I sat at my computer, attempting to focus on writing an essay, but the conversation my younger sisters were having behind me drew my attention away. They were talking about their physical science test they had taken that morning, and specifically about the question having to do with “reference points”. Apparently not very satisfied with their answers, they were exasperatedly complaining about how they knew what a reference point was, but the test had asked them to explain the purpose of a reference point in conjunction with the idea of motion.
I spun around in my desk chair and queried, “Well, you know what a reference point does, right?”
They responded, “Yeah, it’s where the motion started.”
I continued, “Exactly, so the purpose of the reference point is so that you can tell when something is or was in motion. Without a reference point, you could never tell if anything had actually moved or not. Motion can’t be defined without a reference point.”
Watching the light bulb effect in their eyes was undoubtedly priceless. After a little more discussion, we all went back to work. However, I’ve been thinking a lot about that incident since it happened.
We all see reality, we all function within reality, and we all interact with it in our perspectival arena most refer to as “life”. Now, let me introduce a new member of the discussion. Meet Sir Subjectivity. He has been quite busy in our culture as of late, as is evident in the emerging and thriving ideas of our society. His point is that individuals have their own personal interpretations or perspective on issues. This is true on a limited scale, such as preference. I don’t like black licorice, but my Dad loves it. My favorite color is red. Mom’s favorite color is green. Megan loves to swim. The twins like soccer. This realm of subjectivity is related to preferential differences in opinion. However, these are all based on the same “reference point”. The color is red. You need water to swim. You run to play soccer. Black licorice has a specific taste.
Let’s return to our discussion of motion. In order to know that motion exists, there must be a reference point. In order to know that I like the color red, there has to be a definite definition of that color. What happens when you take the reference point out of the picture? …you have no definition of movement. Essentially, it doesn’t exist.
Now, look around. I’m serious, look around. You most likely have stable, non-moving objects near you. You’re actually one of these objects. If one of those objects moves, (including yourself) you will know that it has moved because you’ve intuitively established a reference point.
I now have a question. Doesn’t any definition require a reference point? Any and all definitions or interpretations are founded on these “reference points” that determine their “motion”, or how they are in relation to something that is.
I have another question. What is this reference point to which I am referring?
The reference point is… objective truth.
I have to objectively be here in order for anyone to understand that I moved there. So in defining myself, I am relying to an objective understanding of reality in order for people to understand where I am.
Continuing the idea I started earlier… Sir Subjectivity belongs only within the realm of preference, because the preference is based on reference points, or objective truth. As soon as Sir Subjectivity steps outside of his box, he malfunctions. Many people attempt to apply him to truth. What happens when subjectivity is applied to truth? You lose your reference point.
At this point I want to be very clear. This can’t happen. Please understand, it’s not just that it shouldn’t happen, it can’t happen. Think about it. To define truth in a subjective manner removes the reference point of objectivity, but notice, there is still a definition involved. Definitions cannot be subjective because they have to have reference points.
Some might say, “But my reference points in my definition are subjective, too!” That can’t happen. Take away the reference points of a definition, and you have no communication because your meaning has disappeared. Communicable definitions are based on reference points, take it or leave it.
Individuals who believe in subjective realities or subjective truth are pretending they can fly. While objectivists have their feet planted firmly on the ground, the subjectivists stand beside them, determined that they can fly. But really, what are they doing? Well, first, they’re lying to themselves. Secondly, however, they’re standing on objectivity. Their feet are planted firmly on the ground despite their belief in their ability to fly. For the sake of argument, let’s say they really did grow wings and fly. As they soared off into the clouds of subjectivity, they yell, “See! I told you I could fly!”
The objectivist smiles to himself all the while knowing that their definition of “flying” was dependent on the reality that they were standing on the ground. They have an objective reference point. Objectivity governs any definition, and no matter how hard Sir Subjectivity tries to function outside the box of preferences, there is no escape.
Good post!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your analogies... they put a new perspective on a timeless truth. I've always believe in objective truth... I wrote a speech about it! But I never thought of it in the context of a reference point. I studied that in physical science as well, and looking back, it makes so much sense in this context.
I'm starting to think my speech needs a slight re-write. ;)
Wow, that was deep. I agree with you that without reference points, communication would to work. But I still think there's a margin of error to everything that measurable. When I'm drawing a graph, and the line goes through point (6,5) it also goes through point (5.9991,5) because my pencil wasn't sharp enough to show the difference. The graph shows a false statement, because according to the conventions of math, the line can't pass through two y values for the same x value. But because we share a similar level of eyesight and because I write the number of the point the line is supposed to go through, we negotiate the meaning that I intended.
ReplyDeleteIf we spoke different languages, or had a different set of cultural reference points, you'd have to learn where I was coming from because not everything translates perfectly.
Wow. Okay, I think I'm following. And you're right... but here's the thing (correct me if I'm wrong!)
ReplyDeleteCommunication is the expression of meaning, and within the expression of that meaning, there is definitely room for error, like your example with the graph. So, I agree with you, this is a factor that should be considered. At the same time, our ability to express meaning doesn't change the objectivity of the meaning itself. Yes, in the graph's expression of (6,5) it was off, but the objective point (6,5) still exists.
Language is the expression of meaning. Cultures express meaning in different ways. The point about communication was referring to a subjectivist's definition of truth. Their definition, by nature of being a definition, contains reference points in order to convey meaning. As soon as they reject that element of objectivity and say the reference points in their definition are subjective, the reference points disappear entirely. The problem now is the absence of meaning itself, not with the expression of that meaning.
The scientific method is designed to arrive at objective truth by a refinement and verification process... the statements it makes are objective, meaning that anyone using the same interpretive framework can observe the same things under the conditions stipulated.
ReplyDeleteIt's just that often we put the conditions and the interpretive framework into shorthand and forget about them. Then someone who doesn't share them comes along and the process is derailed. I know you already responded to this, so moving on...
Meaning always means something to somebody. It doesn't "mean" by itself. Without people to choose out the "important" details, everything is details... just millions of molecules reacting in complex ways. They're objective, but they don't mean anything in an ultimate, important sense.
There's no teleology without a creator to direct nature toward his ends, simply because there are millions of ends that nature is going toward. Any of them _could_ be important, but they have to "import" to someone or there's no distinguishing them from the rest of details. This idea makes more sense in Spanish, because you can say "no es importante" (it's not important), but also "no me importa" (it's not important to me), which is a more vigorous statement because it uses an active verb, and also more honest because a statement of importance really does always reflect your values.
(Now you can rip apart my statement for defending subjectivity with objective phrasing.)
And if we talk about something as big as God's chief end in creation, or a goal toward which all creation groans, that especially requires not just objectivity but subjectivity. Even if that subjectivity is God's.
There's my apologia for subjectivity.... hope you enjoyed it.
I really enjoy the interesting and serious thoughts you express on your blog... keep it up.
Nathan
You have a very valid point, its one I hadn't heard before, but one I will definitly lend much more thought.
ReplyDeleteThis area of discussion has a very wide spectrum, I'm figuring out. Thank you very much for taking the time to explicate your thoughts, it helps to have people bounce my conclusions back at me... thus forcing me to think even harder.
@Lauren: Nice post my friend! It’s great to see you wrestling with these issues.
ReplyDelete@Nathan: Just because it’s fun, I would love to hear you explain how an omniscient being has a subjective view. Doesn’t the nature of subjectivity presuppose finitude?
As to the topic of subjectivity itself, I think this conversation is an excellent illustration of how language can impede rather than propel a discussion.
The problem with the word “subjective” is that it can have two meanings: perspective and preference. I think we can both agree that these two terms are (a) both subjective and (b) very different.
Therefore, I think it is far more productive to argue for “perspectivalism” vs. “objectivism”. We’ve talked about this before, but since the issue has been raised, I’ll point out some key benefits to this language:
1. It acknowledges the plain fact that our perspective on things is limited to, wait for it, our perspective.
2. It prevents a conscious or unconscious fallacy of equivocation during the argument.
3. It acts as an argument in favor of objectivism by leading the discussion towards the acknowledgement that a perspective cannot exists apart from an object.
This amateur is willing to acknowledge that the whole discussion must first address the objective nature of abstracts. It’s all fine and good to say that concretes ontologically exist objectively (and therefore, perspectives concerning them may be either "true" or "false"), but to argue for the objective nature abstracts seems to me a much trickier business.
Looks like I've come back to this discussion a little too late, but I'll try to comply with your request. The idea of God being subjective goes back to Bishop Berkeley and the Matrix...
ReplyDeleteAccording to Berkeley, if a tree falls in the forest and no human is there to hear it, it still makes a sound, because God hears it. God is the ultimate observer, and he alone knows the whole truth.
The Matrix factors in because if panentheism is true and God is not transcendent, then the current state of the universe is one and the same with the mind of God (or at least part of it). In that case, God's knowledge would be the very act of being of the object known.
If not, and God is transcendent, then God's knowing is a logically separate act from the being of the object known, and since no one else has infinite knowledge, his view is uniquely his own. This aspect of uniqueness, both in judging what is important, and in having a view of the object that is peculiarly his own, is part of the meaning of subjectivity.
Witness the Oxford English Dictionary...
Subjective:
3. a. Relating to the thinking subject, proceeding from or taking place within the subject; having its source in the mind; (in the widest sense) belonging to the conscious life. (Correlative to OBJECTIVE a. 2b.)
[Example sentence: 1707 OLDFIELD Ess. Impr. Reason II. xix, Objective certainty, or that of the thing, as really it is in itself..a Subjective certainty of it in the infinite Mind.]
4. a. Pertaining or peculiar to an individual subject or his mental operations; depending upon one's individuality or idiosyncrasy; personal, individual.
Sorry, for me it's impossible to write about omniscience without sounding like Thomas Aquinas... complete with authorities to back me up. :)
I'll agree that perspectivalism is a good place to start. It was a mind-blowing experience for me to open up _Worldview for Christian Witness_ by Charles Kraft, and find a section comparing James Sire's perspective on worldviews (The Universe Next Door) compared to two other authors. And I thought because Sire wrote about "all" the worldviews, he encompassed it all!
Nathan