Subjectivity and Objectivity

A: Why are we here?

O: I don’t know, man. Like, sometimes when I’m about to fall asleep, I ask that. Do I have a purpose here? Is there someone I’m suppose to meet? Oh! Am I really here? That’ll keep you up at night-

A: No. As in, why are we starting a blog?

O: Shits and giggles?

A: Is it really appropriate to swear? Won’t people take us less seriously?

O: Fuck ’em.

A: Now you’re being profane.

O: Okay okay. Nay on the profanity, yay on the obscenity.

A: Just, keep it to a reasonable level.

O: How would you define a “reasonable level”?

A: Use your best judgement.

O: What if my best and your best aren’t the same?

A: You could ask “what the best ought to be?”

O: Assuming there is a best best.

A: Why wouldn’t there be?

O: Well, there might be, but you’re still assuming it. How do you know there is a best best?

A: Some would argue there exists an objective essence or form for all things.

O: Some would argue objectivity is an impossibility and the best we can manage is subjective interpretations.

A: How do they know subjectivity is the best if “the best” is subjective?

O: I’d venture to say it’s because it makes them feel good about themselves.

A: How?

O: If everything is subjective and up to an individuals perception and interpretation, then no there would be no basis to judge the value of an individuals beliefs. Say you and I disagree on a topic. We’d both feel bad if our belief was wrong about said topic. But, because everything is subjective both our opinions are equally valid thus “right”. In other words we agree to disagree because you and I only have subjective knowledge and could never know the same thing regarding the same topic. Subjectivism is the ideological manifestation of defensive posturing exhibited by an alcoholic when face with an intervention.

“Honey, you have a drinking problem.” “Well dear, that’s just your interpretation of my drinking. I don’t think you drink enough”.

A: That’s an oddly specific example.

O: Call it my subjective experience.

A: Aren’t we against subjective things?

O: We’re against all subjective things. Some subjective things are okay.

A: You’re gonna have to give me a bit more than that.

O: We established earlier that subjectivism is the belief that all things are subjective, correct? Knowledge, morals, the taste of chocolate, etc. Literally, all things. I disagree with that notion. I believe some things are subjective. Say you and I see a woman. Assume I find this woman stunningly gorgeous while she just isn’t your type. You and I are perceiving the same stimulus, the woman, yet experiencing different feelings regarding her. Our attraction towards her is subjective based upon our individual tastes. Thus, some subjective things exist.

A: If some things are subjective, then why aren’t all things?

O: If all things are subjective, then nothing is objective. I believe some things are objective. Therefore, not all things can be subjective.

A: What are some objective things?

O: What about ideas? Earlier you said that some would argue there exists objective forms or essences for all things. If we can reasonably believe that there is at least one thing that has an objective essence or nature, then not all things can be subjective.

A: What’d you have in mind?

O: What about unicorns?

A: What about them?

O: Do they exist?

A: No.

O: How do you know they don’t exist?

A: Because they’re a fictional concept that aren’t real.

O: However, the concept of a unicorn does exist. Otherwise, how would we know we’ve never seen one? In other words, if we didn’t have an idea of what a unicorn should look like then we wouldn’t be able to look at a horse and say “Nope, that’s not it.”

A: So you’re trying to argue that the concept of a unicorn is an objective thing?

O: I am. What do you think of when you imagine a unicorn?

A: A horse with a horn.

O: Exactly. Despite the many variations the unicorn has been through over the years, whether they glitter and fly, their exists an essence to the creature. That is, there is an objective definition of what defines a unicorn. If the parameters of that definition are not met, then the creature simply is not a unicorn. Are you a unicorn?

A: I am not.

O: What if you feel like a unicorn though? As if you’re longing to trot through mystical meadows and sip from spiritual springs?

A: I do not fit the definition of what a unicorn ought to be, therefore I cannot be a unicorn, contrary to subjective feelings.

O: You bet. You’re able to appeal to the objective concept of a unicorn to determine you are in fact not a unicorn. Further, if the definition of a unicorn was not objective, we could not distinguish true unicorns from false unicorns. No one could claim their concept was any more “unicorn-y” then another’s. Subjectively, anything could be a unicorn. And if anything could be a unicorn, then nothing is a unicorn.

A: What do you mean by that? “If anything could be a unicorn, then nothing is a unicorn”?

O: If nothing has an objective definition, then what separates one thing from another? You could call a circle a square. I could call a square a circle. And neither of us could appeal to any knowledge of circles or squares to validate our claims.

A: If no one can be wrong, then everybody is right.

O: I think that’s a popular belief currently. But doesn’t that, well, not seem right?

A: If there is no wrong, then how is there a right?

O: Exactly. What’s the word you use to define that?

A: They’re complements. One gives meaning to the other. Separate, they’re worthless. Light and dark, good and evil, truth and false. All complementary ideas.

O: So, if all things are subjective, then there is no wrong. However, if there is no wrong, there is no right. Thus, if nothing is right or wrong, there is no value to the statement “all things are subjective”.

A: Correct. By the nature of the statement “all things are subjective”, the assertion is indeterminate as it can neither validate nor invalidate itself.

O: How then does the subjectivist assert there is no objectivity?

A: Illogically.

O: What then of objectivity?

A: Objectivity appears necessary for logical thinking.

O: How so?

A: We’ve been down subjectivity’s path and came to a rather unfulfilling conclusion. Namely, that the truthfulness of an issue cannot be found through subjective thinking. However, we make decisions everyday based on whether or not related ideas to our choice are true or not. For instance, I see a horse and wonder “is that a unicorn?” By thinking objectively and knowing there is an idea of what a unicorn should be I am able to say “No, that is a horse”.

Objectivity provides the means to determine right and wrong. It allows assumptions to be made, then checked to determine their validity. Consciously or unconsciously, anytime we seek to determine any thing’s value as true or false we think objectively. Without the ability to discern right and wrong logical thought is not feasible. Yes and no. 1 or 0. True or false. Every operation depends on its ability to be referenced to an objective rule, principle, or existence.

O: What if I think you’re wrong?

A: Then I’m not.