Subjectivity and Objectivity

The distinction between what is subjective in perception and what is objective is often thought to be that the objective is "real" while the subjective is "illusion". But really, as has been known since Parmenides, the subjective must be every bit as real as the objective. For what is subjective exists as subjectivity - and therefore exists in reality. A hallucination, strictly speaking, is just as real as true sight. The difference is that a hallucination is a phenomenon having its being in the brain, and not outside the brain or in front of the face of the one who hallucinates. Hallucinations and dreams are real, every bit as real as true sight; the difference between these and true sight not being that one is real and the other not real. Rather, the difference between hallucinations and true sight is that the first misleads the subject into misinterpretation and false beliefs, while the other (true sight) leads the subject to true knowledge.

Hallucinations and dreams, as phenomena, have their existence within the human brain, and as such are every bit as real as the sight of a tree or stone. That the subject may believe the hallucination of a demon to mean that there is a creature in front of his face is the way the subjective has misled him. But the hallucination, strictly speaking, is a very real phenomenon, having its being, instead of in the external world of the one who hallucinates, inside of that person's brain. The difference between the subjective and the objective here is that the subjective has its reality - reality just as real - misinterpreted as belonging to outer things. The "inner things", commonly called subjective, are existing in space and time just like the outer, only existing as phenomena within the cranium; which is certainly within the compass of space and time, and every bit as real as what is outside the cranium.

When a man with cold hands runs lukewarm water over his fingers, he may sense that the water is scalding hot. This is often thought of as "subjective illusion" but the fact is that it is, as phenomena, just as objective as anything. In this case it is the coldness of the man's hands he is feeling under the water, and the relative coldness of his hands when compared to the water. He may believe that "The water is hot" - a false belief, a misinterpretation. But the sensation itself is due to circumstances every bit as real as anything. It is only that he is feeling in this case the contrast between the coldness in his hands and the warmth of the water compared - certainly this sensation has its basis in reality as much as anything; in this case the sensation being due to a very real lack of warmth in his hands when contrasted with the temperature of the water. The subjective in this case is not of any different quality, or degree, of reality, than the objective; the only difference between them is that the man is led to the false belief that the water is hot.

There is another interpretation of what is subjective, having to do with the manner in which an English professor will call a given category of grade a "subjective" category. When he grades the essays he will score them on several points, and one of them will be a "subjective" grade, something he will say simply boils down to his own impressions of how the student did. This "subjective" category in grading is contrasted with "objective" scores such as true or false, or multiple choice, exams, in which the student, in a clear-cut manner, is correct or not. These "objective" multiple-choice-type grades can be calculated by a machine and there is no need for any interpretation having to do with the professor's general impressions. In this sense the subjective would be what a given group of human beings may disagree about, all opinions being equally valid, with no dependable means to decide just who is right and who is wrong. What the greatest novel of the 20th century may be is one such subjective question. Someone will say it is Ulysses, someone else will say it is Tropic of Cancer and another will say it is Catch-22. All these are opinions men and women are bound to disagree about, with no definite means to decide who is right, all the opinions equally valid. However, the fact that there is no means of determining this question of what is the greatest novel of the 20th century does not mean that there is no such thing as a truly good novel or a truly bad one, as the aesthetic relativist will hold. I do not intend to get into the sticky issue of the aesthetic relativism versus absolutism here; but suffice it to say that, while those who study literature will think any of the three novels I noted above could be considered the best of the 20th century, with no means of determining the true best novel, anybody who says that the best novel is The Bridges of Madison County is, quite simply - and even objectively - wrong.

Nor does utilizing a "subjective" category of a student's performance mean it is not an accurate assessment of that performance, simply because it cannot be quantified and determined with complete precision; if such "subjective" categories of grades were, after all, not at least to a large extent accurate - in an objective way, however inexact they may be - no college would allow such categories that determine students' grades to be employed.

Thus, we may consider that the difference between subjectivity and objectivity is in this sense: it is that the subjective is what men and women may disagree about with no means of determining who is right, with the various contrary opinions all valid once they are sufficiently close to the mark. The objective, on the other hand, is what men and women will not disagree about; or, if they do, there is a way of determining who is right and who is wrong with complete accuracy, contrary opinions not all being valid.

A telling and popularly known experiment dealing with subjectivity and objectivity is found in those ink drawings that can be seen as representing one or the other of two images. If one looks at the picture one way, it will appear to be that of an old hag; but let one emphasize another interpretation, and it will appear to be a beautiful young lady. The visual apparatus does not merely take in rays of light and present them to the mind uninterpreted; rather, the light is processed and analyzed unconsciously, so that it may present to the mind not only the light that hits the eyes, but the proper interpretation of that light. We see either the image of an old hag or young lady, in these optical illusion pictures, depending upon the interpretation of the visual stimulus the mind decides to present to itself.

This point can be seen clearly with the example of digital photographs seen on the computer. Really, all there are on a computer screen are pixels of varying colors and degrees of brightness. There is no such thing as an "image" in the pixels themselves; according to the computer it is just a series of little pixels programmed to shine with a certain wavelength. It is the unconscious mind, in its visual process of analysis, which presents the "picture" of, say, Abraham Lincoln, seen there on the computer screen. The "picture" of Abraham Lincoln does not have its reality in the computer screen itself; rather, the picture of Abraham Lincoln comes about solely in the brain's interpretation of those pixels and their brightness or darkness. Some creature with a different sort of brain - say, a dog - does not see the same thing. Dogs cannot see a TV or computer screen in the way in which human beings do, not because their optical nerves are not carrying the same signals (minus the color), but because their brains, in their method of processing those light signals, do not present to their minds the same interpretations of them.

When we look at the picture that can appear conversely as an old hag or beautiful young lady, these pictures are not different from anything we should see at all, except in that the human mind is likely to have two mutually exclusive interpretations rather than a single one that will be similar for all people at all times. When we look at the Mona Lisa, there is not this psychological ambiguity such as in the "optical illusion" ink drawings that have such various possible interpretations by our psyche. There is not a difference in these two cases, except that the double-interpretation picture happens to play on the human method of analyzing light waves in a way that the Mona Lisa does not. But speaking in terms of objectivity, there is no "portrait of a lady" in the Mona Lisa in-itself. All that is there are paint splotches and streaks of various colors. The "portrait of the lady" is merely a result of the mind's method of analysis, which it uses to present to us coherent pictures. Whether we draw a picture out of random inkblots, out of a double-interpretation drawing, or the Mona Lisa, none of these pictures are in the objects in-themselves at all. They arise out of a function of the psyche, with its perhaps arbitrary method of processing light before it is presented to the mind.

Really, when we look at, say, a wooded valley, our brains are processing light rays that are purely local. We do not see the valley floor, but our optical nerves merely take in a series of light waves that are in purely local contact with the retina. These light waves are not on the valley floor at all, but touching the surfaces of our eyes. But we may still yet call these light rays objective data, data having to do with the valley floor itself, since this are wherefrom the light waves were last given off. Yet when we see "objects" like trees, flowers, and the like, this is merely the brain's method of interpreting and processing the light waves - it is not in the "thing in-itself" on the valley floor that we see. This is a purely optical function of the brain - the brain presents to the mind not the bare data of light waves, but processes these waves, such that they form coherent pictures of objects for us. But just as in the Mona Lisa we are not seeing a true "portrait of a lady", when we see a tree on the valley floor, there is not, strictly speaking, a given tree there; but this is another example of the mind not only taking in light waves, but analyzing them so that when it presents the images to us, they are translated into coherent images of objects.

And so we are led to the conclusion that there is no distinction between the subjective and the objective. When I say, "There is a computer in front of me" this really means only, "I see a computer in front of me." The object I call a computer arises not out of an objective perception of the light in front of my face, but the methods and means by which my brain processes light waves. That all human beings will see the same object, then, results in the universal psychological structures belonging to all humans, by which means perceptions are processed and presented to the mind. Really, the object, "the computer", comes about through the mind's analysis and interpretation of the light waves hitting my eyes, and not these data in their pure, raw form.

But there is still yet a coherent distinction between the subjective and objective to be found here. Let us go back to our definition that the subjective is that about which there are bound to be equally valid contrary opinions; while the objective is what, if men and women disagree about their nature, one can be said to be right, another wrong, without all opinions being valid. We shall propose, then, that the objective is what, in terms of sense-perception, is common to all human beings, given the universal structures of their brains. That all human beings will see a computer on my desk, should they come into my room, is not commentary on what the computer really is (if it is an object at all). Rather, it is commentary on the fact that all human brains are structured such that they will interpret the light waves coming from this object as a computer. The "computer" really comes about by means of psychological processing of raw sense data; but insofar as all human minds are bound to agree about what they see, due to the universal methods by which human brains analyze light-wave data, these things are considered objective. All human brains are bound to agree not due to there being ultimately "real" interpretations of a given phenomenon, but due to a commonality between all human brains, and their methods of interpreting the raw sense data.

So the subjective is what human beings will disagree about in their interpretation, things having to do with what strikes one as the most beautiful flower, or the most pleasing seashore. What is objective is not based upon solid reality existing in the world, but has to do with more universal and fundamental structures of the human brain, which eliminates any variation person-to-person in what all human minds will present to themselves as the interpretation of the sense data. And so insofar as human psyches are variable due to happenstance, culture, and personal history, this is what is meant by the subjective. Perceptions and opinions that are bound to be variable, and can be considered equally valid when contrary to one another, could then be considered subjective. The objective has its being, then, not in some outer "reality", but in the fundamental commonality between all human minds, which eliminates variation in opinion and perception, so that people are not likely to disagree about the nature of the topic at hand. Both the subjective and objective are due to internal psychological processes, but insofar as those processes act the same way universally among all human minds, this is what is meant by these perceptions being objective.

Angelhaunt.net: Because earth's madness is heaven's sense.