Tuesday, January 26, 2010

The Overimportance of Objectivity

Friar Tuck reminded me that we are subject to curious fits of self-doubt, by which I mean that we can always set up thought experiments to doubt that the self exists. But the fact is that while there are many ways to distract you from yourself, there is much more that persuades you that you exist.

No matter what science tells you about the molecular, atomic, or subatomic composition of your too-mortal frame, the fact is that you wake up in the morning, you feel the hangover. You feel the aches and pains, the sensations of being. No matter how unearthly the scientist, how objective his intellectual sensibilities, if he has heartburn or a headache, it is hard to remain purely objective. The disinterested observer of self does not exist.

To me, science and mathematics are games. Neither of them impacts my sense of self. I can intellectually believe that I am soup, or as Asimov (I think) once put it, water with impurities. But no matter how much empathy I muster, how much sensitivity I have that makes me tear up during certain movie moments, I am centred around me. It is my pain that I feel in my aching feet, it is my heartache I feel when I am sad. Even when I am sad for someone else, I am sad in me.

But what then of religion, of faith and my own quirk (at least that's how my non-religious friends see it) of Christianity? Well, since subjectivity is all, I am sure God will forgive me for having the purely subjective belief in Him. Do I care if I am wrong about Christ? No. Does it then devalue Christianity to not care if I am wrong? No. All such reasoning is hypothetical. I believe, I believe 'in my heart', and that's it for me. Not that I can't defend my belief if that's the game to be played, of course.

Objectivity is the Great Lie. There is no such thing. One would have thought that Einstein's ideas on relativity, and Newton's ideas before that, and the entire chain of ideas (for those who claim objective belief or beliefs can exist) would dissuade people from believing in that which they cannot directly engage.

Which brings us to the last frontier. Do we directly engage what we think is the self? I have no idea. All I know is that my feet hurt, I like coffee, I do things that seem to me to be good things, and I enjoy the company of certain people — who appear to have a real existence to me that I cannot penetrate. I have dislikes, I have tastes, I have the desire to use what functions as a language. But it's all me, and no matter how you can discredit solipsism by intellectual reasoning (yes, I know how it's done), that's all a game.

As that famous sage once said, "How are we to know if our reason has anything to do with reality at all?" I don't know, but if the game comes round, I'll play it.

Labels: , , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger dga said...

I apologize if I don't get everything you said, but if objectivity is a lie, then how does it connect with what you posted earlier:
"The fact is that we believe in absolutes. A relativist must believe that there is a relationship of some sort between the things he connects by relativism; this relationship either exists or it does not, and if he claims that it is of unknown quality of existence, then he makes his own argument dubious."

You don't seem to buy into postmodernism. Isn't absolutism = objectivism? Whether we can agree on the objectivity of a certain fact doesn't seem to be relevant here.

Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:33:00 am  
Blogger Trebuchet said...

Apologies for the late reply, but I really didn't see your comment for a few weeks...

Absolutism is to assert that a thing is ultimately true. We can invent things that fit this definition, for example, we can use tautologies such as the assertion of identity in mathematics based on defined axioms. (Mathematics relies on consistency, not reality.) We assume that invention is allowed, and that proofs are likewise allowed. Most realms allow this.

Objectivism is to assert that a thing is the same whether mind exists or not. There are many ways to demonstrate that this argument defeats itself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy).

Postmodernism, as I demonstrated once to a student who used such arguments, renders its own arguments meaningless and is quite happy to do so. Nothing needs to be relevant in postmodernism. This is OK if your discipline is aesthetic, cultural, literary etc. It defeats itself in most other realms, since in those realms, arguments need to be consistent.

Monday, February 22, 2010 6:55:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home