When I speak about "objectivity" and "subjectivity" I am really speaking about human attitudes. "Objectivity" is the state of mind that removes emotion as far as possible from the equation. So, the lens of "objectivity" is fairly unemotional, but still not METAPHYSICALLY (that is, in terms of last truths) objective. A surgeon or airline pilot needs to be "objective" in this sense.
By contrast: "subjectivity" allows emotions to become part of the lens by which reality is observed. This is, I think describes natural human tendencies, in relation to the central core of human emotionality.
What is artificial is repressing subjectivity to get objectivity -- that is to say, the patriarchal formula for making headway. Repression cannot lead to a viewpoint devoid of emotion, but rather to a state where emotions are no longer integrated with the important human search for meaning. Additionally, this lack of integration of the emotions with the rest of the psyche leads to emotional distortions of reality. Paradoxically, one must have a certain amount of emotional integration to be able to stand apart from the emotions, with emotional equilibrium. For this purpose, a strong ego can help objective detachment better than a weak ego, but the strong ego has to be self-assured enough not to fend off reality, but to dissolve itself into reality at times, without losing its potential to regain its strength.
As for subjective states, they can be useful in many ways, especially in determining unconscious boundaries of identity, whether these happen to be related to nation, religion or gender. We can be very scientific and critique our own subjectitivies with the aid of other subjectivities. That is when the fun begins but also when we start to develop our capacity and knowledge for political affairs. At the its most active end knowledge and self-mastery, the capacity for politics is the self-conscious commitment to develop lenses through which others come to see the world.
By contrast: "subjectivity" allows emotions to become part of the lens by which reality is observed. This is, I think describes natural human tendencies, in relation to the central core of human emotionality.
What is artificial is repressing subjectivity to get objectivity -- that is to say, the patriarchal formula for making headway. Repression cannot lead to a viewpoint devoid of emotion, but rather to a state where emotions are no longer integrated with the important human search for meaning. Additionally, this lack of integration of the emotions with the rest of the psyche leads to emotional distortions of reality. Paradoxically, one must have a certain amount of emotional integration to be able to stand apart from the emotions, with emotional equilibrium. For this purpose, a strong ego can help objective detachment better than a weak ego, but the strong ego has to be self-assured enough not to fend off reality, but to dissolve itself into reality at times, without losing its potential to regain its strength.
As for subjective states, they can be useful in many ways, especially in determining unconscious boundaries of identity, whether these happen to be related to nation, religion or gender. We can be very scientific and critique our own subjectitivies with the aid of other subjectivities. That is when the fun begins but also when we start to develop our capacity and knowledge for political affairs. At the its most active end knowledge and self-mastery, the capacity for politics is the self-conscious commitment to develop lenses through which others come to see the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment