The Indispensability of the Subjective-Objective Divide

I have a tendency to comprehend most philosophical topics in straightforward and practical ways. This is no different in the case of discerning subjective from objective matters, an issue that philosophers routinely concern themselves with. My basic stance on the subjective-objective divide is that if something is a matter of personal taste, opinion, or preference then it is subjective. As an example, consider the following subjective statement:

“Pistachio ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream.”

The above statement is representative of my personal opinion, based on my taste, and other people are free to, with equal legitimacy, adopt different positions regarding these two popular ice cream flavors.

On the other hand, if something is a matter of fact (or dare I use an often-reviled term in informal philosophy circles, truth) then it is objective (see the example of an objective statement, infra). This is not to say that I necessarily have a simplistic way of comprehending this divide; without going too far off on this tangent, suffice it for me to say that I recognize the possibility for many real-world matters to be either subjective or objective in varying degrees. To my mind, the most efficacious conceptual instrument to assess the subjective or objective quality of any given matter is a dynamic spectrum rather than two simple, static categories.

My longstanding mode of thinking on this matter has not posed any serious dilemmas for me. In fact, I believe that it has enabled me to judge real-life matters that I have encountered accurately and, consequently, to make a few wise decisions along the way, the result of which has been an improvement in my personal and business life. Obviously, my conviction in my position is not meant to stop intelligent people from forming their own viewpoints regarding this matter. Notwithstanding, I have admittedly come to only either disagree with, or be perplexed by, the alternative position championing subjectivism (i.e., the position that asserts the abject impossibility of objectivity on the grounds that all knowledge is merely subjective). Aware that at least a couple of members of my philosophy discussion club are staunch subjectivists, I recently proposed this topic to gain a better understanding of their reasoning.

While the discussion that ensued was illuminating in the sense that it presented a window into our interlocutors’ reasoning, the reasoning itself was not convincing to me. I will next share with you the four main premises of their reasoning that I was able to gather during our discussion, follow up with my objections to their premises, and allow you to reach your own conclusion.

1. Human beings can never know anything, let alone everything, with complete certainty thereby rendering objectivity impossible.

2. Knowledge regarding any matter (including matters such as those of empirical fact, science, and nature) is a consequence of inherently subjective human consensus thereby rendering objectivity impossible.

3. The nature and use of human language is imprecise. Therefore different people will, based on their differing subjective interpretations, inescapably comprehend and use the term objective differently. Thus all matters defined as objective are done so on the basis of a semantically subjective understanding of the concept thereby rendering them, in actuality, subjective.

4. There exist wholly different versions/conceptions of objectivity. Since different people use different conceptions of objectivity to judge the quality of objectivity of any given matter, there is no such thing as objectivity. Insofar as I could understand our interlocutors, this point, though closely related to, is slightly different from the immediately preceding point in that whereas the prior point stressed differences in comprehending the same conception of objectivity due to semantics, this point stresses the existence of altogether different conceptual edifices of objectivity.

Again, I did not find the aforementioned points meritorious; considering that they are meant to service a rather extreme position, to my mind they bear the onus of being more persuasive. To wit, consider the following objective statement:

“117 year-old Maria Branyas Morera (“MB”), the oldest recorded person alive as of the date of the writing of this blog, is not my biological sibling.”

Let’s now consider how this singular statement of fact serves to undercut each one of the aforementioned points (presented slightly out of order below). 

1. This statement is ascertainable beyond the shadow of a doubt. For one overwhelmingly sufficient thing, MB was born before my parents; ergo they could not have possibly conceived her. This annuls the interlocutors’ first point.

2. I simply do not see how consensus regarding this verifiable and self-evident matter can, in all intellectual honesty or seriousness, be characterized as subjective. To my mind, consensus regarding such a matter can only be of an objective nature. Based on this I can only conclude that this example effectively annuls the interlocutors’ second point.

4. I can be on board with the idea that there may exist different conceptions of objectivity. But, within the context of an objective statement such as the one posed, if there is any conception of objectivity according to which the statement of fact that MB is not my biological sibling ceases to be anything less or other than objective, it is an improper, erroneous, and misleading conception of objectivity, suitable for only rejection. This annuls the interlocutors’ fourth point.

3. I am on board with the idea that different people, due to the idiosyncrasies of their lexicons, conceive of definitions in at least slightly different ways which, in turn, imbues them with at least slightly different understandings of the concept being defined. However, in order for someone to conclude that the factual statement that MB is not my biological sibling is subjective indicates the taking of a degree of liberty with the definition of the word objectivity such that one has veered sufficiently beyond the acceptable range of meaning of the word. In other words, the word no longer signifies that which it is meant to signify. This basically constitutes a misuse of the word objective thereby leading the misuser to an error in understanding the concept and consequently to a faulty conclusion. This annuls the interlocutors’ third point.

Despite a spirited discussion I walked away with my preconceived understanding that subjectivism is indefensible. The assertion that there are no objective facts at all is utterly incoherent; it contains within itself a rogue molecule that subverts its own internal logic thereby rendering the assertion nullified. After all, if all claims are subjective, is not the claim that “all claims are subjective” subjective too?