We often say things like, “That’s just your subjective opinion,” or “From a subjective point of view…”
But what do we actually mean by “subjective”?
When we say, “That’s your subjective view,” it often carries a slightly negative tone.
So then, why is “objective” usually considered better?
Is subjectivity really something vague and unreliable? And is objectivity really something solid and true?
Or… does “objective” even truly exist?
What do you think?
You must log in or # to comment.
I’ve always understood it like this:
Subjective “It’s too hot in here”
Objective “It’s 25C in here”Like its a fact that the temp is 25C and whether you think that is too hot is subjective. It might be too hot for your liking that doesn’t mean its too hot for everyone.
That makes sense — I think that’s a very common way to see it.
But then I have a question: why is “objective” treated as something superior or more correct?
Because in this example, it is. If the subjective statement read “To me, it feels too hot in here”, it would be equally correct.
Subjective statements themselves are not the issue, they become problematic when treated as objective truths.
That’s a really clear way to distinguish them, and I agree that confusion happens when subjective statements are treated as objective facts.
But from a different perspective, what we call “objective” might not be something independent of subjectivity in the first place.
In the SIEP framework, reality isn’t something that exists fully formed and then gets described. It emerges when a deeper layer of subjectivity (Absolute Subjectivity) intersects with an observer’s frame (Relative Subjectivity), and only becomes “fixed” when coherence is achieved.
So what we call “objective facts” are actually stabilized results of this coherence process, rather than something fundamentally separate from subjectivity.
In that sense, the issue isn’t that subjective statements become problematic when treated as objective — but that we’re already inside a system where the “objective” itself is generated through structured subjectivity.
That’s not “a very common way to see it”. It’s the way it is.
Facts are independently measurable; there the same for everyone, you always get the same data; there are no exceptions. As you said in another comment, objective reality is what remains true regardless of reference frame.
Opinions are not independently measurable. Once you have a measurement that holds true across reference frames, you have a fact.
Objective reality is treated as superior to subjective reality because it’s more useful. Subjective reality can be “better” in certain circumstances though, for example as an escape for a mind - abandon your observations of objective reality and replace them with something preferable.
You have to accept the meanings of words in order to have a meaningful debate about the concepts they carry.
I don’t think we can simply assume that objective reality exists independently as a given.
What you’re calling “independently measurable facts” already presupposes a structure that makes measurement possible. Measurement doesn’t occur in a vacuum — it only happens within a specific observational framework.
From that perspective, objectivity is not something free from subjectivity. It emerges when different observational structures align and produce stable results.
What we call “objective” is just what remains consistent across observers — not something that exists without them.
So rather than being more true, objectivity is better understood as a stabilized and shareable form of coherence.
subjective is individual whereas objective is communal. Objective should be true based on any point of view provided its looking at just data. Objective is not superior per se its just more universal and applicable to anyone who wants to utilize it.
I think a lot of people see it that way, and I get what you mean.
But I’ve been thinking about defining “subjective” a bit differently — not just as consciousness or perception.
How can you have an objective opinion? All opinions are subjective, so the word subjective is superfluous. Also opinions are important, so the word ‘just’ is a misplaced attempt to diminish. So all you are left with is “That’s your opinion” which goes without saying really.
I agree that all opinions are subjective.
So saying ‘that’s just subjective’ doesn’t really add much, and that makes sense to me.
But at the same time, people often treat ‘not objective’ as if it means ‘not correct,’ don’t they?
That’s what feels a bit strange to me. If everything is subjective, then where does that standard even come from?
Personally, I don’t think it’s about subjectivity being more important, but rather about how different subjective perspectives relate to each other and sometimes align.
