Billy Rojas, I liked this explanation of subjectivity. Can I post it to my blog? With your name.
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, 11:43 pm Billy Rojas, <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com> wrote: > *Ernie:* > > There isn't just one correct way to define "objectivity." However, there is > > no point in getting tangled up in knots over the issue. Essentially my > viewpoint > > is that of the philosophical Pragmatists like James and Peirce. > > > Objectivity is what makes medical science possible, that allows for a > procedure > > like open heart surgery to be successful, that permits experts to predict > the weather > > or (albeit with only a few seconds warning with current technology) > earthquakes > > in places with lots of monitoring, that allows for architects to design > great bridges > > that span hundreds of feet of water and not fall down, and so forth for a > wide > > variety of areas of interest from economics to hydraulics to psychology > > to molecular engineering. > > > We can be approximately as successful as scientists about such matters > > to the extent that we use scientific method or something similar. So far > > there still are mistakes in many areas but what is remarkable is how > > far we have progressed since, say, 1750. > > > Objectivity should also mean willingness to value subjectivity in all cases > > where personal feelings, intuitions, inclinations, values, etc are in play > > which do not conflict with legitimate use of the scientific method. > > > That is, to refer to the crux of things, not for one minute do I disregard > the > > worth and reality of the spiritual realm; and this is subjective in many > senses. > > However, not for one minute do I disregard the approach of the sciences > > to religion, either. Religion is both a phenomenon amenable to scientific > > scrutiny and an epiphenomenon which is its own domain. As such this > > manifestly does not mean that religion is the focus of an ever shrinking > > set of phenomena, everything else having given up its secrets to > > microscopes and telescopes. Rather, the real task is to try and > > understand the relationships of everything that goes by the term > > "religious" and to be open to something that might be characterized > > as communication from a life-affirming unseen source. > > > To me this also says that we are far better off using the standard > vocabulary > > of "objective" and "subjective." I may well adopt a neologism now and > > then but whatever a new word may turn out to be, it should not > > muddy the waters. > > > > This said, there is far better language available to talk about > > religion -aka spirituality- than with antiseptic terms and abstractions. > > Give me a classic poem by Dryden any day, or heartfelt searching by > > Albert Schweitzer or, of course, Proverbs in the Bible, or Ecclesiastes, > > or the Gospels, or for that matter, the Dhammapada. > > > > Billy > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Centroids <drer...@radicalcentrism.org> > *Sent:* Thursday, March 8, 2018 9:00 AM > *To:* RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com > *Cc:* Billy Rojas > *Subject:* Objectivity Re: [RC] Fwd: [FoRK] Science Wars: Is Science a > Social Construct?, Women's Studies as Virus > > 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 <1billyro...@buglephilosophy.com> > 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 < > RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> > 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 radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> 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 radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
