Objective Subjectivism
By Nicholson, D
This idea proposes a derivative model of subjectivity in which conscious experience, belief, and social meaning arise from objective reality through perceptual, cognitive, and social processes.
Objective Subjectivism is marked by the suggestion that there is no “true” subjectivity, with subjectivity being ontologically dependent on objectivity.
Subjectivity is ontologically contingent on objectivity, which is prior.
All things which are deemed as subjective — thoughts, ideas, emotions, opinions and experiences stem from sensory and perceptual experiences, that of which, we possess by being conscious. Furthermore, it is an objective truth that we are conscious — making us objectively conscious.
Consciousness is defined by experience and awareness of experience, and this, subsequently, generates our own subjective self-model which we know by the pronouns: “me”, “i” or “you”. Objective Subjectivity argues that subjective consciousness is inherently derived from objectivity, just as our senses are, however our brains perceive objective reality in the form of data which is registered by our self-model and processed as information through a subjective lens, and this sets the groundwork for consciousness.
Subjectivity:
Subjectivity is marked by mind — how everybody has their own individual experiences, biases, emotions, thoughts, perspectives and ways of processing information which are unequivocally set apart from one another.
An example could be:
Person 1 doesn’t enjoy horror movies because she/he is frightened by them and was raised in an environment where watching such films wasn’t a commonality. Therefore, they remain vigilant.
They cannot understand how another person could revel in terror.
In paradox, Person 2 has been a fanatic of horror movies since childhood, and is obsessed with the adrenaline-inducing sensation of being jump-scared.
They cannot understand how someone could be aversive to such a feeling.
In this hypothetical scenario, both Person 1 & 2 have opposing stances, and neither of them are objectively wrong, because ultimately, subjectivity is dependent on preferences and indefinitely distinct wiring. This same scenario can be applied to other topics, both on a micro, and macroscopic level.
Its definition is: something is subjective if it is dependent on minds (such as biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imaginary objects, or conscious experiences). If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.
Objectivity:
Something is objective if it exists even without the presence of subjectivity. For example, even if no animal, including us, existed in this universe, the universe would still exist, objectively. It would simply exist with the absence of subjectivity.
Subjectivity didn’t generate their existence, they were predisposed to us; however, without subjectivity, the idea of gravity, physics, the universe becomes both untestable and unfalsifiable, because subjective inferences are what’s necessary to develop a conclusion. However, by no means does this suggest that those inexorable properties are nonexistent without us. It just means our human-constructed concept of them doesn’t.
Another example of an objective statement is “2 + 2 = 4". For example, many people would regard this equation as an objective statement of mathematics.
Both of these elucidations set the groundwork of what defines both axioms of the philosophical concept “subjectivity and objectivity”.
What is an “Axiom”?
An axiom is a statement, postulation or stance that sets the ground for further reasoning and explanation of phenomena. It is often considered the starting point of a postulate which can be developed further. For example, I may postulate that the universe is going to collapse in on itself, and my stance is unshakable. Any form of reasoning or explanation as to why this may occur is a derivative of the centralised notion: “Universe will collapse in on itself”.
What is “Axiomatic Logic”?
Axiomatic logic is a system of reasoning built from a few statements that are accepted as true without proof, and these are called axioms. They are recursive and self-evident truths. An example of this could be God — in the doctrine, the axiom proposes that God is existent; it is unable to be proven false, but too abstract to be labelled as true either.
I.e: one could say “God isn’t real because there is scientific method to infer that the universe emerged 13.8 billion years ago from a cosmic phenomena known as the Big Bang”, but because God is explicitly labelled as all-powerful, all-seeing and omnipresent, the former’s logic collapses.
If God is omnipresent, then it is logically consistent to infer that he exists out of the traditional and linear plane of space-time, transcending it. Consequently, trying to attach finite logic to something that is explicitly defined as infinite leads to self-reference and possible paradox. Those are the grounds for axiomatic logic.
What is a “term”?
In my framework, a “term”, unironically, is a form of terminology used to describe the derivatives from this framework’s core axiom.
Sinian Logic
Sinian Logic is an informal symbolic-logic system of my own. I created it as a tool to examine the causal relationships and patterns between terms and their produced effects.
Terms:
Individualistic Subjectivity (IS)
This term refers to subjectivity, on a unilateral basis.
Collective Subjectivity (CS)
This term refers to an accumulation of symmetrical subjective properties — biases in particular. It is a primary factor in the generation of myths, conventions, stereotypes, norms and values.
Symmetrical
Two or more IS which complement one another.
Asymmetrical
Two or more IS which juxtapose one another.
Objective Truth (OT)
This term refers to an objective truth. For example, it would be an OT that you are existent, right now.
It is also an OT that gravity, matter, energy and planets exist.
Subjective Truth (ST)
This term refers to something that holds subjectively true. For example, this can include perceptual illusions, witnessing something that logically didn’t occur, i.e: an inanimate shadow moving independently. These visual phenomena are illusory, and are often scientifically explained by neuronic misfiring and errors in the visual-cortex, but it holds true to you that you visually encountered these things, therefore being an ST.
Another hypothetical example is vertigo — in this instance, something has disrupted your vestibular system, leading to the perceptual distortion of movement. You’re not actually moving, despite how it appears subjectively. That is an ST.
Objective (o)
This term refers to objectivity.
Subjective (s)
This term refers to subjectivity.
Justified True Belief (JTB)
Justified True Belief is not an idea of my own, but rather a frame of reasoning constructed by ancient philosopher Plato. Plato suggests that a belief can only be proven true if there is justification (J) — which effectively means reasoning. That is what makes a justified true belief.
I found that JTB can be used to define forms of reasoning and truths in the Perceptualogy subpage.
Perception (PC)
This term refers to perception.
Bounded (⊆)
This term refers to our human cognitive limits.
Mind (M)
This term refers to our individual minds.
Coincidence (C)
This term refers to probabilistic coincidences.
An example of this: if I believe that it’s going to rain in the next hour without rationality, and it starts raining, technically, my belief was proven objectively true, but there was no logic to support it, henceforth, making it coincidental.
Differentiation (d)
This term refers to differentiations in subjective perspectives in correlation to CS (Collective Subjectivity); it’s dependent on how many people are in that collection and the quantity of differences in one (or more, but this would be increasingly complex) specific perspective(s) is/are.
Micro-society (MIS)
This term refers to micro-societies. A micro-society is marked by a collective group of individuals who adhere to a small system with its own rules, norms and taboos — these rules are often derived from those in macro-society (MAS). Examples of a micro-society are the education system, the judicial system and can even go to something as diminutive as a family, as they too, usually have their own systematic values which are conformed to.
Get sin0typy’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Macro-society (MAS)
This term refers to macro-society, which is the global, ubiquitous system of which we live in.
Filtered (f) or (l) — limited, both can be used interchangeably
This term refers to filtered/limited.
Systemic Principles (▢)
This symbolic term represents the building blocks of society — a component of CS.
Society (○)
This symbolic term represents the circular structure of society.
Outlier (A)
An outlier (A — for anomaly) is a person who is non-conformant to the rigid systemic norms and values of society (both micro and macro-societies)
Objective
This is the core axiom of Objective Subjectivity. Objectiveness is postulated as the deterministic agent of this framework, an axiom, and all terms are derived from it.
For example: it is objectively true that we exist, and objectivity warrants our existence, subjectivity is a byproduct which stems from this axiom. Subjectivity is dependent on an objectively existent mind, because without cognition, there is no consciousness (experience + awareness of experience), and therefore, no subjectivity.
This is circular logic. Circular/self-referential logic refers to a system where the beginning and the end are one in the same.
For example, your mother tells you to “go to bed”.
. (2) You ask — “why?”.
. (3) She states: “because it is. bedtime.”
Both the beginning and end are symmetrical. Notice the pattern?
An objective existence is necessary for subjectivity to remotely exist. It has to be objectively true that you, right now, are existent — which you all reading this right now, are.
Because an objective existence (a part of objectivity) warrants consciousness, which generates our subjective nature, subjectivity is dependent on this theorem’s axiom — “objective”.
Therefore, an objective existence is necessary for subjectivity to remotely exist.
There is a distinction between S and O, and I don’t intend to distort it, but what I’m getting at is that epistemologically, S is derived from O, but filtered (F) and ⊆ (bounded by) M (mind). So therefore, in the grand sense, it could be audaciously reasonable to assume that because S is derived from O, it is an OT, and therefore, inherently objective. This doesn’t change the fact that O and S are two distinct things, but it gives epistemological reasoning to the derivation of S from O.
Collective Subjectivity influences individual minds (IS) through ritualistic and rather binary practices (right and wrong, good and evil, correct and incorrect), but individualistic subjectivity stems from CS in that regard. All symbols are acting simultaneously, forming this expression as a result.
Collective Subjectivity
OR -> ○ -> mis^(f) + IS = CS;
Individualistic Subjectivity
OR -> ▢ -> DA -> P^(l) = IS
OS: Labelling Theory and Objective Subjectivism
Labelling Theory suggests that society has rigid systemic norms and values. Those who transgress those standards, are stereotyped and thereby continuously labelled as deviants, being ostracized as a consequence. In stark similarity to this, Objective Subjectivism entails that society consists of a densely rigid moral structure, and is ridden by conventional stereotypes: binary morality, norms and values, which almost seems like an internal contradiction within society itself because all of these principles are down to the beholder, and shouldn’t be ritualistic. We build our own subjective perspectives on this moral structure which we’ve been socialized into, and raised to maintain structural stability in society. In avoidance of vilification or being prosecuted, we strip ourselves off our agency by adhering to consensus. In addition, micro-societies are an inherent foundation of macro-society (micro-societies include the Criminal Justice System, the Education System, governments, etc) which maintain order and rigidity within macro-society. Those who are non-conformant (A — outliers) are ostracized as a consequence.
OS: Micro-societies, macrosociety and the significance of a systemic hierarchy
One could argue from a teleological stance that the societal hierarchy is necessary, acting reminiscent of a shield and without it, the system would collapse in on itself. Devoid of subjectivity, there is no objective systemic hierarchy, because hierarchies are synthesized through generations of collectively subjective perspectives aligning (consensuses) and societal systems i.e, politics, monarchy and governments imposing their control on those who sit lower on the ladder. I propose micro-societies and the macro-society; micro-societies include mini-powerhouses in society, almost like principles which maintain structural stability such as the education system, the judiciary system, prison system — the list could go on indefinitely, even to the point of families which have their own independent norms and values, caused by CS (collective subjectivity).
Micro-societies influence macro-society and are intertwined with the synthesis of conventional perceptions, aesthetic value, stereotypes and labelling — all caused by collective subjectiveness; but these miniature systems are responsible for maintaining systemic stability. Without governance, there would be no laws, and without laws, there is no such thing as a crime. What is morally unscrupulous could be committed with no repercussions, and the global crime-rate may sky-rocket astronomically. In addition, human pathology would change; our internal perceptions of what is morally scrupulous and insidious would alter heavily, because a lot of our moral standards are influenced by governments (which creates law, manipulating conventional norms and values indirectly) because CS → IS; however in this hypothetical society, on the individual level, we wouldn’t be absent of morality, because our prefrontal cortex is responsible for logical reasoning, abstract thinking, moral understanding, impulse control and decision making — so in essence, our brains are hardwired to generate individualistic moral codes. I believe that morality would be less CS and more IS, whereas in our current worldline, it is the juxtaposition. In essence, the societal hierarchy is necessary for systemic stability, and if it was absent, society would collapse in on itself — the domino-effect would still occur, but backwards, not forwards, leading to systemic and humanistic atavism.
OS: Perceptualogy — Sub-branch to Objective Subjectivism
Justified True Belief is the epistemological idea that was first proposed by Plato, distinguishing a mere belief from a justified truth. In order for a belief to be deemed true, there has to be some kind of reasoning or evidence to prove a claim. This reasoning is called justification (J), which when applied to a belief (B), it can be assessed as true or false. However, correlating this idea to my framework, I believe the plausibility of our acquisition, justification, and accumulation of knowledge is not as simple of a binary as “yes” or “no”. I propose it can be possible in some circumstances. For example, if someone hears food and smells food being made downstairs and believes someone is making food (B — belief), and goes downstairs to find reasoning for their belief (J — justification) and finds it to be true (T), then that means they have justified, true knowledge, and it can be proven to be the truth. However, it can be the other way around. One can go downstairs and find food not being made, making their belief erroneous. However, they can be correct about other things. I propose that the dichotomy of true and false is reliant on sensory data and subjective perception, albeit limited by our cognition. Some things can be merely coincidental. For example, if I believe that it’s going to rain in the next hour without rationality, and it starts raining, in technicality, yes, my belief was correct, but there was no logic to support it, making it coincidental.
In other words, if there is no logic to support your belief, it’s a coincidence.
OR → D + P = IS → STB (Subjectively True Belief) + JA (Justification absent)→. Event happens = C (Coincidence)
In addition, there are some objective things we truly cannot grapple with, such as God’s existence or death, because they’re too abstract for our understanding. Our subjective perspectives are limited by human cognition.
However, in paradox, there are things which can be backed through J, T, B, such as a fly being in the room, whether you’re going to be sick, or other things backed by sensory experience. That can be proven to be true, therefore one being correct. But the belief and reasoning of that knowledge is perceptual. Things which aren’t perceptual but conceptual (abstraction), such as time, omnipotence, or beyond death, are beyond our mortal understanding. Therefore, we succumb to circularity when trying to debate it. There is no empirical nor rational (because rationality is limited) justification for that belief, therefore making arguments against abstraction recursive and self-referential without abstract reasoning.
However, if there is a fly in the room, devoid of subjectivity, that means it’s an OT (objective truth) that there is a fly in the room.
But if our subjectivity captures it through layers of human cognition, and perceptually identifies and believes there’s a fly in the room, and then it buzzes around him, then that means it’s JTB. But does JTB refer to an OT?
Does JTB = OT?
If it does, that means it may be easier to distinguish the two terms despite JTB being derived from objective truths. JTB (limited, filtered by cognition) and OT.
Because JTB (our subjective inferences of objectivity) is a derivative of OT (objectiveness), this backs my OS idea that subjectivity is ultimately derived from objectiveness.
OT ← B (belief) + J (justification/reasoning, but that reasoning is inferred from objectivity) = T (truth), or in other words JTB. However, I propose that JTB can be split into two terms to encapsulate both the subjective and objective elements of it.
Subjectivity: dependent on the mind. Subjective preference, experience, and perspective.
Objectivity: the concept of something being independent of the mind. Example: the universe, physics, and the sciences are rationalized as objective because they can be empirically measured.
Fact: something that’s justified as objectively true by someone with a subjective perspective, usually due to empirical measurement.
Empirical measurement: “Empirical measurement is the process of quantifying phenomena through direct observation, sensory experience, or experimentation, relying on real-world data and verifiable evidence rather than just theory.”
Justified True Beliefs (JTB). Belief > justification > truth/fact. Two subtypes of these:
JTB — OJB -(1): justification backed by logic, the scientific method, mathematics, reasoning, and other rigorous and predictive systems.
JTB — SJB — (2): influenced by emotions and opinions; can be justified as wrong against reason. They are both subjective because they must be.
(1) Subjectivity objectively exists.
(2) It is contingent on objectively existing.
(3) Therefore, it is derived from objectivity.
(1) Argument: Objectivity is just a categorization.
(2) Counterargument: That categorization requires one with an objective existence in order to remotely identify the binary definitional nature of objectivity and subjectivity.
(3) Counterintuitive-counterargument: Dichotomous categories lose inherent meaning and semantic consistency when deconstructed, and dichotomies are mutually contingent on each of their categorical counterparts.
(1) Subjectivity is marked by mind-dependence.
(2) Mind-dependence isn’t truly mind-dependent if it requires a mind-independent existence. The brain isn’t mind-independent, subjectivity generated by it is. If subjectivity is generated by the brain, and the brain objectively exists, then B is dependent on a mind-independent existence.
(3) OEB (Objectively Existing Brain) generates S, but OEB is marked by the axiom O.
(1) Objectivity grounds subjectivity. S is ontologically dependent on O.
This informal framework suggests that subjectivity and objectivity converge ontologically, with the only divergence being definitional.
Nicholson, D.
OS: Visual diagrams
