Academia.eduAcademia.edu

The Subjective Groundwork

Essentially an objective view.

THE SUBJECTIVE GROUNDWORK Responding to a question of “Why are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ subjective terms”… You're making an assumption that a term could be bad to begin with. Think about it: a subjectively bad term? That's like saying we have to feel bad when we use the term 'bad’. Actually, we just need to make a notation that something is bad. So, bad is an objective term, because it doesn't mean anything unless something is bad. However, the relative measurement of good or bad (which wouldn’t mean anything unless something actually were good or bad to us) may be subjective for this reason: because there is no use measuring in relation to things we don't understand, or about things we do not control. Remember that we may be wrong about facts (for example, recently there were black swans in Australia) and there is no real way to be objectively wrong about how we feel, unless it is good or bad in some way. However, our own relevance may be objective (I really don't speak French in this life), unless there is some reason to be subjective (a psych test, for instance) or if the outer world is somehow directly determined by our minds. All of this is why I would rather ask, WHAT ARE good and bad subjective terms? A good subjective term is 'emotional perspective’ or 'identification’ or 'sense of relevance’. In the sense that subjectivity concerns these things, subjectivity is good, and hence there are subjective terms for the good, and hence there are good subjective terms, and hence 'good’ might be a subjective term. A bad subjective term is 'opinion’ or 'judgment’ because those terms exclude emotion. Bad subjective terms end up looking like incoherence (un-relation to a big picture) rather than a real perspective. In the sense that subjectivity concerns these things, subjectivity is bad, and thus there is a bad form of subjectivity, and hence there are bad subjective terms, and hence 'bad’ might be a subjective term. However, none of these statements about whether subjective terms are good or bad will tell us whether there absolutely are good or bad subjective terms, since these terms, insofar as they are subjective, do not express a common reality. Thus, if we want to know whether something is actually good or bad, we need to refer to an objective system. This leads to the old Socratic problem of whether anyone knows anything at all. Truly objective systems do not conflict with perspective ultimately, they simply state what is true to the extent that it is true. Unless an objective system is coherent, it will have no way of stating the ultimate, and will likely have exceptions even if it is coherent, although the exceptions may not always be true objectively. Subjectively, we are free to consider ultimate systems unimportant if we wish. They do not stand on social authority, but rather on their usefulness to those who have found relevance for them. Thus, the assumption that ultimate systems are irrelevant is a specious claim unless the system is absolutely addressed in its own terms. The only way to prove a system is irrelevant may be to prove thst it is a system of irrelevance. And that may be hard to do within the terms of the system. For otherwise there is no way to absolutely disregard such systems. In this way, there is a similarity between rejecting emotional and systematic claims, e.g. because both must be addressed absolutely on their own terms. Coppedge, Nathan / SCSU 2016/12/25, p.
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy