>I suspect this common complaint of the perils of subjectivity of
>feeling stems in part from the problem of the attempt at what Dworkin
>calls an Archimedean approach: trying to evaluate our human systems
>and human behaviour from some point outside these institutions,
>outside ourselves and outside our convictions... I have hinted at
>this before when I tried to ask Gabriel what "objectivity" really
>-meant- and had no satisfactory answer.

Maybe I shall have another spin at this.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of arguments I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "

Ok, that's the cheap answer, since I too can agree that what is objective to some people may not be considered such to others. Ergo Creation "Science" and the like.

We could also take the scientific/statistical approach: we are never 100% sure of objectivity, but we are at least reasonably sure of it. Of course the problem then is that objectivity and truth might become hobbled by a lack of data, or defined by majoritarianism and groupthink.

Some might take comfort in outlining everything in the syntax of logic, starting with premises and following them to their logical conclusion. But the real world is not a logic circuit, and people can dispute the premises, the deductions and/or the conclusions.


I doubt we can come up with a definition or foolproof yardstick of objectivity, really, since it could always be deconstructed and its assumptions/method of discourse/worldview questioned. The only way to come up with something immune to post-modernism is to start with no assumptions, no method of discourse and no worldview. But then we wouldn't even be able to take a simple step for fear of plunging into the void, let alone start the journey of a thousand miles.

"Even deconstructionism can be deconstructed... you get an infinite regress" (I can't believe I forgot to put this on my quotes page)

Truth be told, I find the Cartesian insistence on absolute certainty (in this case, perfect objectivity) puzzling, since it can never be attained. Do we spend our time chasing phantoms, searching for "The One Truth" in hope of solving all the problems of the world (at least those that arise from inter-personal disagreements)? Hell, even if someone managed to dig out "The One Truth", some people would refuse to believe it. Wherefore the dogged quest for it? Much more can be done for much less - just look at the guy who, instead of searching for absolute truth/certainty, accumulated the world's largest collection of navel fluff (certified by the Guinness World Records. No, not the totally non-affiliated, ersatz Ma-laysian version)!

So - no, I cannot offer anyone absolute truth/certainty/objectivity. Would you settle for bread and circuses instead?


"The modern world is characterized by a percentage of objectivity. The dark ages is characterized by a overwhelming percentage of faith. The post-modern world is characterized by overwhelming nihilism."