Continuing the discussion, it makes sense to consider the concepts subjective And objective. Main features subjective: internal, personal, inaccessible to public consideration, felt or mental, not directly confirmed by others, due to personal, emotional assessments, unreliable, biased [Big Explanatory Dictionary of Psychology, 2001a, p. 329–330].

signs objective: physical, obvious or real for all those who perceive it, accessible to public verification and reliable, fixed as independent of the subject, external to the body or consciousness, free from mental or subjective experience [Big Explanatory Dictionary of Psychology, 2001, p. 541; Modern philosophical dictionary, 2004, p. 480-481]. To the signs objective we can add: reproducible with practically no changes noticeable to the observer when the same conditions of perception are repeated, predictable, obeying known physical laws.

From all that has been said, significant differences seem to emerge between the two groups of entities under consideration. But the fact that the most characteristic examples of these entities are two phenomena, and both are psychic, is alarming. The most characteristic example of the subjective is the image of representation, while the only example of the objective is the image of perception. This is more than strange and paradoxical if we consider it true that the world is divided into two groups of fundamentally different entities, because in the end we still come to only one - to the psychic, which includes both images of representation and images of perception.

Ideas about the objective and the subjective are based on the conviction of most researchers that there is an objective objective world, which is "reflected" in subjective consciousness each person. These views still dominate in psychology, despite the fact that I. Kant back in the 18th century. argued that the objective world is built by the consciousness of a person, and is not “reflected” by him, and the researchers mostly seemed to agree with him. A paradoxical situation is emerging. On the one hand, it would seem that none of the psychologists object to "new" philosophical ideas. Although how new are they, if they are almost two and a half centuries old? On the other hand, when it comes to presenting their own specific views, most of them for some reason turn into ardent "objectivists". Even, rather, in the "mossy" materialists, confident that "the table certainly exists by itself and independently of our consciousness." Although there is, perhaps, nothing surprising in this, since “common sense” works here: since I see the table, and you see it, and he sees it, this, of course, means that the table exists by itself, independently from U.S. And precisely as a table, and not as an incomprehensible Kantian “thing in itself”.

What will happen to the concepts of "objective" and "subjective" if we consider the ideas about the world that follow from the concept of I. Kant?

According to "common sense", there is one objective physical world, the same for all people, and it is reflected in the minds of everyone. According to I. Kant, each consciousness builds an objective world from the physical world of “things in themselves” that is inaccessible to us, about the essence of which we cannot say anything, since it is inaccessible to knowledge. Each consciousness is unique. Consequently, each consciousness builds its own unique objective or physical world. Thus, instead of one objective physical world, there are as many physical worlds as there are consciousnesses.

To agree with this, it is enough to consider the perceptual pictures of the world in people with normal vision, with severe farsightedness or myopia, color blindness, the blind, the deaf, etc. objective worlds, and along with them one completely incomprehensible and by no means objective Kantian world of “things in themselves”. We cannot consider it to be either subjective or objective, since it is not available to us directly, but only in the form of subjective representations of our consciousness correlated with it. Nevertheless, taking into account the biological and mental similarity of people, as well as the general ways of using objects for the same purposes by people and the similarity of actions with them, it can be argued that the subjective objective physical worlds built by different people, are very similar to each other. Therefore, people do not have an understanding that each of them lives in his own physical world, although very similar to the physical worlds of the people around him.

It is obvious that the concepts subjective And objective is unable to display the complex relationships between the unique consciousnesses of people and the "reality in itself" surrounding them. Due to the similarity of various subjective objective worlds, "common sense" easily and habitually identifies them with each other, turning them into a common "objective physical world" that allegedly exists outside of any individual consciousness. This is how the myth about the only objective physical world surrounding us is born. By no means do I want to say that the surrounding physical world does not exist. It certainly exists and is no less real to us than our consciousness.

But one should distinguish between the concepts of "the only objective environment around us physical world" and "the only objective world around us objective physical world. The structures of "reality in itself" participate in the process of constitution (construction) of objects by our consciousness, therefore, without our consciousness in the physical world there is no what we consider to be physical objects. There is something different in it - what could be called "elements of reality in themselves", and I. Kant called "things in themselves". Outside of a particular person, there is the only objective surrounding physical (but not objective) world - "reality in itself" and billions - according to the number of living people, different, albeit similar, subjective objective worlds.

Let us return to the notions of “common sense” that are now dominant in psychology. In accordance with them, the “objective objective world” exists independently of the individual consciousness of each of us, and its objects are “reflected” in each individual consciousness, thereby ensuring its “objectivity”. Moreover, they are “reflected” in such a similar way that individual differences can be neglected. When we perceive an “external real and obvious physical object”, then it is “objective”, because:

... its state or function is available for public verification, has external manifestations and do not depend (supposedly. - Auth.) from internal, mental or subjective experience [Large Explanatory Dictionary of Psychology, 2001, p. 541].

However, once again I repeat I. Kant's remark that outside our consciousness there is no single objective objective world. And it is our consciousness that creates an object from some incomprehensible “thing in itself”. There is no object outside of consciousness. Therefore, there is not an objective single physical table, for example, which is perceived by twenty people sitting around it, but twenty subjective tables. One in the minds of each of those sitting. And this is despite the fact that people are sure of the existence outside their minds of a real physical table. We will return to the discussion of this issue later.

A. Bergson (1992), critically considering the current situation in philosophy, writes:

Matter for us is a collection of "images". By "image" we mean a certain kind of being, which is something more than what idealists call a representation, but less than what realists call a thing - a kind of being, located halfway between "thing" and "representation" . This understanding of matter simply coincides with its common sense. We would greatly surprise a person who is alien to philosophical speculation by telling him that the object in front of him, which he sees and touches, exists only in his mind and for his mind, or even, in a more general form, as Berkeley was inclined to do. , - exists only for the spirit in general. Our interlocutor was always of the opinion that an object exists independently of the consciousness that perceives it. But, on the other hand, we would also surprise him by saying that the object is completely different from our perception of it, that there is neither the color that the eye ascribes to it, nor the resistance that the hand finds in it. This color and this resistance, in his opinion, are in the object: this is not a state of our mind, these are the constitutive elements of an existence independent of ours. Therefore, for common sense, the object exists in itself, as colorful and lively as we perceive it: it is an image, but this image exists in itself [p. 160].

In the last phrase of A. Bergson, the point of view of “common sense” on the reality surrounding a person that is dominant today and in psychology is presented. In this regard, it should be stated that psychology has somehow imperceptibly, but, to put it mildly, very significantly deviated from the mainstream philosophy about man and the world, created by I. Kant and his followers and considered in philosophy as the main achievement of Kantianism. This deviation is explained by the predominance of “common sense” representations in the views of psychologists on human consciousness and the reality surrounding it. Most psychologists are familiar with the achievements of philosophy, but nevertheless, in their own theories, they gravitate more towards the usual "common sense", "sensibly" believing: "philosophy is philosophy, but here it is." Such representations in the psychological literature dominate absolutely.

The weakness of the position of those who defend the point of view of the rigid difference between the subjective and the objective is obvious to many authors. So, E. Cassirer (2006), for example, writes:

... as it turned out - the same content of experience can be called both subjective and objective, depending on the relation to which logical points of outcome it is taken [p. 314–315].

... "objective" in experience means for the scientific-theoretical worldview its unchanging and necessary elements: however, what exactly in this content is attributed to immutability and necessity depends, on the one hand, on the general methodological scale that thinking imposes on experience, and on the other hand on the other hand, it is conditioned by the present state of knowledge, by the totality of its empirically and theoretically tested views. That is why the way in which we apply the conceptual opposition of "subjective" and "objective" in the process of forming experience, in constructing an image of nature, turns out to be not so much a solution to a cognitive problem as its full expression [p. 26].

A. N. Leontiev (1981) says the same:

…the opposition between the subjective and the objective is not absolute and originally given. Their opposition is engendered by development, and throughout its development, mutual transitions between them are preserved, destroying their “one-sidedness” [p. 34].

Objectivity is also called the ability to observe and state something "strictly objectively." But man does not have this ability. ... Therefore, true objectivity is achieved only very approximately and remains an ideal for scientific work [Philosophical encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998, p. 314].

One could say: never achieved. M. K. Mamardashvili (2002) writes:

It would seem that one can finally establish what the “objective” is and how consciousness relates to it. But strange thing: all philosophers have this problem, and the establishment of what is objective and what belongs to consciousness is situational each time. There is no something once and for all given, which is always objective, and there is no once and for all given, which is always subjective [p. 166].

Yu. M. Lotman (2004) notes that:

From the naive world, in which reliability was attributed to the usual methods of perception and generalization of its data, and the problem of the position of the describer in relation to the described world was of little concern to anyone, from the world in which the scientist considered reality “from the position of truth”, science moved into the world of relativity [with . 386], and quotes W. Heisenberg:

... quantum mechanics has put forward an even more serious requirement. It was necessary to completely abandon the description of nature, objective in the Newtonian sense, when certain values ​​are assigned to the main characteristics of the system, such as place, speed, energy, and to prefer it to a description of observation situations for which only the probabilities of certain results can be determined. The very words used to describe phenomena at the atomic level were thus problematic. It was possible to speak of waves or particles, remembering at the same time that in this case we are not talking about a dualistic, but about a completely unified description of phenomena. The meaning of the old words has somehow lost its clarity.

Ultimately generalizing, one can, perhaps, say that changes in the structure of thinking are outwardly manifested in the fact that words acquire a different meaning than they had before, and other questions are asked than before [p. 386].

Relativity of concepts objective And subjective can be easily demonstrated with a concrete example. What is my mental content, for example, my plan of action for tomorrow? Obviously subjective. But what is it like if you see it written down on paper in the form of action items? Obviously, this is already something objective, since it is presented in the form of words, potentially capable of transforming into the subjective mental content of a particular consciousness, it is accessible to many people.

Understanding the theoretical precariousness of the considered dichotomy of the world into subjective and objective and the need to replace it in the future with something more adequate, we can try to single out what is commonly considered objective. The objective world is traditionally referred to as the surrounding objective world, and, consequently, our perceptual mental representations. The most significant signs of objectivity of something are considered:

• the availability of its representation (perceptual image) to many observers;
• the repeatability of his perceptual image under similar conditions of observation;
• the similarity of its perceptual images arising from different observers who perceive the object at the same time or from one observer at different times;
• the relative independence of his perceptual image from the will of the observer;
• the subordination of its perceptual image to the physical laws known to the observer, including, for example, the possibility of a reappearance of a similar image in the place expected by the observer under similar conditions of perception and the predictability of possible changes in the image.

However, it can be said that the attributes of the perceived physical entity objectivity are the qualities of its image of perception, which immediately puts the very concept of objectivity into question.

What will change if instead of the term "physical object" we use the concept of "thing in itself"? In fact, nothing but our recognition of the fact that outside of consciousness there is not a physical object, but only “something” represented in the form of a physical object only in our consciousness. At the same time, the external world will remain independent of our consciousness, but the concepts of objective and subjective will become useless.

Reproducibility, or repeatability of representation [see, for example: B. G. Meshcheryakov, 2007, p. 51], plays a major role in establishing the sign of the objectivity of an object or fact, as it makes it possible to verify in a scientific experiment the results of perception both by the person himself and by other people. At the same time, H. G. Gadamer (2006), for example, casts doubt on this feature:

Each of us can consider the testability of the results of knowledge as an ideal. But it must also be admitted that this ideal can be extremely rarely achieved, and those researchers who are strenuously trying to achieve it, mostly cannot tell us anything serious ... It must be admitted that the greatest achievements of the human sciences leave the ideal of verifiability far behind. From a philosophical point of view, this is very important [p. 509].

© Polyakov S.E. Phenomenology of mental representations. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2011
© Published with the kind permission of the author

Currently, subjective opinion is the most fashionable trend in the process of personal expression. In order to appear modern, the individual must always look at what is happening from a personal point of view. This provides a great opportunity to demonstrate your uniqueness in any situation ... Unfortunately, in Lately newfangled IMHO (deciphered as follows: I have an opinion, I want to voice it) has flooded the information space and supplanted the culture of public expression and thought, craving for reliable knowledge, respectful attitude towards interlocutors and an adequate perception of reality.

Why has a purely subjective opinion become so popular? It is quite simple to explain the reasons for this phenomenon, if we understand the psychological state of modern society.

claim to originality

An opinion is a manifestation of consciousness in the form of a judgment that expresses a subjective assessment. It comes from the needs and hobbies of the individual, the system of his values. Therefore, a subjective opinion is an expression of what a person imagines, appears, seems to be. It is important to remember this when we read or hear the point of view of the interlocutor. By revealing his opinion to us, a person demonstrates his own

Keep your sanity

Even if it seems to you one hundred percent that the interlocutor is wrong, try not to get personal. It can never be ruled out that there is still some truth in what is being said. This happens when a person has certain knowledge about the subject, he is competent in what is being discussed and argues his position. Otherwise, his subjective opinion is the so-called bump of view, a judgment based on emotions and rumors.

Negative changes

It is important to take into account the fact that opinion is a natural form of realization of human consciousness, activated through unconscious motives. In the process of forming a worldview, it plays one of the leading roles. The sad trend of our time is such that IMHO, being, in fact, a taste, personal, situational perception, is trying to take the place of a true fundamental variant of the characterization of ongoing events.

Psychology to help us

Is it possible for a person to clearly distinguish between subjective and objective opinion? Yes. Understanding the principle of operation of internal mechanisms that activate the unconscious will allow you to separate the wheat from the chaff, learn to distinguish the thinker from the knower.

The postulates of system-vector psychology have become for many an accurate tool for dissecting human souls. Thanks to systemic psychoanalysis, it is possible to objectively evaluate one or another mental manifestation of an individual. An integral eight-dimensional matrix of the psyche device helps in this process.

Formation mechanism

Subjective opinion is a point of view formulated situationally, spontaneously. It expresses the state of a person as a reaction to the influence of an external factor. Psychologists note that the influence of an external stimulus is secondary - the basis for the formation of a personal opinion is the internal state of the individual. That is why even in different situations the form and nature of personal statements can be unchanged. We can observe this phenomenon in all its glory in the vastness of the Global Network. So, sexually or socially frustrated individuals leave comments of the same nature to articles on a variety of topics, proudly calling their criticism newfangled IMHO.

A weapon to destroy the intellect

How to understand subjective opinion? First you need to understand that it distorts the truth and for the most part is a delusion. This is what many ancient thinkers believed. Modern psychologists distinguish a dead-end type of behavior. So, the individual thinks something like this: “If they say so, then it is so. Hundreds of people just won't talk like that." Thus, a pathological economy of one's own mental efforts is achieved, and they are simply necessary for a critical attitude to the subjective opinion of others. Trusting other people's words is not the best option.

Opinion begins where knowledge ends. Indeed, often the notorious IMHO is just a form of expression of intellectual backwardness, weakness.

If a person does not understand his own mistakes and becomes more and more convinced that he is right, the feeling of superiority over others grows rapidly and grows stronger in him. That is why we so often see incompetent people who confidently consider themselves professionals speak loud phrases. At the same time, the statement that the author expresses a personal opinion is quite enough to kill at the root all doubts about the objectivity of what was said.

What does subjective opinion mean? This is only the sensual attitude of the individual to what is happening, and therefore it is often characterized by a lack of evidence base. In addition, it is impossible to verify, reasonably confirm. Source IMHO - stereotypes, beliefs, uncritical attitude. The formation of personal opinion is inextricably linked with psychological attitudes and worldview of the individual.

What makes you express an opinion?

The very first action that helps in assessing the real content and objectivity of IMHO is to clarify the intentions that prompted the person to make a statement. Why did he write/say this? What inner state prompted him to do this?

What does subjective opinion mean? This is just a point of view. One of millions possible. Often it turns out to be completely empty, not carrying any benefit. At the same time, the author of the statement is firmly convinced that this is the very truth born in the process of intense intellectual labor.

Time IMHO

Modernity in system-vector psychology is defined as the period of the “skin phase of the development of society”. One of its main features is the strengthening of individualism. Culture is at such a level of development that each individual is proclaimed highest value, a unique creation. It is argued that a person has the exclusive right to everything - naturally, that is not forbidden by law. The first position in the system of "skin" society is occupied by independence, freedom.

A technological breakthrough gave humanity the Internet, which has become a huge arena, which hosts a magnificent parade IMHO. The global network has made it possible to speak out on any occasion. Many note that the Internet has become an immense garbage pit filled with stinking masses of unreliable dirty information.

each other

Ask yourself the question of whether you want to be a consumer of other people's subjective opinions, are you ready to become a kind of dustbin in which everything that someone really wants to say is placed. Of course, it is much more difficult to form one's own, maximally objective view of the world.

Analyze your statements. Perhaps they will give you reason to think about what kind of judgments you yourself present to others. Are you falling into the void of your own thoughts? Are all your frustrations exposed too often? Try to answer these questions honestly. Understanding and analyzing your own mistakes will help you choose the right path.

Red University
1st sec. 10/29/2014. Lecture: politics and political theory of Marxism.
Alexander Sergeevich Kazyonnov, professor, doctor philosophical sciences. Audio version - See more at: http://www.len.ru/red-univer2014-10-29#sthash.XdVaSP7I.dpuf

"Hello comrades! Our university is aimed at obtaining knowledge, not opinions. What is an opinion? Opinion is subjective knowledge. Subjective knowledge, as it were, sort of, and not knowledge at all. Knowledge is objective knowledge, that is, independent (?) of man and humanity. It is, it is true knowledge. We strive for true knowledge."

[I find the courage to express my opinion or knowledge, as anyone pleases, regarding the categories voiced by Alexander Sergeevich. First, objective knowledge depends only and exclusively on man and mankind. Consciousness is life with knowledge. Man is an animal living with knowledge and meaning. When there is no consciousness, then there is no knowledge, no meaning. Consequently, there can be no objective knowledge outside of man and outside of humanity.

Secondly, from the point of view of dialectics, we have no right to oppose the “subjective” (hereinafter, S.) and the “objective” (hereinafter, O.) as separate and opposite parts. They are moments that closely interact and pass one into the other. In the phenomenon of essence - in being, both opinion and knowledge are equally represented by the universal phenomenon of reflection. The essence equally significantly manifests itself both in the form (opinion) and in the content (knowledge, truth) of the cognitive process. In the process of developing the knowledge of the material world, the form becomes more and more meaningful, turning into an unchanging part of the content - into the Truth.

S. and O., in Genesis, are determined by the quality of the reflection of objective reality in human consciousness. In consciousness, in the form of reflection, both categories are always present at the same time. S. becomes its opposite only in the process of comprehending the Truth. The “universal” (matter, essence), which appears in Being as “objective”, includes the “subjective” that denies it, in turn, denying it with creation. In this second negation, a new quality is born - “objective” (knowledge, truth). S. passes into O., interacting with the "universal", "special" and "single".

At one of the last seminars M.V. Popov drew the attention of the students of the Red University to a very important circumstance expressing the quality of philosophical dialectical thinking. All categories of dialectical thinking must be deduced in the process of their historical development, untwisted like a ball of thread, in a logical sequence and dialectical interconnection of concepts. The derivation of the categories of philosophy and the formation of concepts should proceed in the direction from "simple" to "complex", from "abstract" to "concrete", from "universal" to "special" and "single".

It may be interesting for university students and teachers to get acquainted with the movement of my thought. I would like to consider two philosophical categories that connect opinion with knowledge, and through it with Truth: "subjective" and "objective". These two categories are not as simple as we think. Let's start with the fact that each of them is a certain present Being, developing Something. Each concept begins with something, develops and finally takes shape with a definition, that is, it becomes a quality, “which is in itself” in unity with “being in it”.

The concept is “the Being through which the essence shines through”. It is important to get to the essence of two terms: "objective" and "subjective". Lenin defined the concept as "the highest product of the brain, the highest product of matter." As M.V. Popov: "At the Red University, to a certain extent, we have a cult of concepts and terms." The concept is a product of consciousness. Consequently, S. and O. is most closely connected with consciousness. Both S. and O. cannot but depend on consciousness. The statement that S. depends, and O. does not depend on consciousness and a person cannot be considered correct. Such a statement is not a definition.

What is consciousness? - Consciousness is a complex form of reflection of matter "in the highest product of matter" - in man and social Being. The reflection of matter in the social form of the movement of matter is something special and specific, characteristic of the "highest product of matter." On the other hand, in this form of reflection of reality there is a "universal" (hereinafter, V.). It merges with the "special" and "specific-single" into a single whole. Of course, V. is decisive in relation to consciousness - the phenomenon of reflection, since it is a universal phenomenon of reflection inherent in any form of motion of matter.

This universal phenomenon of reflection is itself a consequence of another universal phenomenon - the principle of determinism, inherent in the material world. Cause-and-effect dependence gives rise to the general phenomenon of reflection. Every effect is a reflection of a cause. The principle of determinism naturally follows from the Law of Universal Connection, which ensures the unity and interconnection of phenomena and things of real material reality. The Law of Universal Connection acts simultaneously as the Law of Universal Contradiction. From these universal laws, as a result, S. and O. come. From the position of the “universal”, there is no difference at all between S. and O., just as there is no difference in the moments in the formation, where the difference between Being and Nothing disappears.

S. and O., thus, mutually penetrate one into the other. There is a transition from one opposite to another. The "universal", defined by consciousness as "objective", certainly implies the existence of its opposite - "subjective". Both concepts, taken in struggle and unity, denote the problem of the quality of reflection of reality. In no other form of matter movement, except social, the problem of the quality of reflection did not arise, and could not arise, since consciousness appeared with knowledge. This is where the problem of lack of knowledge arises. Insufficient knowledge (opinion) was defined as "subjective". Sufficient knowledge - as "objective", true knowledge.

We also know that any knowledge about the world around us, as V. I. Lenin spoke about, is relative. Regarding what? - Concerning Being and Essence. In the process of cognition of reality, a person, of course, moves from opinion to knowledge through truth and reliability to Truth, however, it cannot be argued that this process at some stage of cognition is only subjective or only objective. The whole process of cognition, at any point in its movement, is objectively subjective.
Thus, Truth is a subjective-objective phenomenon, in which, as a result of the cognitive process, S. becomes its opposite. Objectivity, in this case, most likely, is the definition of Truth, that is, real knowledge. Everything objective is real, everything real (developing) is objective. The definition of Truth is objectivity, as a new quality, a new stage of cognition in the endless process of the development of knowledge, in the endless struggle between knowledge and insufficient knowledge, between S. and O., between reasonable mind and stupidity.

The process of cognition has content and form. S. is the form, and O. is the content (Truth). By definition, the form is also a part of the content, but not a constant, but a changing part of it. The content, thanks to the changeable form, gropes for the path of its development, finding from the many forms of thought such knowledge that most fully corresponds to the developing content.

A large number of subjective opinions one day gives rise to a "special opinion", which abruptly gives new knowledge, called Truth. Thus, the "subjective" is the form, and the "objective" is the content of the process of cognition, that is, what we must call Truth. Truth, developing from the whole to the whole, includes insufficient knowledge (subjective), which denies the Truth, but includes it with a creative negation, so that it preserves itself, being always objective knowledge. O. is both a cause and a consequence of S. It is also true if O. and S. are interchanged.

We have always been told in philosophy seminars that the "objective" is independent of human consciousness. It is outside consciousness, before and after it. In fact, everything is not so, but just the opposite, O. is firmly connected with consciousness and is in no way separated from it. It is not necessary to neglect the consciousness and the objective Meaning that is in it. S., on the contrary, does not depend, or rather, does not depend too much on consciousness, since it presupposes ignorance or insufficient knowledge. How can you depend on what is not there, or on what is not enough? In my discussion, I am going to define both concepts.

“Objective” is a conscious “universal”, which has absorbed all the wealth of the concrete and special (or: “universal”, conscious in unity with the concrete and special). “Subjective” is not fully conscious “universal”, or conscious without connection with “concrete” and “special” (or; not fully conscious “universal” with the denial of concrete and special). In other words, "objective" is philosophical category, denoting and fixing the process and result of awareness of the universal laws and conditions for the existence of the material world (real reality). It can be stated simply and concisely. "Objective" is a conscious "universal". "Subjective" is not quite conscious "universal". - My italics (A.Z.).

"Universal" is material world and all that is its essence. V. - before, outside (and inside) and after consciousness. V. is in conscious Being objective and real. The “objective”, being a definition, always remains unchanged, however, being true knowledge, it develops indefinitely, including countless elements of the hitherto unknown “special” and “individual”. Of course, no O. is in any way possible without S. (“Two companions of the eternal, love and separation, do not go one without the other”).] - A.Z. (italics mine).

Forwarded message --------
Subject: Reply A.Ya. Zuev
Date: Tue. 04 Nov. 2014 23:08:35 +0300
From: Alexander Kazennov
To: Valery Aleksandrovich Mordovin
SW. V.A.! Send, please, comrade. Zuev A.Ya. my answer. A.K.

Reply to my letter.

In your concept of S. . and O. there is much that is correct and does not contradict my view of their relationship. But you are not criticizing my thesis, but the thesis you formulated for me. I was talking about the truth (universality? - A.Z.) of objective knowledge, that truth (universality? - A.Z.) does not depend on any one person, or on the majority of any group of people, or in general , from present humanity. And you attribute to me the view that truth does not depend on consciousness at all, i.e. from the consciousness of humanity or man. It goes without saying that, by its very existence, there is truth in human society and for people.

I am talking, therefore, only about the truth (universality? - A.Z.) of knowledge, and not about its existence in the minds of man and mankind. In this regard, you correctly say that in form any knowledge is subjective, since it is expressed by the subject (some or some). But in terms of content, it can be both subjective (incomplete, misleading, random, etc.) and objective. Objective in the simple sense that it is “not subjective”, but verified (reliable), universal and necessary. It doesn't matter who counts twice two: there will still be four, whoever measures the acceleration of a freely falling body under known conditions, it will still be 9.8 m/sec. It does not depend on the subject of consideration. Although it is clear that the discovery of this objective law depended on a particular person in certain historical conditions.

Further, in general, the truth, if it is true, i.e. when it is established, it is objective: it is the correspondence of the concept to the object and of the object to the concept. So the definition of “objective” is used precisely in the process of cognition to substantiate truth as “objective”, in contrast to “subjective”, i.e. and not quite true, not convincingly true.

So in my lecture, which is not devoted to the problem of truth, but to the problem of politics and political theory, this opposition is used only to indicate that in our university we are not interested in opinions (subjective knowledge), but in objective knowledge, i.e. true knowledge, i.e. simply the truth. Since it was just a remark, I didn't elaborate on it this time. But in general, I developed this movement further: one should not stop at objective knowledge, but one should move towards the conviction: this is the way things are, and it cannot be otherwise. But this can be developed again elsewhere.

I am glad that you have delved into philosophical questions quite significantly and have made some progress. Good luck with your further research. A.S. Kazennov.
Kazyonnov A.S. from Zuev A.Ya.
Thank you for your attention to me, convincing and detailed answer. I listened to and recorded your lecture with great pleasure. Thank you very much! Sincerely, A.Ya.! 05.11. 14 y.

Many people ask themselves, “What is the difference between a subjective opinion and an objective one?” This is very important to understand, because in everyday life we ​​often come across these concepts. Let's take them in order.

What does "subjective opinion" mean?

Subjective opinion is based on our emotional judgments, life experiences and point of view. For example, each of us has our own understanding of beauty, aesthetics, harmony, fashion, etc. Such an opinion will necessarily be true for the one who puts it forward. In subjectivity, a person expresses his own, as he "seems" or "appears." But in fact, this is not always true. Voicing his thoughts, a person, first of all, shows his inner state. It is important to remember that the opinion of other people, even prominent ones, should not be the only correct one for you. We can say that the subjective opinion is biased, so it is very important to learn to look at the situation from different angles, cope with emotions and put yourself in the place of others.

What does "objective opinion" mean?

An objective opinion does not depend on our condition. It is always based on proven and proven circumstances, when we do not look for excuses, but accept the situation as it is. For example, the laws of physics are objective and work regardless of our knowledge about them. The same can be said about many other things. When we try to appreciate certain situation, relegating to the background your mood, prejudices and, the opinion becomes as accurate as possible. This is difficult because we often become prisoners of our own emotional state. If you find it difficult, try to master the technique of stalking, which allows you to track down your feelings and emotions in order to constantly and completely control yourself.

Subjective and objective opinions differ significantly, but the problem with most people is that they consider their subjective opinion to be objective. We all need to learn to see situations deeper and look at them from different angles.

SUBJECTIVE

SUBJECTIVE

(from lat. subjectum - subject). Distinguished by a personal point of view on things, as opposed to an objective one.

Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. - Chudinov A.N., 1910 .

SUBJECTIVE

in contrast to the objective, personal, different from other features of the person; arising from mood, resulting from the tastes, habits, inclinations, desires of a given person, etc.

A complete dictionary of foreign words that have come into use in the Russian language. - Popov M., 1907 .

SUBJECTIVE

from lat. subjectum, subject. Originating in the personality itself.

Explanation of 25,000 foreign words that have come into use in the Russian language, with the meaning of their roots. - Mikhelson A.D., 1865 .

Subjective

[from Latin. subjectum] - 1) personal, peculiar only to a given person, subject; 2) opposite to the objective; subjective idealism - a direction in philosophy

A large dictionary of foreign words. - Publishing house "IDDK", 2007 .

Subjective

oh, oh, vein, vna ( German subjektiv, fr. subjectif lat. subjeclīvus added, attached).
1. biased, prejudiced; opposite objective. Subjective opinion.
2. Pertaining only to this person, subject, . Subjective sensations.
Subjectivity- property of the subjective 2.
|| Wed objective .

Dictionary foreign words L. P. Krysina.- M: Russian language, 1998 .

Synonyms:

See what "SUBJECTIVE" is in other dictionaries:

See biased ... Dictionary of Russian synonyms and expressions similar in meaning. under. ed. N. Abramova, M .: Russian dictionaries, 1999. subjective individual, taste, personal, one-sided, trendy, personalistic, personal, ... ... Synonym dictionary

SUBJECTIVE, subjective, subjective; subjective, subjective, subjective (book). Peculiar, inherent only to a given person, subject. subjective experiences. Cold sensations are very subjective. || Deprived of objectivity, biased, ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

SUBJECTIVE, oh, oh; vein, vna. 1. Inherent only in this subject, person. subjective feeling. 2. Biased, biased, lacking objectivity. Subjective assessment. Too subjective opinion. | noun subjectivity, and, wives. Explanatory ... ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

Relating to the subject, its nature and interests; subject dependent; meaningful only to the subject. S.'s opposite is objective. The subject can be not only an individual, but also a group of people, a society, a separate culture, ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

subjective- th, oe. subjectif adj., German. subjektiv lat. subjectivus added, attached. In this feeling there is nothing of the external object (objectif), because its object does not act on us from the outside, nor the personal (subjectif), because we are in it for ourselves ... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

subjective- 1. Peculiar only to this subject, person, personal; related to the subject. 2. One-sided, devoid of objectivity, biased, biased. Dictionary of practical psychologist. Moscow: AST, Harvest. S. Yu. Golovin. 1998 ... Great Psychological Encyclopedia

SUBJECTIVE - 1. free value- a characteristic of an individual or dependent on an individual, a subject. There are three sub-themes within this main meaning of the term, each reflecting a different sense of addiction, (a) Personal – that which is subjective… Explanatory Dictionary of Psychology

subjective- ▲ customized display objective subjectivity the dependence of ideas on the individual, the subject. subjectivism. subjective. a matter of taste. watch [look] from your bell tower. watch from your pole. can't get up... Ideographic Dictionary of the Russian Language

subjective- oh, oh; veins, vna 1) Relating to the subject, person, personality. Subjective factor in history. subjective reasons. Synonyms: personal / personal, human / cal 2) Reflecting thoughts, experiences, etc. of a given subject, peculiar only to this person ... Popular dictionary of the Russian language

subjective- possession is subjective in nature ... Verbal compatibility of non-objective names

Books

• Subjective Dictionary of Science Fiction, Arbitman Roman Emilievich. Is Pinocchio familiar with the Three Laws of Robotics? Did the Wellsian Martians fly into the Great Guslar? What do Harry Potter and Winston Churchill have in common? Why do aliens have such stupid names? Behind…

dream interpretation