE, subjective, subjective; subjective, subjective, subjective (book). Peculiar, inherent only to a given person, subject. Subjective experiences. Feelings of cold are very subjective. || Lack of objectivity, biased,... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
SUBJECTIVE, oh, oh; vein, vna. 1. Inherent only to a given subject, person. Subjective feeling. 2. Partial, biased, lacking objectivity. Subjective assessment. Too subjective opinion. | noun subjectivity, and, female Intelligent... ... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
Relating to the subject, its nature and interests; dependent on the subject; having meaning only for the subject. The opposite of S. is objective. The subject can be not only an individual, but also a group of people, society, a separate culture,... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
subjective- aya, oe.subjectif adj., German. subjektiv lat. subjectivus added, attached. In this feeling there is nothing externally objective (objectif), for its object does not act on us from the outside, nor personal (subjectif), for we are in it for ourselves... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
subjective- 1. Peculiar only to a given subject, person, personal; relating to the subject. 2. One-sided, lacking objectivity, biased, biased. Dictionary of a practical psychologist. M.: AST, Harvest. S. Yu. Golovin. 1998 ... Great psychological encyclopedia
SUBJECTIVE- 1. Free meaning – a characteristic of an individual or dependent on an individual, a subject. In this main meaning of the term there are three sub-themes, each of which reflects a different meaning of dependence, (a) Personal - that which is subjective... Explanatory dictionary of psychology
subjective- ▲ individual reflection objective subjectivity dependence of ideas on the individual, the subject. subjectivism. subjective. a matter of taste. look [look] from your bell tower. look from your perch. can't get up... Ideographic Dictionary of the Russian Language
subjective- oh, oh; ven, vna 1) Relating to a subject, person, personality. Subjective factor in history. Subjective reasons. Synonyms: personality, human 2) Reflecting the thoughts, experiences, etc. of a given subject, characteristic only of a given person... Popular dictionary of the Russian language
subjective- possession is subjective in nature... Verbal compatibility of non-objective names
Books
- Subjective Dictionary of Fiction, Arbitman Roman Emilievich. Is Pinocchio familiar with the Three Laws of Robotics? Did Wells's Martians fly into the Great Guslyar? What do Harry Potter and Winston Churchill have in common? Why do aliens have such stupid names? Behind…
Objectivity and, first of all, the objectivity of information as the quality of the information fields surrounding us, is extremely important in Everyday life, and for professional self-realization.
Unfortunately, often subjectivity of judgments, which are disguised as the objective opinion of some specialist, do not allow us to correctly understand the problem and make an adequate and objective decision. Let's figure out what objectivity is, whether it is possible to distinguish it from subjective opinion, and how to correctly present information in professional activities and in everyday life.
What it is
What is objectivity and why do you need to be able to recognize it? In philosophy, there has long been a scientific debate about the objective and the subjective, as well as about truth and truth. As a result of centuries-old disputes, philosophers have found a point to separate these concepts.
They established that the objectivity of truth is its immutable quality. Then, apparently, the expression appeared: “Everyone has their own truth, but the truth is the same for everyone.” Based on this, we can derive the definition that:
- Objectivity as a quality that is not associated with personal judgments and interests, is not based on preferences, exists on its own and does not depend on evaluation. It is based on constant values, objective facts, conclusions supported by results scientific research, and so on. This is a quality that cannot be challenged or changed at will. It is based on scientific or other practical knowledge about the object.
- The opposite of this quality is subjectivity. In this capacity, everything is connected with opinion, judgment, assessment, personal criteria and desires. Subjectivity always starts from the subject. Subjective information is information created or modified by the subject.
For example, when we talk about such qualities as practicality, beauty, taste and others, we inevitably give a personal assessment or use personal subjective experience, which means our reasoning is subjective. When we talk about exact quantities (time, weight and the like) or about scientific facts, this is an objective opinion, since we take as a basis indisputable data or facts.
It is interesting that from the point of view of semantic analysis of the Russian language, subjectivity is almost always expressed by an adjective, while the use of verbs in speech enhances the perception of information as objective.
Why is it important to be able to transform information into an objective opinion? First of all, because in this form people better perceive what you want to tell them. Subjective opinions are likely to be questioned, ignored, or become the source of controversy. Objective opinions will be taken seriously. At the same time, you can use this skill both in the professional sphere and in everyday life.
Let's say you want to convince your manager that the path you have chosen to resolve an issue is correct. If your objective opinion is based on scientific data and conclusions made earlier and not challenged by anyone, you will most likely be able to defend your point of view. If you present the same information, but only as your own judgment, the result may be the opposite.
Of course, there are areas where there is not and cannot be an objective opinion. Art - painting, music, theater - is always perceived subjectively, i.e. are assessed by each individual based on his preferences. Subjective judgment is also possible in those scientific fields where there is no consensus yet, and it is not yet possible to draw final and objective conclusions, since there is a lack of accurate scientific data.
Let's take, for example, the reasoning of astronomers about the structure of the Universe. It is technologically impossible to measure its dimensions or obtain information about the physical processes occurring in it. Information about the Universe is scattered, which does not allow us to see the whole picture.
But even the discoveries already made were not always immediately accepted by the scientific community. History knows cases when discoveries made by scientists were considered for a long time only a subjective opinion. In such cases, only time could turn a scientific hypothesis into an objective truth.
Reality. Objective or subjective
Another important question that philosophers and psychologists ask: is reality an objective or subjective category?
In psychology, objective reality and subjective reality have become stable concepts. When working with an individual, it is important to understand what the individual’s attitude is towards each of them, how she evaluates them, who, in her opinion, influences their formation.
Children often take the opinions of parents or adults with authority as objective reality. Therefore, it is important to teach a child to form his own position and distinguish subjective opinion from objective facts.
Open your child to the world of objective knowledge and science. Tell us about how scientists explore reality and make discoveries and how objective knowledge helps us in life. Author: Ruslana Kaplanova
- (from Latin subjectum subject). Having a personal point of view on things, as opposed to an objective one. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. SUBJECTIVE as opposed to objective, personal,... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
subjective- See biased... Dictionary of Russian synonyms and similar expressions. under. ed. N. Abramova, M.: Russian Dictionaries, 1999. subjective individual, taste, personal, one-sided, tendency, personalistic, personal,… … Synonym dictionary
SUBJECTIVE- SUBJECTIVE, subjective, subjective; subjective, subjective, subjective (book). Peculiar, inherent only to a given person, subject. Subjective experiences. Feelings of cold are very subjective. || Lack of objectivity, biased,... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
SUBJECTIVE- SUBJECTIVE, oh, oh; vein, vna. 1. Inherent only to a given subject, person. Subjective feeling. 2. Partial, biased, lacking objectivity. Subjective assessment. Too subjective opinion. | noun subjectivity, and, female Intelligent... ... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
SUBJECTIVE- relating to the subject, his nature and interests; dependent on the subject; having meaning only for the subject. The opposite of S. is objective. The subject can be not only an individual, but also a group of people, society, a separate culture,... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
subjective- aya, oe.subjectif adj., German. subjektiv lat. subjectivus added, attached. In this feeling there is nothing externally objective (objectif), for its object does not act on us from the outside, nor personal (subjectif), for we are in it for ourselves... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
subjective- 1. Peculiar only to a given subject, person, personal; relating to the subject. 2. One-sided, lacking objectivity, biased, biased. Dictionary of a practical psychologist. M.: AST, Harvest. S. Yu. Golovin. 1998 ... Great psychological encyclopedia
SUBJECTIVE- 1. Free meaning – a characteristic of an individual or dependent on an individual, a subject. In this main meaning of the term there are three sub-themes, each of which reflects a different meaning of dependence, (a) Personal - that which is subjective... Explanatory dictionary of psychology
subjective- ▲ individual reflection objective subjectivity dependence of ideas on the individual, the subject. subjectivism. subjective. a matter of taste. look [look] from your bell tower. look from your perch. can't get up... Ideographic Dictionary of the Russian Language
subjective- possession is subjective in nature... Verbal compatibility of non-objective names
Books
- Subjective Dictionary of Fiction, Arbitman Roman Emilievich. Is Pinocchio familiar with the Three Laws of Robotics? Did Wells's Martians fly into the Great Guslyar? What do Harry Potter and Winston Churchill have in common? Why do aliens have such stupid names? For... Buy for 878 RUR
- Subjective experience, culture and social representations, Aleksandrov Yu. I., Aleksandrova N. L.. The monograph compares the systemic structures and dynamics of subjective experience and culture. The patterns of formation of subjective experience in culture are discussed. Problems are being considered...
Thus, a person's point of view and his worldview are based on his experiences. Despite the fact that the experience may be the same, its interpretation will be different for an individual person, different from many others - it will be subjective.
It turns out that each person has his own subjective opinion and, almost every day, encounters other subjective opinions of friends, acquaintances, etc. On the basis of this, disputes and discussions arise between people, science develops and progress moves forward.
Subjective opinion is something that is inherent in one person, an individual representation of the environment based on one’s own emotions and thoughts.
Objectivity and objective opinion
Objective thinking is not characteristic of any person. Although it is believed that the broader a person’s horizons, the more objectivity in his opinion, the very concept of “objectivity” is much broader.Objectivity is a property of an object that is independent of a person, his desires and opinions. Therefore, such a concept as “objective opinion” in direct meaning cannot exist.
What then do people mean when they use this expression? More often, the title of a person with an objective opinion is given to someone who is not involved in any situation and, being outside it, can assess what is happening “from the outside.” But even this person views the world through the prism of his personal ideas.
An objective opinion can also include a set of subjective opinions. But there are also pitfalls here. If you put all the opinions together, you get a huge tangle of contradictions from which it is impossible to deduce.
Contradictions and absolute truth
Science strives for objectivity. Laws of physics, mathematics, and others scientific fields exist regardless of human knowledge and experience. But who discovers these laws? Of course, scientists. And scientists are ordinary people, with a large margin scientific knowledge, based on the experience of other scientists, etc.It turns out that understanding all the open laws of the Universe is an ordinary accumulation of subjective opinions. In philosophy, there is the concept of objectivity, as the sum of all possible subjective options. But no matter how many of these options exist, it is impossible to put them together.
Thus, the concept of absolute truth was born. Absolute truth is an exhaustive understanding of what exists, the most “objective objectivity” and it is impossible to achieve such an understanding, as philosophers say.
Therefore, having heard the statement “from an objective point of view”, treat the following words critically and do not forget that for any “objective opinion”, if you wish, you can find a dozen more objective objections.
Continuing the discussion, it makes sense to consider the concepts subjective And objective. Main features subjective: internal, personal, inaccessible to public consideration, felt or mental, not directly confirmed by others, conditioned by personal, emotional assessments, unreliable, biased [Big Explanatory Psychological Dictionary, 2001a, p. 329–330].
Signs objective: physical, obvious or real for all who perceive it, accessible to public verification and reliable, fixed as independent of the subject, external to the body or consciousness, free from mental or subjective experience [Big Explanatory Psychological Dictionary, 2001, p. 541; Modern Philosophical Dictionary, 2004, p. 480–481]. To the signs objective we can add: reproducible with virtually no changes noticeable to the observer when the same conditions of perception are repeated, predictable, obeying known physical laws.
From all that has been said, significant differences seem to emerge between the two groups of entities under consideration. But the alarming fact is that the most characteristic examples of these entities are two phenomena, and both are mental. The most characteristic example of the subjective is the image of representation, while the only example of the objective is the image of perception. This is more than strange and paradoxical if we consider true the division of the world into two groups of fundamentally different entities, because in the end we still come to only one - the mental one, which includes both images of representation and images of perception.
Ideas about the objective and subjective are based on the belief of most researchers that there is an objective objective world, which is “reflected” in the subjective consciousness of each person. These views still dominate in psychology, despite the fact that I. Kant back in the 18th century. argued that the objective world is built by a person’s consciousness, and is not “reflected” by it, and researchers mostly seemed to agree with him. A paradoxical situation is emerging. On the one hand, it would seem that none of the psychologists objects to the “new” philosophical concepts. Although how new are they if they are almost two and a half centuries old? On the other hand, when it comes to expressing their own specific views, most of them for some reason turn into ardent “objectivists.” Even, rather, among the “mossy” materialists, who are confident that “the table certainly exists on its own and independently of our consciousness.” Although this, perhaps, is not surprising, since “common sense” works here: since I see the table, and you see it, and he sees it, then this, of course, means that the table exists on its own, independently from U.S. Moreover, precisely as a table, and not as an incomprehensible Kantian “thing in itself.”
What will happen to the concepts of “objective” and “subjective” if we consider the ideas about the world arising from the concept of I. Kant?
According to " common sense", there is one objective physical world, the same for all people, and it is reflected in the consciousness of everyone. According to I. Kant, each consciousness builds an objective world from the physical world of “things in themselves”, inaccessible to us, about the essence of which we cannot say anything, since it is inaccessible to knowledge. Each consciousness is unique. Consequently, each consciousness builds its own unique objective or physical world. Thus, instead of one objective physical world, there are as many physical worlds as there are consciousnesses.
To agree with this, it is enough to consider the perceptual pictures of the world in people with normal vision, with severe farsightedness or myopia, color blindness, the blind, the deaf, etc. Then, instead of the common objective physical objective world, which is usual for “common sense”, we will have to consider different individual subjective objective worlds and, along with them, one completely incomprehensible and certainly not objective Kantian world of “things in themselves.” We cannot consider it either subjective or objective, since it is not directly accessible to us, but only in the form of subjective representations of our consciousness correlated with it. Nevertheless, taking into account the biological and mental similarities of people, as well as the general ways in which people use objects for the same purposes and the similarity of actions with them, it can be argued that the subjective objective physical worlds built by different people are very similar to each other. Therefore, people do not understand that each of them lives in his own physical world, although very similar to the physical worlds of the people around him.
It is obvious that the concepts subjective And objective is unable to reflect the complex relationships between the unique consciousnesses of people and the “reality in itself” surrounding them. Thanks to the similarity of various subjective objective worlds, “common sense” easily and habitually identifies them with each other, turning them into a common “objective physical world” that supposedly exists outside of any individual consciousness. This is how the myth of the only objective objective physical world surrounding us is born. I in no way want to say that the physical world around us does not exist. It certainly exists and is no less real to us than our consciousness.
But we should distinguish between the concepts of “the only objective surrounding us physical world" and “the only objective surrounding us objective physical world." The structures of “reality in itself” are involved in the process of constituting (building) objects with our consciousness, therefore, without our consciousness in the physical world there is no what we consider physical objects. There is something different in it - something that could be called “elements of reality in themselves,” and I. Kant called “things in themselves.” Outside specific person there is a single objective surrounding physical (but not objective) world - “reality in itself” and billions - according to the number of living people, of different, albeit similar, subjective objective worlds.
Let us return to the ideas of “common sense” that are currently dominant in psychology. In accordance with them, the “objective objective world” exists independently of the individual consciousness of each of us, and its objects are “reflected” in each individual consciousness, thereby ensuring its “objectivity”. Moreover, they are “reflected” so equally that individual differences can be neglected. When we perceive an “external real and obvious physical object,” then it is “objective” because:
...its state or function is accessible to public verification, has external manifestations and does not depend (allegedly - Auto.) from internal, mental or subjective experience [Big Explanatory Psychological Dictionary, 2001, p. 541].
However, I will once again repeat I. Kant’s remark that outside our consciousness there is no single objective objective world. And it is our consciousness that creates an object from some incomprehensible “thing in itself”. There is no object outside consciousness. Therefore, there is not an objective single physical table, for example, which is perceived by twenty people sitting around it, but twenty subjective tables. One in the minds of each person sitting. And this is despite the fact that people are confident in the existence of a real physical table outside of their consciousness. We will return to discuss this issue later.
A. Bergson (1992), critically examining the existing situation in philosophy, writes:
Matter for us is a collection of “images”. By “image” we mean a certain kind of being, which is something more than what idealists call representation, but less than what realists call a thing - a type of being located halfway between “thing” and “representation.” . This understanding of matter simply coincides with its common sense. We would greatly surprise a person unfamiliar with philosophical speculation by telling him that the object in front of him, which he sees and touches, exists only in his mind and for his mind, or even more general form, as Berkeley was inclined to do, exists only for spirit in general. Our interlocutor was always of the opinion that an object exists independently of the consciousness that perceives it. But, on the other hand, we would also surprise him by saying that the object is completely different from its perception by us, that there is neither the color that the eye attributes to it, nor the resistance that the hand finds in it. This color and this resistance, in his opinion, are in the object: this is not a state of our mind, these are constitutive elements of an existence independent of ours. Therefore, for common sense, an object exists in itself, as colorful and alive as we perceive it: it is an image, but this image exists in itself [p. 160].
The last phrase of A. Bergson represents the “common sense” point of view that is dominant today in psychology. surrounding a person reality. In this regard, it should be stated that psychology has somehow imperceptibly, but, to put it mildly, very significantly deviated from the main direction of the philosophical teaching about man and the world, created by I. Kant and his followers and considered in philosophy as the main achievement of Kantianism. This deviation is explained by the predominance of “common sense” ideas in the views of psychologists on human consciousness and the reality surrounding it. Most psychologists are familiar with the achievements of philosophy, but nevertheless, in their own theories they gravitate more towards the usual “common sense”, “sensibly” believing: “philosophy is philosophy, and here is the table.” Such ideas absolutely dominate in the psychological literature.
The weakness of the position of those who defend the point of view of the strict distinction between the subjective and the objective is obvious to many authors. Thus, E. Cassirer (2006), for example, writes:
...as it turned out, the same content of experience can be called both subjective and objective, depending on the relation to which logical points of departure it is taken [p. 314–315].
... “objective” in experience means for a scientific-theoretical worldview its unchangeable and necessary elements: however, what exactly in this content is attributed immutability and necessity depends, on the one hand, on the general methodological scale that thinking imposes on experience, and on the other hand on the other hand, it is determined by the current state of knowledge, the totality of its empirically and theoretically verified views. That is why the way in which we apply the conceptual opposition of “subjective” and “objective” in the process of forming experience, in constructing an image of nature, turns out to be not so much a solution to the cognitive problem, but rather its full expression [p. 26].
A. N. Leontiev (1981) says the same thing:
…the opposition between subjective and objective is not absolute and initially given. Their opposition is generated by development, and throughout it, mutual transitions between them are preserved, destroying their “one-sidedness” [p. 34].
Objectivity is also the ability to observe something and present it “strictly objectively.” But man does not have such an ability. ...Therefore, true objectivity is achieved only very approximately and remains an ideal for scientific work [Philosophical encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998, p. 314].
One could say: never achieved. M.K. Mamardashvili (2002) writes:
It would seem that it is possible to establish in the end what “objective” is and how consciousness relates to it. But a strange thing: all philosophers have this problem, and the establishment of what is objective and what relates to consciousness is situational every time. There is no once and for all given something that is always objective, and there is no once and for all given something that is always subjective [p. 166].
Yu. M. Lotman (2004) notes that:
From a naive world, in which reliability was attributed to the usual ways of perceiving and generalizing its data, and the problem of the position of the describer in relation to the described world worried few people, from a world in which the scientist viewed reality “from the position of truth,” science moved into the world of relativity [with . 386], and quotes W. Heisenberg:
...quantum mechanics has put forward an even more serious requirement. We had to completely abandon the objective description of nature in the Newtonian sense, when certain values are assigned to the main characteristics of the system, such as location, speed, energy, and prefer to describe observation situations for which only the probabilities of certain results can be determined. The very words used to describe phenomena at the atomic level thus turned out to be problematic. It was possible to talk about waves or particles, remembering at the same time that we are not talking about a dualistic, but about a completely unified description of phenomena. The meaning of the old words has to some extent lost its clarity.
To generalize as much as possible, we can perhaps say that changes in the structure of thinking are externally manifested in the fact that words acquire a different meaning than they had before, and different questions are asked than before [p. 386].
Relativity of concepts objective And subjective can be easily demonstrated on specific example. What is my mental content, for example, my plan of action for tomorrow? Obviously subjective. But what is it like if you see it laid out on paper in the form of points of upcoming action? Obviously, this is already something objective, since presented in the form of words that can potentially be transformed into the subjective mental content of a specific consciousness, it is accessible to many people.
Understanding the theoretical instability of the considered dichotomy of the world into subjective and objective and the need to replace it in the future with something more adequate, we can try to highlight what is commonly considered objective. The objective world traditionally includes the surrounding objective world, and therefore our perceptual mental representations. The most significant signs of the objectivity of something are:
- accessibility of its representation (perceptual image) to many observers;
- repeatability of his perceptual image under similar observation conditions;
- the similarity of its perceptual images arising from different observers perceiving the object at the same time or from the same observer at different times;
- the relative independence of its perceptual image from the will of the observer;
- the subordination of his perceptual image to physical laws known to the observer, including, for example, the possibility of the reappearance of a similar image in a place expected by the observer under similar conditions of perception and the predictability of possible changes in the image.
It can, however, be said that the signs of the objectivity of a perceived physical entity are the qualities of its image of perception, which immediately calls the very concept of objectivity into question.
What will change if instead of the term “physical object” we use the concept “thing in itself”? In fact, nothing except our recognition of the fact that outside consciousness there is not a physical object, but only “something”, represented in the form of a physical object only in our consciousness. The external world will remain independent of our consciousness, but the concepts of objective and subjective will become useless.
Reproducibility, or repeatability of representation [see, for example: B. G. Meshcheryakov, 2007, p. 51], plays a major role in establishing the sign of objectivity of an object or fact, since it makes it possible to verify the results of perception in a scientific experiment both for the person himself and for other people. At the same time, H. G. Gadamer (2006), for example, questions this feature:
Each of us can consider the verifiability of the results of knowledge to be an ideal. But we must also admit that this ideal can extremely rarely be achieved, and those researchers who are strenuously trying to achieve it mostly cannot tell us anything serious... It must be admitted that the greatest achievements humanities leave the ideal of verifiability far behind. From a philosophical point of view this is very important [p. 509].
© Polyakov S.E. Phenomenology of mental representations. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2011
© Published with the kind permission of the author