1

This question seems to be at the very hart of philosophy? How do we know that a property of an object is part of the object itself? When is the propery objective? Can the object be seen when standing on its own? How (if) can we know how an object looks like? Will we be able to see if the object has cöntent? Is this again an objective content? Is there more to reality than objects with content or must they be considered in a wider objective perspective. Has the wider objective perspective to be considered a part of an objective reality? Can we ever objectively know this wider reality? Is ultimately all objective reality dependent on the contents that the objective reality may posses? Can we experience this content by litterally swallowing the objective reality, say by eating? Are we ourselves part an objective reality that can be studied from the outside but experienced from the inside only? How does one even define objectivity? Is subjectivity involved? Are subjects objects too? Does it make sense to make the distinction at all (this seems to be the attitude of modern science). Etcetera, etcetera.

It might look as if I'm guiding the reader towards some kind of preconceived notion of reality. But this is not the case. These questions can be asked within every culture. For example, the Eucharist is swallowed to get closer to God. Gods are thought to objectively exist in ancient Greece. This doesn't mean that they were objects but that they existed independently of people.It's a truly philosophical question and it's maybe not asked in the cultures themselves (Aboriginals won't ask this question about their Dreamtime nor will Muslims ask this question about Allah; they exist and any questioning can endanger them). Can the philosophical question be answered in a non philosophical way, say in a historical, antropological, mathematical, or theoretically physical way? Or in a religious way?
Will we always be bound to culture? Is this the old struggle between relativism ang objectivism all over again? Is relativism objective? Or...? But the main question is: What is an objective property? Any contribution is welcome!

2
  • That's more than one question.
    – CriglCragl
    Jun 24 at 9:46
  • @CriglCragl There are a lt in the body indeed (to say the least...). But only one in the head The body merely functions to give some meat to the head, The main question is about the objective property. What is it? Jun 24 at 10:10
1

Objectivity is just reified intersubjectivity. It assumes a 'mind of god' perspective implicitly. There is no totally objective, or totally subjective: Is experience a real thing?

Intersubjectivity: Does there exist truly objective thoughts? Reality is like Indra's Net, or like a peer-to-peer network.

This perspective can accommodate the Private Language Argument, while also allowing a way to say social conventions around meanings can be misguided (language is use, but that use can be inconsistent or incoherent, viewed 'as though you were them').

Why our cognitive biases lead us to intuit objectivity: Is the idea of a causal chain physical (or even scientific)?

The key thing about Greek states was you could get executed for questioning things such as deities, like Socrates was (What did Socrates teach which lead to his conviction that he spoiled youth and taught other Gods?). Aristotle was 'only' exiled. Christian states used the same tactics. And apostasy is still very seriously a crime in many Islamic countries. I'd link this to Durkheim's understanding of religion, as providing social cohesion through enacting shared attitudes to sacred values - making habeus corpus & free speech literally sacred, on the same template. Challenge the value, challenge something that brings about the societies coherence. Durkheim was a foundational sociologist, so this is a sociological perspective on religious truth, rather than treating it as about epistemological or cosmological truths.

1

From the point of view of the activity of the non-transcendental ego cogito, everything else is an object. However, this still appreciates that blue of the sky is a mental construct of a mental construct.

From Heidegger's Off the Beaten Track, page 191, recounting Nietzsche

The overman does not, and not ever, step into the place of God; rather the place for the overman's will is another realm of another grounding of beings in their other being. This other being of beings has meanwhile (and this marks the beginning of modem metaphysics) become subjectity.

All that is is now either what is real [das Wirkliche] as an object, or what is effective [das Wirkende] as the objectifying within which the objectivity of objects is formed. Objectifying delivers up [stellt zu] the object to the ego cogito by representing it [vor-stellend]. In this delivery, the ego proves itself to be that which lies at the basis of its own activity, its own representing delivery [vor-stellenden Zu-stellen]: the subiectum. The subject is subject for itself. The essence of consciousness is self-consciousness. All beings, for that reason, are either the object of the subject or the subject of the subject. Everywhere the being of beings is based on posing a self before itself [Sich-vor-sich-selbst-stellen] and thus in imposing a self [Sich-auf-stellen]. Man rises up within the subjectity of beings into the subjectivity of his essence. Man enters into the uprising. World becomes object. In this insurgent objectification of all beings, that which must previously have been brought into the disposal of representation and production [Vor- und Her-stellens] - earth - moves into the center of human setting and confronting. ...

2
  • There is a lot of self reference (Selb-Referenz) going on here! But I appreciate. Jun 24 at 15:56
  • Do you mean by "blue is a mental of a mental construct" the word blue? Or the blue itself? Jun 24 at 17:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.