Consider these two definitions of the adjective, objective.
1. based on facts, or making a decision that is based on facts rather than on your feelings or beliefs OPP subjective 2. formal existing outside the mind as something real, not only as an idea
Firstly, Definition #2 does not have subjective as its opposite. To consider what is the opposite of Definition #2 we need to look at the opposites within the definition itself. So the question is what exists inside the mind. And that is given in the definition at the end — idea. The next question then are ideas “real” in any sense of the word. By one definition, real is not imaginary, something that [ … ] actually exists and is not just imagined.
So what does Definition #1 mean when it is defined as based on facts, or making a decision based on facts. We must remember that a fact is not the thing itself as Wittgenstein pointed out. Thus, even the definition is suggesting that fact is an idea. We have noted ideas are not real, again, not things.
The first definition is about perception and therefore about knowledge (of facts) or epistemology. the second definition is about what is existent or ontology. So when we talk about being objective and objectivity we must always qualify whether we are talking about epistemological objectivity or ontological objectivity.
To be is about now. God is about the past before now. Heaven is about after now. The only time we have is now. Everything else is speculation.
I am curious, people say the physical is more than likely there. We play tennis in it. We navigate from one place to another in it. We seemingly have to function within.
We have no proof of knowledge of functioning before or after life in this physical world. We have no other access to knowledge of consciousness other than through this world. And yet we claim it is somehow separate from this world (mind and body duality) when we have zero evidence from either outside or inside this reality.
How can we claim any sort of duality other than the very body that does the mind?
The more data the better understanding we have of the world to which that data refers to. Data is thus a representation of the world and not the world. One must keep that in mind at all times.
Corpus linguistics represents the world in data. The simplest is type and token. The next layer is parts-of-speech or POS. Every token is given a POS in its context. This POS is a labeling of every item in language. POS therefore is a categorical representation of every word, itself a representation of the concepts and things in the world.
To account for the entirety of the representation of the world in words is what POS is. These are the categories of our mind, a summary of our conceptualizations.
In corpus linguistics language is studied in its entirety as types and tokens. A type is a complete gathering of one form under frequency. A token is the form in its natural environment in the text. Type study does not tell you anything about the usage but only the frequency. Token study tells you nothing about the frequency but only a particular usage. In combination we can learn a lot about what a word means and what is important about these words.
When things have only a name in common and the definition of being which corresponds to the name is different, they are called homonymous. Thus, for example, both a man and a picture are animals. These have only a name in common and the definition of being which corresponds to the name is different; for if one is to say what being an animal is for each of them, one will give two distinct definitions.Aristotle’s Categories
What does Aristotle mean by things having a name in common? He gave the example of a man and a picture (presumably of a man) being animals, that is, the physical being man and the representation of a man are both also animals. But this would be shorthand. For a man is an animal, and a picture is a representation of an animal. Just because a man is upright and two-legged and the representation is also of a figure who is upright and two-legged does not make it a homonymous, of different definition of beings. When you purchase a portrait you are obviously not purchasing that person but a representation of that person. The person and the painting or photograph are two objects.
Aristotle is talking about how words work. The book is called “Categories” not things or some other title. And as a corpus linguist words are their own domain of study, separate from their concepts or physical objects they represent.
There is no way to which we can directly know space other than from a contrastive difference of objects. Unless a force is exerted onto an object it does not move. An object, therefore, is seemingly a natural placeholder. Between two objects is some “thing” called space. A point in space is either occupied or not occupied by an object in a moment of time. A point in space cannot be occupied by 1) multiple objects, multiple spaces or a combination of object and space simultaneously. Space is therefore seemingly an “empty object” in lieu of an object. One point in space cannot be differentiated from another point in space without objects. Space is homogenous in a way that makes it difficult to comprehend without objects. Space is referenced by and inferred from objects.