"Pure objectivity" is a myth

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:04 pm The map should reflect the mainstream thinking for the history of Christian literature:

(1) New Testament Canonical literature (NTC) including the LXX or Septuagint.
(2) NT Apocryphal literature (NTA) including the Nag Hammadi Library (NHL).
(3) Ecclesiastical History (EH)
(4) Non-Christian literary sources (NCL)
(5) Archaeological evidence (ARC)
ETA: This is obviously just a simple classification system. Can it be improved?

How can all the evidence relating to the study of the history of Christian origins be classified? (Comprehensively)

How objective or subjective can a classification system be?
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Abel Blood, Jr. of Hollis was born on 5 May 1791 or else he was not. There is no narrative, no scenario, no jaw-droppingly brilliant insight like the complete specification of the past is impossible (so, too, the present and so, too, the future. What of it?). The related yes-or-no question seeks objective information, and the complete specification of the smallest hypothesis set responsive to the question is also objective ({he was born that day, he was not born that day}).

Subjectivity sets in quickly. It may be useful to choose to examine a richer responsive hypothesis set (a calendar of the 1790's, for instance). The trade-off between specificity and plausibility which can define "choices according to usefulness" is subjective.

If I choose a richer hypothesis set, then which one? (The 3600+ days of the 1790's are not all seriously possible, perhaps a smaller set of days will serve, or maybe a different granularity altogether: really all I care about is any day in 1791 versus any day in 1796, and if neither of those, then maybe I need to reframe the problem - I could be getting confused by traces of the Abel Blood who was born, by all extant accounts, in nearby New Ipswich, New Hampshire on 27 June 1791).

And then there's the subjective weight given to the pieces of the available evidence. Ah, at last, a role for a "scenario." One line of records favors 1791 (in black letters, an official state document, but a handwritten copy of something antecedent which may or may not be extant) while a distinct line favors 1796 (literally set in stone, but on whose say-so?). Not that this kind of thing is rare in genealogy, but still - how in hell did that happen? Depending on different ideas about how to answer that question, different weights will be given to the two lines of traces. A judgment call, and so subjective.

The report is due soon. As with Jesus, there is little chance that further evidence bearing on the life dates of Abel Blood will emerge anytime soon. Unlike Jesus, I have enough evidence in hand, contradictions and all, to assert "it is not seriously possible that this Abel Blood was a fictive character" with high confidence that few will disagree. So: "Abel Blood, Jr. (1791 or 1796 to 1867)" it will be.

There are many other questions that can be asked about Abel Blood, Jr. Some of those will have no objectively determined responsive hypothesis set (for example, How did the American Civil War affect his life?). much less an objectively correct answer. No worries. There are other techniques available for those questions besides the ones that genealogists use, and other conceptions of "relevance" to organize the available evidence in trying to answer the questions.

Whatever works is nearly Bayesian. It's all good.
How objective or subjective can a classification system be?
In general, classification systems are adopted for their usefulness, although each classification within the system may be objective. For example, a bat is objectively a "flying animal" but whether "flying animal" is a useful category is a subjective matter, probably depending on both personal judgment and circumstances.
Can it be improved?
Useful classification systems would likely not be unique for the collection of elements being classified. While it is possible that one adequately useful classification system might be "uniformly better" than another (Pareto preferred on all dimesions of preference), it is happenstance whether there exists some unique classification system that dominates all others. Barring happy happenstance, then, system choice will be based on trade-offs and so thoroughly subjective.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 10:57 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:04 pm The map should reflect the mainstream thinking for the history of Christian literature:

(1) New Testament Canonical literature (NTC) including the LXX or Septuagint.
(2) NT Apocryphal literature (NTA) including the Nag Hammadi Library (NHL).
(3) Ecclesiastical History (EH)
(4) Non-Christian literary sources (NCL)
(5) Archaeological evidence (ARC)
ETA: This is obviously just a simple classification system. Can it be improved?

How can all the evidence relating to the study of the history of Christian origins be classified? (Comprehensively)

How objective or subjective can a classification system be?
As for me, I don't know how I could work with a system like that.

Texts, as I work with them at least, don't exist in sealed off systems.

Even late rabbinic literature can sometimes be of some value in helping to interpret much earlier events. I think the internal evidence of some Christian texts -- both your (1) NT+LXX and (2) NTA -- is best explained in a second century provenance and very problematic if placed later. My method is to try to see what historical events and contexts might best make sense of some of these texts and the emergence of certain ideas.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by lsayre »

Interestingly enough, the highly loathed and reviled philosophy known as Objectivism seems to define objectivity in a way that radically departs from how most likely see it. What many likely see as "pure objectivity" seems to be far more akin to "intrinsicism". Perhaps this will clear the air a bit, and perhaps Neil's approach is more akin to philosophical Objectivism than he ever may have imagined:
Subjectivism holds that truth, in effect, resides only in the mind. For a subjectivist, a particular statement can be true for one person and false for another, based solely on one’s mental choices, subjective processing, or emotions. (Kant (by implication), Wittgenstein, James, Sartre, etc.) “Truth” amounts to whatever one believes, and there is no such thing as “knowledge” of reality; only some sort of “experience” inside one’s own mind.

Intrinsicism holds that truth resides disembodied out in the world. Typically, intrinsicists hold that all people have to do is somehow “open their hearts to God,” or “pay attention to their intuitions,” or “open their minds to the light of truth,” and the “external truth” will infallibly push its way in. If the truth is already “out there,” then there’s no reason to think that any special processing is required to reach it; one merely has to absorb it. (Plato, Aristotle (partially, in regard to essences), Apostle Paul, Augustine, etc.) For an intrinsicist, conceptual knowledge is whatever external truths one happens to have absorbed. A particular statement is “true” for everyone, whether they have any evidence or not. (And it’s an arbitrarily answerable question whether various people can be held responsible for not grasping all the “floating truth” out there.)

Objectivism holds that truth and falsehood are aspects of conceptual knowledge. Truth (and perceptual knowledge) is a relationship between a consciousness and reality. Truth is reality, as conceptually processed by a consciousness. Truths do not exist disembodied in external reality. Only physical entities (and their aspects–including other consciousnesses) exist in external reality. I can only reach a truth when I choose to conceptually process percepts by reasoning (by the method of logic.) For an Objectivist, a particular statement can be true for one person and false for another, only when there is a radical difference in the relevant perceptual evidence available to the two people. It does not depend on mental choices, subjective processing, emotions, or whims. (2) A statement can also be arbitrary for one person and either true or false for another: People can have different levels of evidence that change how the statement ranks on their “epistemological determinacy” scale. (From arbitrary, to possibly true or false, to probably true or false, to certainly true or false.)
https://objectivismindepth.com/2013/03/ ... t-summary/
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

lsayre wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:03 am Interestingly enough, the highly loathed and reviled philosophy known as Objectivism seems to define objectivity in a way that radically departs from how most likely see it. What many likely see as "pure objectivity" seems to be far more akin to "intrinsicism". Perhaps this will clear the air a bit, and perhaps Neil's approach is more akin to philosophical Objectivism than he ever may have imagined:
Subjectivism holds that truth, in effect, resides only in the mind. For a subjectivist, a particular statement can be true for one person and false for another, based solely on one’s mental choices, subjective processing, or emotions. (Kant (by implication), Wittgenstein, James, Sartre, etc.) “Truth” amounts to whatever one believes, and there is no such thing as “knowledge” of reality; only some sort of “experience” inside one’s own mind.

Intrinsicism holds that truth resides disembodied out in the world. Typically, intrinsicists hold that all . . . .
I started to read it but I could make sense of it. The article is talking about "truth" but without a definition of truth the sentences were making little sense to me.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by lsayre »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:43 am
I started to read it but I could make sense of it. The article is talking about "truth" but without a definition of truth the sentences were making little sense to me.
The definition you seek is present within the overview of the tenants of Objectivism. You merely needed to read a bit further into it.
Last edited by lsayre on Wed Oct 05, 2022 3:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by lsayre »

The United States was founded by men (both Deists and Religionists alike) who were firmly rooted within the 'intrinsicism' camp. The 'Declaration of Independence' makes this quite clear.

Sir Francis Bacon, with his tenant that "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." was clearly an intrinsicist.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

lsayre wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:51 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:43 am
I started to read it but I could make sense of it. The article is talking about "truth" but without a definition of truth the sentences were making little sense to me.
The definition you seek is present within the overview of the tenants of Objectivism. You merely needed to read a bit farther into it.
Truth (and perceptual knowledge) is a relationship between a consciousness and reality. Truth is reality, as conceptually processed by a consciousness. Truths do not exist disembodied in external reality.
What does "conceptually processed by a consciousness" mean -- exactly?

We interpret the world, but that definition makes my eyes glaze over. Can you explain it -- clearly?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

It's our concepts that are taught to us by our society. But there are mental processes that are common to humanity. The definition in that article doesn't make sense to me.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by lsayre »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 3:12 am
What does "conceptually processed by a consciousness" mean -- exactly?

We interpret the world, but that definition makes my eyes glaze over. Can you explain it -- clearly?
Ayn Rand stated it this way. It seems clear.
None of the traditional theories of concepts regards concepts as objective, i.e., as neither revealed nor invented, but as produced by man’s consciousness in accordance with the facts of reality, as mental integrations of factual data computed by man—as the products of a cognitive method of classification whose processes must be performed by man, but whose content is dictated by reality.
Post Reply