Is it possible to suspend our imposing our experiences on our view of the world?
No, but it is possible to make the effort, and consider our own limitations in our ability to do so. Also, when those abilities are strained to the limit, and objectivity is desired, one should declare one's biases. I think that is the most you can ask.
What I wonder is, can you improve your objectivity? Can you do it through practice, or training?
What about the many a mystics that have claimed to have taken off their lense of subjectivity? What do you make of those?
It is easier to convince yourself that you have attained objectivity than it is to be objective. While I can not get inside their heads, I would bet they have attained true self-deception rather than true enlightenment.
That is certainly the truth.
Certainly true [like pulling urself up by the bootstraps]. You're dismissing the possibility?
Well now, dismissing it would not be objective. I'm just highly skeptical. If nothing else, they would retain the built in subjective limitations of human flesh. They only sense that which their sensory organs allow them to sense. They only imagine what their brain can conceive. At best, they can claim to be as objective as humanly possible. Is that true objectivity?
Topical objectivity is a more believeable attainment, though I think it is certainly rare. To claim to be truly objective on whether it is right to eat meat, or to perform abortions, or to practice charity is difficult enough. To claim total objectivity is quite a claim indeed.
Would the control/suppression/distruction of emotion (dnt ask how...hypothetically) lead to an objective person?
Sensory input can become skewed without the influence of emotion. Ridding oneself of emotion would certainly help with rational objectivity though. If all rational conclusions drawn were drawn based entirely on reason, and not on personal conviction or gut response, it would seem you have attained a rather impressive level of objectivity.
Then y did evolution not evolve those lines..well ... it did...but not completely
I'm not sure why you think objectivity would give a primative man-ape any reproductive edge over his fellows.
It also would seem you have attained the same impressive level of objectivity as that of a computer program. Except, perhaps, you would be more error-prone.
And sensor errors are annoying.
actually, i think the answer to this question has to be yes because what is "objective" is still a human concept. our concepts of subjective and objective still come from our own perspective of what they are. what IS and what we think IS can be completely different.
Eternal life is a human concept, but that doesn't mean that it's possible for a human to live forever. It's impossible for any being to be really objective in the pure way we sometimes imagine it. Intersubjectivity is a good approximation to objectivity, perhaps, but I think the definition of the term ensures that subjective beings will only ever get an approximation of it.
while i can understand your viewpoint hyp, the human concept of objectivity is meant to describe a reality outside of ourselves. we are assuming that reality/objectivity is separate from us wholly. but perhaps we are a part of reality more then we believe :) while our emotions can be tainted with bias (defined as subjective), we can still be unemotional about situations, thus objective (my opinion)
A common usage of the word objective roughly means 'unbiased,' as in an objective judge. I think we're talking here about a more existential kind of objectivity, or at least I've taken it that way. To be truly objective in this way would mean to have some kind of contact with / knowledge of reality that is not idiosynchratic to the subject in question. (Note that emotion is not the only subjective idiosynchracy involved in perceiving reality.) So while I might be able to (say) judge the merit of a painting in an unemotional / unbiased / whatever manner, the metaphysical nature of my viewpoint would still be subjective: I would still be viewing it through the rubric of my particular consciousness, seeing it in my particular subjectively experienced colors and shapes and so on.
(It's easy to assume that the way I see the painting is just the way it is, but this isn't so-- if I had synaesthesia I would experience the painting radically differently, not to mention more mundane (and subtle!) differences in ways I could experience the painting owing to too much coffee, or not enough sleep, etc.)
well, that is a mult-faceted question, and some would say or suggest that there is a state of clarity of mind where this is found. you can find it when you can distinguish between your subjective experiance with the objective enviroment outside of you.
for example, take colors, you may see a different blue than me, and maybe I like blue and blue bores you, but inside of these subjective points of view there exists naturally the objective we can both see and that is we both agree we are referring to the color blue.
objectivity/subjectivty are distinquishable but inseperable. when you can distinquish them, you can only do so where they both meet and blend, which is mystery, or, yourself......
yes, but no matter what, we all agree that you are referring to a 'painting'. that is the objective co-ordinate
objectivity is one for all, and can be found in all discussion and exchange of idea.....
Separate names with a comma.