I sympathize. I think part of the problem though might be the word “objectivity.” How do you define it?
For myself, I’ve been toying with the weaker phrase “trans-subjective” to affirm that there is more to reality that mere subjectivity, without having to defend a claim to objectivity. E Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 7, 2018, at 08:12, Billy Rojas <[email protected]> wrote: > > The weakness of current critiques of objectivity, said to be impossible > anyway, > > is that where this gets us is to that place where, in the 1920s, > > Weimar Germany was getting, a breakdown in credibiliity > > in just about all "family values." This opens the door wide > > to nihilisim, to anything goes libertarianism, and, hence > > to virulent strains of populism. > > > > Mind you, I am pro-populist, but this refers to the 1890s version > > of populism, not to the authoritarian forms that have arisen since. > > It is the authoritarian forms that all-too-easily slide over into > > full fledged hard Right and hard Left authoritarianisms. > > > > Finally, I define RC in large part as research centered. > > This refers to the scientific method, or as much of that method > > as we can make use of in ordinary prose. For me this means > > that objectivity, as much objectivity as possible, > > is the necessary foundation of Radical Centrism. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
