An Essay on One Miniscule Phrase* in One of Cloudthreads.blogspot.com Blogger.Blogs
(initial pause in Essay for a * commentary)
*Thereby not meriting being an “official Comment”. Clouthreads.blogspot.com is on a top 'one' list of my own and is informative, inventive, unexpected and just generally enjoyable. To post this as a comment would communicate disdain, conflict, dissapproval and other vaguely engineered nastiness, so although I think there is some merit in my reaction (or I obviously would not have spent any time on writing this), do not mistake my intensity for argumentativeness or general boogerishness (may it never be). If in knowing this you can still continue reading with a detached perspective, you are welcome.
(the Essay continued)
Objectivist. I will accept your use of this label, but I will not copy it.
I still think a more accurate term for you to use if you wish to communicate with anyone outside of a post modern world view would be: “Rigid Objectivist”. Within your own community, I think your usage may have clarity, particularly with those who have read the right books, because your community uses objective analysis and observation to discern lack of sincerity and authenticity, thus an adjective is not necessary. "Hardcore" might not be enough, however, for an ‘outsider’.
For example, "Be objective" about something, can mean ‘be rigid’ as in your usage, or it can merely mean ‘be connected with reality, not assumptions,” as in my usage.
"His objectivity is lacking." doesn't speak of rigidness, but rather of a lack of authenticity in his conclusions. Note, I use 'authenticity' not 'sincerity'. The latter word is valuable in communicating intentions, but not reality.
Now, “reality” is perhaps the greater question. Can we know anything that is real, or must we ever hold in the back of our mind that everything we perceive is/may be merely illusion? Such a back of the mind convention is Convenient if obfuscating as in avoiding guilt or failure, but otherwise is not a practical extreme.
I hear in your use of the simpler term “Objectivist” that you properly decry a perception of reality that has all the answers and everything explained, thus holding to "my way or the hi-way" totalitarianism, which you rightly condemn as a major element of injustice throughout history.
But can we be objective even in our uncertainty? For example, if I were to modify my own personal label I would call myself an 'Uncertain Objectivist', or say ‘I have great uncertainty in my objective observations’. I want to assent that there is truth that can be known, but avoid the arrogance that I know all of it.
I think I shrink from moving from rigidity in policy, life, and community to an equally unacceptable perception that absolute truth cannot be found and thus concluding all opinions, while equally valid, are also equally true. Logically and practically if all positions are equally true and real, then I have reached absurdity where nothing is true or real.
On that point, can opposite truths be true at the same time? Of course! We use ‘paradox’ to identify such an occurrence, but my point is more universal: can all opinions be equally true? Can we even suggest a singular opinion is probably/possibly wrong? On what basis? Subjective feelings? Evidence? Or do we avoid objectivity to the point where no judgment can be cast? Obviously if Objectivism can be rejected, there must be more than a subjective perception to merit such a conclusion.
I do not prefer either extreme: totalitarianism or absurdity, and in addition I eschew avoiding those extremes, even in single word labels. But as I personally misuse (abuse?) much of the English language to a greater degree, both intentionally and not, I grant you your use of the word, Objectivist, but regrettably will not hold it as my own.
No comments:
Post a Comment