Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:20 am
Might have something to do with the concept of objectivity being a rather Western one. Facts are objective, they universally apply; moral principles (usually more or less based on the natural human moral sense) are subjective, they don't universally apply.
The idea/ideal of objectivity probably comes from the scientific process, it thoroughly shaped Western thinking for a long time.
So non-Western thinkers like VA may only percieve varying degrees and forms of subjectivity, and may see the ideal of objectivity as effing insane, but they are simply misunderstanding it.
Likewise, Western thinkers may see it as effing insane (at least I do) that we don't devide things into subjective and objective. Using this division is a lot more advantageous overall.
As often you are jumping to conclusion based on ignorance.
Note this from the roots of 'Western Philosophy'
Protagoras (c. 490 BC – c. 420 BC) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher.
Protagoras is credited with the philosophy of relativism, which he discussed in his lost work, Truth (also known as Refutations).[11][17] Although knowledge of Protagoras' position is limited, his relativism is inferred from one of his most famous statements:
"
Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not.
Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC, fl. 504/3 BC – 501/0 BC) was an Ancient Greek, pre-Socratic Ionian philosopher.
He was most famous for his insistence on ever-present change, or flux or becoming, as the characteristic feature of the world, as stated in the famous saying, "
No man ever steps in the same river twice" as well as "panta rhei", everything flows.
There were other ancient Western Philosophers who are claimed reality is subjective, i.e. intersubjective and not absolutely objective.
Then we have
Kant - no thing in itself.
Then
Nietzsche and Perspectivism,
Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can transcend cultural formations or subjective designations.[6] Therefore, there are no objective facts, nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. - wiki
There are many hardcore 'objectivists' like the earlier-
Wittgenstein who turned to intersubjectivity in the later part of his life.
Personally I believe in objectivity but only relative-objectivity thus objectivity in this case is merely inter-subjectivity, i.e. ultimately subjective.
The dichotomy of objectivity and intersubjectivity is present within humanity everywhere, Western, Eastern, Middle-Eastern, Middle-Western and everywhere.
What overrides is inter-subjectivity with regards to reality.
Those who are hardcore objectivists [not the Randian types] are because of a deep evolutionary and psychological issue.
