Is love Subjective

Introductions and Personal Notes
1

Greetings

I’m new to this forum, but am i huge Ayn Rand admirer, her books reach out across the ages, as only the really good do. Her views on individualism renew one’s faith in humanity, something which i often doubt.

The question i have is this: while it is definitely important to be objective, to try and remove any self-imposed blinkers (when doing anything), truth is both subjective and objective.

For example, my grandparents are ancient, but love each other very much - they’re still lovesick teenagers - and the truth is that they still love each other. But that love is not objective, it is a purely subjective experience. Taking this further, every one of us is unique, and sees the world in completely different ways. I believe that part of “the” problem is that we have no way of actually measuring subjectivity.

Or am i getting confused between objectivism and objectivity?

I am sure i will be able to clarify this question if more are asked, but that’s the end of my concentration span now.

2

Welcome to the forum.

When you speak of your grandparents’ love for each other being subjective, do you mean that they have no reasons for loving each other? Or, do you mean something else?

3

Some quick definitions:

Intrinsic: exists in reality apart from consciousness

Objective: exists in a consciousness that has a specific relationship to reality, i.e. a consciousness that volitionally conforms to reality

Subjective: exists in consciousness without any reference to reality.

People sometimes use the term objective as in “objective reality” to mean reality as it exists without any input from consciousness. This is an error. In order for something to be an object it has to be an object of something, that something being consciousness.

SoftwareNerd’s response is correct. In order for love to be truly subjective, it has to be completely independant of reality. Love, however, is NOT independant of reality; you have to love someone for something, namely their values and virtues.

Since “truth” is determined exclusively by how well an idea, ANY idea, conforms to reality there can be no such thing as a subjective “truth” . . . it would be truth without any way to determine truth or falsehood. It would be like a color-blind person declaring arbitrarily that something is purple. There’s no basis for comparison and so the word is meaningless. In order for an idea to be true, it must be objective.

Edited to remove reference to moved post.

4

Everything that editorgialis had to say on this subject is complete and utter bull.

Those posts only dealt marginally with this thread, they have been moved here (link).

5

ok - i see about the editorgialis, it is similar.

The love that is real cannot be seen by us, it is inside them. It is not dependant on any external factor, and is not really measurable in any objective way. It may involve other objective items (eg house etc) but is not dependant. I disagree that love has to be based upon specific virtues, you can love someone without even liking them, or knowing what attracts you (thats the romantic in me)

The definitions you gave JMeganSnow i agree with, but where my breakdown in understanding comes in is with reference to reality.

My reality is not your reality. Objective can only be what we agree it to be.

The reality in my head is real, and is the only thing i can add to objectivity, which is a set of common knowlege. Anybody who steps outside the common perception is said to be mad. Yet from what i’ve seen, history is good at labeling geniuses as mad, the common, objective view was that they were mad. Galileo was one of these, and his reality (what we now consider truth) was set aside by the objective church. Reality and truth are not the same.

While a subjective person can see the objective view, the objective view cannot accept the truth belonging to a single person (or even a group) should their reality differ from the objective view. Thus is truth lost.

Now as i understand, objectivism realises the value of the individual’s testimony, but objectivity would disregard it.

To re-inforce: i have things (events and knowledge) in my head which i know to be true, i saw them happen, but objectively are denied. Does that mean:

a) i am lying / misinformed

B) i am mad / delusional

c) i have forgotten

d) there’s a problem

I am here, i am real, and i am (i hope) sane. Despite this, in a court of law i would need witnesses to corroberate any statements i may make - otherwise it is hearsay. That objectively flies my truth out the window. Or am i a blind man screaming PURPLE!?

6

My reality is not your reality. Objective can only be what we agree it to be.

The reality in my head is real, and is the only thing i can add to objectivity, which is a set of common knowlege. Anybody who steps outside the common perception is said to be mad. Yet from what i’ve seen, history is good at labeling geniuses as mad, the common, objective view was that they were mad. Galileo was one of these, and his reality (what we now consider truth) was set aside by the objective church. Reality and truth are not the same.

There is only one reality, it is our responsibility to perceive it and interpret our perceptions accurately. Galileo did just this, he looked at reality as it is, and deduced that the common views about Earth were wrong. He didn’t make up his own reality.

While a subjective person can see the objective view, the objective view cannot accept the truth belonging to a single person (or even a group) should their reality differ from the objective view. Thus is truth lost.

Now as i understand, objectivism realises the value of the individual’s testimony,  but objectivity would disregard it.

To re-inforce: i have things (events and knowledge) in my head which i know to be true, i saw them happen, but objectively are denied. Does that mean:

a) i am lying / misinformed

B) i am mad / delusional

c) i have forgotten

d) there’s a problem

I am here, i am real, and i am (i hope) sane. Despite this, in a court of law i would need witnesses to corroberate any statements i may make - otherwise it is hearsay. That objectively flies my truth out the window. Or am i a blind man screaming PURPLE!?

As there is only one reality, there is only one truth. Do you have specific things you believe to be true or were you just giving that as a general example? Your court example doesn’t follow, it’s a separate issue dealing with the burden of proof in law.

7

Abraxus, you continue misusing the term objective. You cannot say you accept my definitions and then fail to use them. “Reality” is not the content of your consciousness.

8

I have things (events and knowledge) in my head which I know to be true, Isaw them happen, but Objectively are denied. Does that mean:

a ) I am lying / misinformed

B ) I am mad / delusional

c ) I have forgotten

d ) There’s a problem

I’d say: (d) “there’s a problem.”

9

Since “truth” is determined exclusively by how well an idea, ANY idea, conforms to reality there can be no such thing as a subjective “truth” . . . it would be truth without any way to determine truth or falsehood.  It would be like a color-blind person declaring arbitrarily that something is purple.  There’s no basis for comparison and so the word is meaningless.  In order for an idea to be true, it must be objective.

But if both objective and subjective “truths” can incorporate consciousness, how can one tell whether it is objective or subjective? Is it by comparing your ideas with others and picking out the ones that are similar? that seems like a very anti-objectivism idea.

10

The love that is real cannot be seen by us, it is inside them.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and conclude that English is not your native language, so some of the confusion you’re exuding could have to do with language problems, which are most acute with technical concepts. That said, let me just pick on this one statement of yours. What purpose would you have in saying something like that? Surely you do not think that anyone believes that love is visible, weighable, or smellable. Whatever you mean by “real love” versus “false love”, neither type can be seen. Why? Because it is a property of a consciousness: and consciousnesses are “inside us”, they are not on the outside (as our skin is). So you haven’t said anything at all, other than uttering words. What did you mean to say? And why not just say it literally and directly?

It is not dependant on any external factor, and is not really measurable in any objective way.

But it is: love depends very much on the object that you love. Apart from self-love, the object you are loving is external to yourself (that’s in the nature of the word “self”). Love can be measured, in fact: open ITOE to page 16.

My reality is not your reality. Objective can only be what we agree it to be.

The is the basis error you’re making. There is no such thing as “my reality” and “your reality”. There is simply “reality”, period. There is also “me” and “you”; and, to be really painfully explicit, you are not me. Reality is what it is, and it does not change depending on the person. That which is, is. Period. What you’re thinking is, maybe, “I don’t want the same things that you want”, which may be because my nature is different from your nature. That is totally different from saying that there is no consistent reality. Objectively speaking, he (whoever he may be) can say "You want this, and he wants that, and your need particular need relates to this fact about you, and his particular need relates to that fact about him. Reality is what it is, independent of how you understand it. Kant’s shtick was that reality is what you want it to be. In Objectivism, we go the path of “A=A”.

You seem to be stuck with a load of metaphors and popular platitudes: you could just drop them, and focus on just making more direct and literally true statements.

11

But if both objective and subjective “truths” can incorporate consciousness, how can one tell whether it is objective or subjective? Is it by comparing your ideas with others and picking out the ones that are similar? that seems like a very anti-objectivism idea.

No, it is by pointing to the particular, relevant facts of reality. Since there is no such thing as a “subjective truth”, your statement can be reduced to ‘objective truth can incorporate consciousness’. But again, since there is only one kind of truth, even the adjective objective is unnecessary – it’s self evident from the term that that’s what we mean. Furthermore, truth must incorporate consciousness; specifically, it must incorporate a recognition, specifically of a relationship between a proposition and reality. I interpret your question as asking “How do we know what the truth is”, and thus the answer "by pointing to facts of reality (and by stating what those factual relations are, when not self-evident).

12

For example, my grandparents are ancient, but love each other very much - they’re still lovesick teenagers - and the truth is that they still love each other. But that love is not objective, it is a purely subjective experience. Taking this further, every one of us is unique, and sees the world in completely different ways. I believe that part of “the” problem is that we have no way of actually measuring subjectivity.

Or am i getting confused between objectivism and objectivity?

Your confusion isn’t between Objectivism and objectivity, although the two are not the same - objectivity, in Objectivist ethics, is a virtue, not the entire philosophy.

Your confusion is a common one, propogated by the subjectivists’ package-dealing of the subjective with the personal. I first saw this package-deal identified by Betsy Speicher (whom I have found to be very helpful in understanding Objectivism), who explained that perspectives, experiences, and emotions which vary from person to person are not necessarily subjective, but personal phenomena. Such experiences may be entirely objective, provided they consist of a consciousness’ grasp and/or assessment of a fact(s) of reality.

There is only one objective reality, perceived by all conscious beings. Which facts each consciousness identifies, and how it evaluates them can vary from consciousness to consciousness. In subjectivism, there is no single reality percieved by every consciousness - reality is, in effect, invented or distorted by consciousness in some manner.

13

Hmmm … a sticky one here … thanks Dondidigitalia - i think i understand a bit better, and i like the way you split it.

I am no expert on this, but quantum mechanics suggests that the objective reality is influenced by the observer. This is causing a complete review of how we understand reality. Jung’s collective unconscious also at super-real interaction between what can be called objective reality and what people think of it.

http://www.geodrome.demon.co.uk/lab.htm outlines an experiment where an egg yolk was separated from the white in a tank of saline (see also http://ledpup.dyns.net/RedThread/Webpages/…kineticArt.html )

This flies in the face of “common reality” and suggests that her mind is powerful enough to influence our reality. It is also from an experience of the supernatural that i posed my earlier question regarding my own sanity.

I agree that there is a common view, but setting it as a stand alone option seems not to fit all scenarios.

We know that matter is only energy. We know that energy appears in many forms, and i believe that we have not discovered all the forms in which energy is found.

We as humans have a link between this pure matter and the ethereal (this covers all non-physical attributes, from love to intelligence, although intelligence could possibly be neural). Within this small space of unknown, where our energy acts within the realm of energy-at-large, or the universe, certain things happen which destroy any ideas we may have of the universe as fixed (even though english IS my first language, i am trying to choose words carefully) and independent of anything we may think of it, a number of discoveries deny this view.

All of us know the tearing agonies of love, and the power of the emotion, the thought that the emotion ALONE can have any effect seems ludicrous, but many anecdotes and stories could suggest that love does in fact change the universe.

I am trying hard to avoid the difference between love changing the universe, and love changing me who will go out and change the universe.

JMeganSnow: to you what is in my head is not reality, it’s “what’s in that weirdos head” but to me it is literally all i’ve got, and to me, as with all other “intelligent” life forms it is my ONLY reality. It can encompass what we agree to call reality (your “real” reality) but your reality and scientific reality are only an aspect of my personal reality.

It is a fine line that exists merely for my own sanity, but is valid since our perceptions of reality are to us (as observers / philosophers / humans) as important as the reality itself.

I’m real-ly confused :slight_smile:

14

I’m real-ly confused  :slight_smile:

Yes, and you’ve confused me as well.

15

Quantum mechanices does not suggest any such thing. The premise for subjectivism appears to be validated by it, but this is not the case if you think about the actual experiment more closely. Science does not “suggest” philosophic truth, since philosophy is used to perform the science in the first place. The experiments may be fine, but the philosophy used in concluding what the experiment means is also a factor here.

Your “experience of the supernatural” is nothing more than a lack of knowledge on your part. Describe your experience, and I’ll tell you where you’re wrong.

Reality is a not a view, even a common one. Reality simply is, and that’s that. It does not need to be viewed, perceived, or thought about in order to exist. It exists independently of the minds of men.

Matter is not only energy. We know that matter can be converted into energy. It does not mean that matter is non-matter. Matter is still matter, despite whatever it may be made of or what it may be converted into. Matter still has properties which energy does not, and in that sense it is more than energy.

Humans do not have a link between physical reality and the “ethereal”, because there is no ethereal. We have consciousness and reason. That doesn’t make us magical, it just makes us unique among the existents of the universe of which we are aware.

There is no unknown within my mind. I know what it is you speak of. The fact that you don’t doesn’t change the fact that I do. My idea of the “universe as fixed” remains intact.

Before you start talking about how love defines the universe, you should define “love” and “emotion” first. There are definitions. They are even objective! Whether you care to discover them or not is up to you.

Being objective and being Objectivist does not mean giving up emotion, love, or happiness. On the contrary, they are part of our nature and we should embrace them. This can be done rationally. There is no dichotomy between reason and emotion. Faith – the idea that one doesn’t need evidence to believe something is true – is the true enemy of man, not his emotions. It is often confused with trust, which is a different concept altogether. Trust is an idea based on previous experience and results, not on the abscence of such. Trust can earned, faith can only be given as a surrender.

In short: trust good, faith bad.

It can encompass what we agree to call reality (your “real” reality) but your reality and scientific reality are only an aspect of my personal reality.

The term “reality” does not properly refer to “a individual’s set of knowledge”. Reality is the entire universe, not just the parts of it that a particular individual is aware of. Reality is a whole, it is the universe. Your mind and your ideas exist in the universe, they only exist apart from the universe in the sense that they are “in here”, not “out there”. If you weren’t confused enough, I’m sure that will put you over the top :slight_smile:

16

I think this is not getting anywhere … more through my own thick (head?) skin.

My dilemma is that to me: while there is a universe made of matter, that is “independant” of us, in our daily lives any preconceptions - however false, appear to be real to the person who has them. Objectivism seems to be a method by which one can ground oneself, and see as clearly as possible.

Now my experience, as an example, can be summed up that i saw a ghost. Now whatever spin you may put on it, if you tell me that i did not see a ghost brings me back to:

a ) I am lying / misinformed

B ) I am mad / delusional

c ) I have forgotten

d ) There’s a problem

I cannot be misinformed, because a ghost is a ghost, and whatever i believed about it beforehand, i now believe that they at least exist, because i saw one. Delusion is tricky, but i was sober and with other people, if you tell me: mass hallucination, i’ll tell you that you’re the delusional, all people present agree that we saw something not real, but we all saw the same thing. Now my world which accepts ghosts conflicts with yours which doesn’t. I cannot, by the nature of ghosts “prove” their existence, similarly you cannot prove they don’t.

That allows the whole plethora of “ethereal” to become an issue, because to me ghosts is only the tip of the vast iceberg of the paranormal. Your disavowel of the ethereal is perfectly understandable, but one of us is wrong … who?

Science and reason are useful, but they are not absolute, i state again, science is not absolute.

It is the spontaneous and irregular which makes us special, and science is powerless to explain, since humans are the antithesis of anything regular. I think i’m trying to say that all views of the universe are intrinsically different, and unless this “wild card” aspect is taken into account, then any view is wrong and too small to fit.

Even FAITH (chant: faith bad - faith bad) is something which humans embrace, despite the apparent illogic. This is not an attempt to De-objectivise the world, more like i’m trying to merge the inherent subjective into any “complete” view we may have of the universe. EG: Put a suicide bomber and bushy into a room together (assuming they have a common language) they will still not understand each other, what does bushy know about poverty, and desperation? Likewise the bomber about global politics?

Speaking of which, what do i know of philosophy? But we keep trying …

Getting back to the ghost, my truth is that i saw a ghost, your truth is that i am mad, now while a universe including ghosts makes you wrong, i believe that if you don’t want to see a ghost you won’t, which makes you feel justified when i see a ghost and you don’t. Hence 2 truths which science cannot (at this point) differentiate.

Would the objectivist perspective support the individual who believes in his own experience, or the one who (blindly) sticks to a scientifically “proven” reality.

Surely the latter perspective would deny individuality? (what i presume to be a goal of objectivism, ie the promotion of individuality). Love is not the issue, it is merely a reflection of the non-logical that exists despite science’s denials of anything non-scientific.

17

I’m curious, would you mind providing some details about this ghost you saw? Was it in the form of a person? Did it speak? What were the circumstances under which you saw this thing and who else was there with you?

Also, I don’t think science assumes that we know everything about reality and the world around us. In order to accept science, there doesn’t have to be an assumption of infalibity. There are things which science cannot yet explain, but I don’t think that’s an indictment of science or scientific methods of research. Perhaps we simply don’t yet know enough about various phenomena and energy forms.

18

The specifics of the incident are not really important, but here they are. We were a number of friends (8) in a house together (drinking coffee, chatting) when a chill entered the air, and everybody stopped talking in mid-sentence. A form entered the room from an open doorway in a corner and passed through the living room where we were, going up the stairs leading out the other corner. It did not make any noise, nor did it pass between us. It made no moves to suggest it was aware of us, other than to say as it was passing out of view toward the top of the stairs, one of the guys jumped up and followed it’s path. It had disappeared before (it should have been) reaching the top of the stairs, that is if it had continued at the same apparent speed. The incident took no longer than 15-20 seconds, but long enough for us to glance at each other in surprise / doubt / consternation / etc, and look back to see it was still there. The chill left the room as soon as the guy jumped up to take a closer look. There was no doubt as to what was seen, only as to the cause.

The apparition was about 70% real (ie 30% clear) and dreesed in dark hanging clothes. A hood shaded the face enough to be unsure of facial characteristics (a nose tip is all i could really see).

I don’t believe that science thinks it knows everything, but there is a definite tendency to deny anything that may upset the current status quo (like ghosts, etc).

We don’t know everything about energy, but if i was to say that love (for example) is as valid an energy as heat, science would have no way (now) to evaluate it, and as such would be scientifically denied.

PS: apologies for the double post - i’m going to say i’m new and hope i’m not stupid enough to do it again :slight_smile:

>>I deleted the double post.–JMeganSnow<<

19

Um . . . science doesn’t “know” ANYTHING. Humans know things. Science is method, not result.

Love is not “energy”, it is an emotion, i.e. a concept of consciousness. You might as well say that, oh, “desk” is a kind of energy. Or “spiderweb”. You are redefining “energy” to include things that are outside the parameters of the concept. If you redefine something (apart from narrowing your definition) you cannot apply old information to the new referents of the definition. I.e. you’ve completely undermined and rendered ineffectual the conceptual functioning of your consciousness.

As for your apparition, you can scientifically analyze it. Start with what you know: you saw something. You described what you saw. Other people saw it too.

Valid questions to ask:

  1. Did other people see the same thing that you saw?

  2. Were there any marks/traces left behind that might indicate some kind of physical entity?

And on in that vein. However, does any of your information indicate that the apparation was a dead person returned from the grave? THAT is a leap you can’t make from “I saw something”.

20

I have a bad habit of personifying things, and by science i mean the practitioners of, and generally accepted principles within the realm of scientific research. JMeganSnow is entirely correct that science is method. Sadly the results have attained a momentum of their own, and act in accordance with the rules that govern them, and stipulate the rules by which the next results are acheived. Only when the rules are broken (whether by accident or genius) does any true advancement occur.

The concept that love is a product of consciousness is a case in point. Whether it is true or false is moot, since no-one actually knows. General scientific knowledge regards anything “supernatural” about love as unlikely, and so makes its judgement without effectively being able to assess it, since it lacks the correct tools.

It is precisely the parameters of the concept that i am calling into question. A large number of “mystical” types believe that every item has inherent energy, and the physical is merely a pale copy of the (to us) invisible. This doesn’t seem too incredible to me, and could explain a lot of unknown things. However, by its very nature the concept invalidate many generally accepted scientific principles.

I am not saying that science is wrong, it is only part of a larger whole which it cannot see.

I do not know that what i saw was a dead person returning from the grave, but that’s what it looked like, and what is commonly called a ghost. If it wasn’t, why the @#$ would it try to look like one? As ever, you cannot assume anything, but you work with what you know, and that is all you’ve got.