To me, subjectivity has always much to do with the development of one's sense of beauty, line, harmony. I do not see it as the same as having an opinion. No doubt about it, I have always been late in having opinions anyway, because they seemed rather ugly, crude excrescences, without any explicable rhyme or reason. They were simply there. And they mostly belonged to other people. And I had to deal with them. But mostly they got in the way of my attempt to see the underlying connections between things. There were structural connections and there were causal connections and there were connections that either maintained or disrupted harmony -- or reorganised it. These took a while to see, but they were worth the work, because everything became richer when one understood these semi-hidden factors.
So it was that I developed my subjectivity.
But then, much later I learned that I had taken an unusual path. When most people spoke of subjectivity, what they meant was their crude, untrained opinion. For instance, I might instantly take a dislike to someone because of some feature on their face, or the way they disappointed my ideals, or because they don't look like they belong here.
To be able to be arbitary and rampant in the face of fate and to feel that anything one feels and wants to express is automatically justified -- this is what most people understand by "subjectivity".
And there are others who view the term almost entirely pejoratively, as they consider themselves to be objectivists, only interested in the facts. But, if they're only interested in the facts, then they have no option but to measure, ascertain and give all credence to others basic opinions, since these are obvious facts. That is to say, in the contemporary world, everybody has an opinion.
The most objective types are those who bow down to the force of others' untrained, undirected and unthought-through opinions. For instance, hammering down on asylum seekers trying to enter Australia is the pattern of those who recognise that a strong train of opinion must certainly be catered to. Anyone who succeeds in politics these days must submit to this measure of objectivity.
Ultimately, then, objectivity and extreme but untrained opinionatedness are one and the same in that they lead in the same direction -- Only, one is on a micro level and the other then appears as a broader political fact.
So it was that I developed my subjectivity.
But then, much later I learned that I had taken an unusual path. When most people spoke of subjectivity, what they meant was their crude, untrained opinion. For instance, I might instantly take a dislike to someone because of some feature on their face, or the way they disappointed my ideals, or because they don't look like they belong here.
To be able to be arbitary and rampant in the face of fate and to feel that anything one feels and wants to express is automatically justified -- this is what most people understand by "subjectivity".
And there are others who view the term almost entirely pejoratively, as they consider themselves to be objectivists, only interested in the facts. But, if they're only interested in the facts, then they have no option but to measure, ascertain and give all credence to others basic opinions, since these are obvious facts. That is to say, in the contemporary world, everybody has an opinion.
The most objective types are those who bow down to the force of others' untrained, undirected and unthought-through opinions. For instance, hammering down on asylum seekers trying to enter Australia is the pattern of those who recognise that a strong train of opinion must certainly be catered to. Anyone who succeeds in politics these days must submit to this measure of objectivity.
Ultimately, then, objectivity and extreme but untrained opinionatedness are one and the same in that they lead in the same direction -- Only, one is on a micro level and the other then appears as a broader political fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment