Is objectivity all in the mind?​

What is objectivity?

Objectivity is often regarded as the cornerstone of rational thought and ethical deliberation. It is commonly defined as the ability to perceive or present facts without bias or emotion. Although objectivity is typically perceived as “external” and constant, a critical question arises: Is objectivity truly independent of the mind, or is it a cultural and cognitive construct? This suggests that objectivity may, in fact, be shaped by our surroundings and mental frameworks. It remains uncertain whether objectivity is a tangible reality or merely an illusion constructed by the mind—one that ironically generates the very biases it seeks to eliminate. While our social and cognitive structures are deeply influenced by prevailing notions of objectivity, the concept still holds value as a practical tool and collective ideal, even if absolute neutrality is ultimately unattainable.

Is Reality Independent of the Mind? — The Philosophical Perspective

The long-debated relationship between the mind and reality continues to fuel philosophical inquiry, particularly in the tension between realism—the belief that reality exists independently of perception—and idealism, which holds that reality is mentally constructed.

René Descartes, often called the father of modern philosophy, famously doubted the existence of everything except his own capacity for thought: “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). His radical skepticism led him to ground all knowledge in the certainty of thinking itself, suggesting the primacy of the mind in shaping what we accept as truth. Although Descartes eventually accepted the existence of an external world, his inquiry raised lasting questions about the extent to which reality—and objectivity—are mediated by the mind.

Building on such inquiries, Immanuel Kant introduced a crucial distinction between the noumenal world (things as they are in themselves) and the phenomenal world (things as we experience them). He argued that our understanding of reality is filtered through innate categories of the mind—such as space, time, and causality—which actively structure our perception. Thus, even if an objective reality exists, it is inaccessible in its pure form; our experience of it is always shaped by the mental frameworks we impose.

This suggests that objectivity, as we commonly understand it, is not a direct reflection of external reality, but a product of the mind’s interpretive structure. In this view, what we call “objective” may be consistent across human experiences, but it is not necessarily independent of the mind.

A Myth or a Method? — The Science Behind it

Science is often upheld as the pinnacle of objectivity, governed by rigorous methodologies and empirical evidence. However, even scientific objectivity is not immune to philosophical scrutiny.

Thomas Kuhn, in his groundbreaking work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, argued that science does not progress through a steady accumulation of facts, but rather through paradigm shifts—radical changes in the underlying frameworks scientists use to interpret data. For example, the shift from Newtonian physics to Einstein’s theory of relativity did not simply refine existing models; it fundamentally redefined the concepts of space, time, and gravity.

This suggests that what is considered “objective truth” in science is, to some extent, shaped by prevailing worldviews and conceptual structures. Kuhn’s insight challenges the notion of timeless, unchanging objectivity and highlights the role of the mind and culture in shaping scientific knowledge.

Furthermore, Paul Feyerabend claimed in Against Method that there is no universal scientific method, and that progress often arises from the breaking of methodological rules. This undermines the idea that science provides a direct and unfiltered window into objective reality.

Nevertheless, science still aspired to objectivity through tools like falsification, peer review, and replicability. While individual scientists may be biased, the scientific community aims to current such biases by subjecting ideas to the collective scrutiny to form intersubjective objectivity — knowledge that is agreed upon by multiple minds.

In this sense, objectivity in science may not be free from mental frameworks, but it is not “all in the mind” either. It is a collective effort to transcend individual subjectivity through transparent, repeatable methods.

Whose objectivity? — The Cultural and Social Relativism

If our mind compromises on objectivity on an individual level, the problem may deepen when we consider culture. When one society regards as the “truth” may be unacceptable to another. This raises the issue of cultural relativism — the idea that beliefs and values are shaped by cultural context over universal standards.

Michel Foucault argued that the “truth” is not just discovered, but produced by power structures. According to him, every society has its own “system of truth” that is maintained by institutions, discourses, and practices. For instance, what was once considered objective knowledge about a race is now understood to be culturally and politically constructed.

Even in ethics and law, where objectivity is placed on a pedestal, cultural variation abounds with concepts such as justice, freedom, of fairness — which differ across societies. Thus, objectivity may not be a universal standard but a social consensus—a shared fiction that facilitates cooperation.

A Useful Aspiration - Practical Objectivity

Despite these challenges, objectivity retains practical relevance. It may not be absolute, but it functions as a normative ideal—something to strive for, even if we never fully achieve it.

For example, in journalism, objectivity means presenting information fairly and accurately and verifying sources. In law, objectivity is central due to the idea of impartial judgment. Even in everyday discourse, appeals to objectivity help resolve disagreements and build trust.

This idea aligns with the concept of intersubjectivity, which explains that objectivity is not as detached from all minds as we think, but is an agreement among critically reflective minds. When individuals with different perspectives converge on the same conclusion through rational deliberation and evidence, we approach a kind of collective objectivity.

Moreover, fields like mathematics and formal logic provide examples of objectivity that seem independent of mental bias. While some argue that these concepts are all human inventions, they have remained consistent throughout history and cultures, which suggests a form of objectivity that transcends individual minds.

In this view, objectivity is not entirely in the mind, but neither is it entirely outside it. It is both a product of mental and social processes and a standard we use to test and improve our understanding of the world.

Conclusion

The question of whether objectivity is all in the mind invites a rich exploration of human cognition, culture, and knowledge — from philosophy to psychology, from science to society, we find that our understanding of objectivity is undeniably shaped by mental and social frameworks; this does not render it meaningless or wholly imaginary.

Absolute objectivity (the complete detachment from all perspectives) may be a myth, but the concept of intersubjective objectivity, achieved through critical thinking, collaboration, and methodological rigor, offers a functional and meaningful alternative.

Thus, objectivity may begin in the mind, but it does not end there.

It is not merely a mental illusion, but a collective project—a continual effort to move beyond personal and cultural limitations toward greater clarity and shared truth. In a world where we are heavily influenced by our surroundings and divided by perspectives, objectivity is not an endpoint, but a compass—imperfect, yet indispensable.

Bibliography:

• Mulder, Dwayne H. “Objectivity | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/objectiv/.

• Hatfield, Gary. “René Descartes.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 3 Dec. 2008, plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/.

• PHILOSOPHY (GENERAL) SEM 2 Paper CC-2 WESTERN PHILOSOPHY TOPIC--Idealism vs. Realism.

• krharris. “Idealism versus Realism | a Concise Theory of Truly Everything.” Voices.uchicago.edu, 1 June 2022, voices.uchicago.edu/actote/2022/06/01/idealism-versus-realism/.

• Duignan, Brian, and Otto Allen Bird. “Immanuel Kant.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 8 Feb. 2019, www.britannica.com/biography/Immanuel-Kant.

• “Noumenon | Definition, Example, & Facts.” Encyclopedia Britannica, www.britannica.com/topic/noumenon.

• “Phenomenal-World.” Yourdictionary.com, 2021, www.yourdictionary.com/phenomenal-world.

• Bird, Alexander. “Thomas Kuhn.” Stanford.edu, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 31 Oct. 2018, plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/.

• Preston, John. “Paul Feyerabend (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford.edu, 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/feyerabend/.

• Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed., vol. 2, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1962.

• Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method. London, Verso, 1975.

• An Overview of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

• Feyerabend, Paul. “Paul Feyerabend’s against Method.” Marxists.org, 2019, www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm.

• “APA PsycNet.” Apa.org, 2025, psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2017-30567-003.html.

• Freeman, Eugene. “OBJECTIVITY as “INTERSUBJECTIVE AGREEMENT.”” The Monist, vol. 57, no. 2, 1973, pp. 168–175. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27902304, https://doi.org/10.2307/27902304.

• Carnegie Council. “Cultural Relativism.” Www.carnegie council.org, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2023, www.carnegiecouncil.org/explore-engage/key-terms/cultural-relativism.

• Gutting, Gary, and Johanna Oksala. “Michel Foucault .” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 5 Aug. 2022, plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/.

• Elif Özmen. “Academic Freedom: Normative Ideals, Contemporary Challenges.” Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, Vol. 34, No. 3, 1. Sept. 2024, pp. 379–385, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-024-00390-w.

• Trondalen, Gro . “Intersubjectivity - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics.” Www.sciencedirect.com, 2019, www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/intersubjectivity.