| | Apart from Ed's well clarified dict-defs, the term 'objective' refers to a subject's (!) orientation to establishing the existential 'fact' of a concept's reference or a proposition's truth-reference. --- Indeed, objective-fact is a redundancy. A fact which is not an 'objective' one is a square-circle.
A subject's non-orientation to such is what's called 'subjective.'
A subject's belief about anything is either based on one or the other orientation, or, usually, is a belief that is based on a set of beliefs, all of which are one, the other, or a mix thereof.
In short, 'objective' is a psychological orientation...volitionally choosable by those who find it worth the effort.
Objectivism is a philosophy which clearly, specifically, damn-near ostentatiously, advertises itself as showing ('objectively'/logically/rationally) how, and why, it's worthwhile to be 'objective' in accepting any beliefs...including itself.
LLAP
J:D
P.S: Addendum: 'objective' does not require that a 2nd person empirically verifies one's assertion. Einstein's prediction about Mercury did not need later observation for his theory to actually be 'objective' (as though it was not, UNTIL they observed?); the observation by others was needed for them to agree that it was verifiable. If the astronomical technology was not up to the task of verifying, this would not have left his theory as 'non-objective'; it would be merely un-verified. --- If I'm the only witness to a crime, (such as what happened to Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman), I don't need to wait for a jury to decide if I was 'objective' or not for me to know whether I was or not. 'Objectivity' is not Verification-by-Others, any more than Lack-of-Verification-by-Others is 'Objectively-Not-True.'
(Edited for 'Addendum')
(Edited by John Dailey on 1/29, 7:28pm)
|
|
