For most of my life, I valued the ideas of objectiveness and logic.
I was a math major. I aced my philosophy of logic course. I prided myself on being very logical.
I don’t think I’m the only one. Right??
When it came to any problem in life, there was ONE acceptable line of reasoning and THAT WAS IT as far as I was concerned!
But then with more learning and realizations, old ideas of what I believed to be “objective” would fall away to new ones.
If I’m completely honest, I could think back to some messed up things I used to believe were “objective truths” that I am not thrilled about admitting.
Also, sometimes I would meet others who would very earnestly believe that their views were “objective” and I would think, “Whoa, that person is waaay off”.
So who is ultimately right?
At some point I realized that I was slowing down my personal growth by striving to catch this moving target called objectivity.
After really questioning the meaning of objectivity and logic, there are some ideas I came across.
Aside from the fact that we all have different perspectives that have emerged through unique experiences and personal focus, here are some reasons why I don’t strive for objectivity and logic anymore:
OBJECTIVITY IS NOT NECESSARILY REAL
In any academic or otherwise institutional setting, there is a range of ideas thought of as acceptable (Unicorns are not one of them. Such a shame!)
Within that range of acceptable ideas, we have even fewer ideas that are considered “objective”.
However, many ideas that continue to be considered “objective” are perpetuated for several reasons. For example, a new idea could mean that long established ways of thinking are not necessarily as solid as once thought. The fear that often comes with the blurry uncertainty would certainly cause resistance towards this new idea.
Also, on a systemic, institutional level, many may be benefiting in some way from the ideas the systems are built on. Thus, ideas that are not in line with those of the system may not be considered or examined with the same rigor as ones that would strengthen the particular line of “logic” the system is built on.
If all ideas are not given the same level of consideration, how can we be sure of what is “true” or “objective”?
THE DOMINANT IDEAS ARE NOT ALWAYS THE BEST ONES
Mathematics is a great example of this. Anything we consider “logical”, is based on the specific line of reasoning that allows for only certain branches of reasoning to exist.
Yes, math works, is useful, and has its place in our physical reality.
But I don’t believe that math as we know it is necessarily the best, most efficient, or most complete way of doing things just because it is the way it has been done and works. Just because you take one route on our drive to work everyday, and it gets you there, doesn’t mean there isn’t a faster, shorter route. Same with math.
If you are good at math, what you’re really good at is understanding the symbols and following the line of reasoning that is presented. The problem solving involved then must fall within that line of reasoning in order to be “valid”. Not great for people who just don’t think that way. Right?? People actually learn better through stories, metaphor and symbolism. See this book.
Notice how pretty much everyone knows what is meant by “an ocean of knowledge”?
EVEN THOUGHTS COLLECTIVELY AGREED UPON ARE SUBJECTIVE
Really this is a postmodern idea, but by defining something as objective,
it is really being defined as correct because of an absence of bias.
However, ultimately, isn’t any thought subjective? Even if it is collective thought?
In his book On Dialogue, theoretical physicist David Bohm gives the example of the collective experience of seeing a rainbow.
While people looking at the rainbow agree it is there, that it exists,
a physicist may be inclined to say it is only the illusion of a rainbow that exists
because it is actually the sun’s light “reflecting and refracting off the water and forming colours.”
Bohm states that many things in life are like this because we share the same sensory limitations.
Thus, all of life can be a shared illusion that we all accept as “fact”.
INVALIDATES PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
By saying a view is objective, and by saying a person’s view does not coincide with this “objective” view means that their view is invalid, irrelevant, or just not worth hearing.
This is because objectivity is held at such a high standard in our society.
This can create shared definitions of “normality”, “mental sanity”,
and can generally create an absence of truly honouring diversity.
Well, I’ve found that when I let go of trying to be “right” by being the more logical one I became so much more open to the views of others with my mind and heart. There were so many perspectives that are fabulously holistic and healing that I was devaluing before. The result? Less logic, more happy.
What place do you think objectivity has in life? Do you think we should still strive to be “objective”?