Objectivity & Subjectivity

My friend wrote this as a Facebook post:

“Objectivity is a myth”

I wrote this comment:

[My friend], you said: I get so weary of peoples’ dogmatic opinions…such as…”The universe rotates around the Earth. Let’s burn anyone who thinks otherwise…”

I agree with you, people’s dogmatic opinions should be discarded if they are suggesting a truth claim that is simply false.  But if they are speaking the truth, I really don’t have a problem with people being “dogmatic.”  Now, violence is another issue, whether you’re dogmatic or not, violence doesn’t solve anything, and actually dehumanizes both the perpetrators and the victims.

And, here’s a question that everyone can objectively know the answer to, and if you attempt any kind of subjective answer you’ll be wrong (and I don’t feel any arrogance in saying that): “What’s one plus one?”  It’s interesting that we as humans appear to grasp on to objectivity when it comes to mathematics, laws of logic, or just encountering brute objective reality.

Here’s an illustration of encountering brute objective reality using your own illustration regarding earth and the Sun: People used to claim that the “Sun revolved around the earth.”  Normally we would say that was an understandable subjective knowledge (an observable phenomenon from one perspective).  But then, historically we gained a new perspective and observed that actually the earth revolves around the Sun.  Would anyone say that this new perspective is just subjective knowledge, or merely subjectively true?  Isn’t there a point where time tested scientific investigation can bring us to encounter the brute reality and objective truth that indeed the earth revolves around the Sun?

Here, it seems that a limited degree of objectivity is in fact attainable.  This is not a claim of exhaustive/comprehensive knowledge or divine knowledge, just human knowledge (thinking upon themselves as a Subject/Object within an objectively real universe).  It doesn’t mean I know all about matter, gravity, and all the interactions of unseen cosmic forces, but to a limited degree we can objectively know about objective reality.

So, yes, objectivity is a myth if you define it as you did: “Objectivity requires seeing without a lens,” since we are human beings, we are Subjects with minds.  But I would rather say this (and I think it is more accurate): “Objectivity without subjectivity is a myth.”  This preserves the possibility for human objectivity (in a limited and finite sense), as we encounter objective reality.

Therefore, I propose the following to be upheld at the same time:
1)    “Objectivity is not a myth.”
2)    “Objectivity without subjectivity is a myth.”

I guess, I view human beings as both Subjects and Objects in the universe (not merely Objects, and not merely Subjects), and therefore capable of both objectivity and subjectivity in regards to knowing truths.

Superficially speaking, it seems like modernism attempted to view the universe “objectively,” including human beings as mere Objects in an objective universe.  Then postmodernism comes along (what ever that means) and swings the pendulum the other way viewing the universe “subjectively” with human beings as mere Subjects creating and communally participating in their own diverse realities.  I think both are extremes!

Interestingly, I remember reading an ancient text (the Bible) where people viewed human beings as BOTH physical beings (Objects) AND spiritual beings (Subjects).  As a result, our methods of knowing reality must integrate objectivity and subjectivity in a holistic manner with out separation or compromising one over the other!