On Objectivity

Today I want to discuss objectivity. It is a concept many people debated and yet we have no absolute definition for objectivity. All we know for sure is that in modern language objectivity and subjectivity are two conflicting and ireconciliable concepts. But are they?

Subjectivity is apparently easier to define. We commonly agree that to be subjective means to present facts or ideas filtered through one's personal mindset, through one's personal view of the world. But here we are again stuck with a bothering question: even for a single individual, is there a constant and absolute point of view? Can you decide for certain that the way you interpret an event today is the same as your past or future interpretation of that very same fact? I believe you cannot. Therefore, we need to further investigate what exacly drives people to make certain judgements at a certain point in time.

In principle, expressing a subjective view of something is to assert one's identity using the freedom of speech. Thus, we could conclude that absolute objectivity would occur only with the utter absence of personal identity. But that is one condition I have yet to encounter, and I would go even further and say, it is a condition you also never have or will ever encounter. On top of that, your personal mindset is constructed upon not only what you experience, but also on external influences, that is "somebody else's subjective reasoning".

In the light of this fact, I ask you: is objectivity desirable? is objectivity worth anything? In the end, the perspective loses importance when compared to motive. The motive that drives a person to do or say something should be regarded as the main criterium when judging the moral value of an action. We are all prone to mistakes. Many times, the actual consequence of our actions do not lye within the boundaries of what we wanted or expected to achieve.

Yet the reason we embarqued on that enterprise remains unchanged even after a "failure". So shouldn't the ulterior motive be the main point of criticism? And shouldn't criticism be immediately followed by a better solution for the problem that the "poor, guilty party" misguidedly, yet well intentionally, tried to solve?

What do you think?

Introduction

I will not start by introducing myself as an individual, as I believe that is not quite important, at least not at this point. I mainly want to explain what I expect to achieve (even though "achieve" is probably not the best term) with the help of this blog.

The "purpose" of this endeavor is to create a framework for a better understanding of both how ideas are projected into reality strongly dependent on the specific mindset of the entity that does the actual projection and how the collision of these projections actually influence our life and individual opinions on facts of general interest.

Therefore, as I do not wish my writings to bother anyone, I will just begin by admitting that I hold no claim of objectivity on any of the articles that will follow, and that this whole enterprise has the only goal of raising consciousness about some self evident things that hold great influence over our lives and yet are rather "kept under the radar" as far as most people are concerned.

You are the ones who will analyze, judge, and eventually decide if anything you read here has been worth those 5 minutes of your life, because that is how it is supposed to be.