Does objectivity matter? (a Rant)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

(Begin Rant)

For some of us, the biggest problem with the republicans is not that they represent rapacious economic interests, sentimentalize mass-murder, or even that they are a thinly-veiled white supremacist operation composed of unreconstructed Confederates and fake-Christians.

For some of us their most monstrous trait, the trait that makes the others possible, is that they are nihilists, celebrating lies as a means to vanquish reality itself in the quest for power over others. Such nihilism and conflation of sanctity and subjectivity is the thread that unites Hitler and Stalin, GW Bush and Chairman Mao. Sadly, it sometimes unites the academic left and the theocratic right.

We are all human. We all retreat to infantile subjectivity sometimes, in our darker hours. It does comfort, and even empower. Ultimately, however, it corrupts. We must contend against it.

There is sometimes a lack of skepticism and an unlovely strain of anti-empiricism at DU. It is shameful... a mind-set more appropriate to Free Republic and Bob Jones University than a site dedicated to human progress.

Bush's Tinker-bell theory of the Iraq War (Clap harder and we will win!) is no more admirable when applied to good causes.

(Some) People lie as if it were a virtue... as if believing (or pretending to believe) a virtuous falsehood is morally superior to accepting inconvenient truths.

Al Gore is idolized here, but sometimes I wonder why. His last few books have been all about how you can not, MUST not create bogus realities to serve your interests, whether those interests be personal emotional gratification, a thirst for money or the quest for power over other human beings... whether those interests are fuzzy as a kitten or mean as a snake.

There is no better vantage than objectivity. There is no higher truth than truth.

(End of Rant)

[cali]

1. I'm glad to recommend your post, which I largely agree

with, even though I don't believe objectivity really exists and that the "truth" is highly subjective.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Ultimate objectivity, of course not. We are bound by our human perspective. But there

is such a thing as human objectivity... even as a goal rather than a destination.

None of us can know the whole truth, but we should LOVE truth for its own sake.

Some one once called science "the entire body of knowledge we can agree upon."

There may not be an ultimate truth accessible to us in cosmic terms, but there is a vast set of facts and truths that are vital to human progress because they represent the totality of our common language.

[salvorhardin]

2. One small nit, otherwise I agree with you 100%

...composed of unreconstructed Confederates and fake-Christians.

Who decides who is a real Christian?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

Other than that, excellent rant and I wholeheartedly agree. Oh, and recommended.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Fair enough, But they don't seem very christian (lower case)

[salvorhardin]

9. I understand what you're saying

It's just that they say the same thing about liberal Christians. Support gay marriage? The right of the women to choose to give birth? Stem cell research? Letting Terry Schiavo die? Oh, you're no true Christian. If lefties use their language we only legitimize it.

[Igel]

12. Language can be difficult.

But a little care goes a long way.

Look at the semantics of "orange"--which can be worked out fairly simply, whether the fruit or the color is at issue.

Then look at the semantics of "tall", a bit iffier of a proposition. You have to have a scale in mind.

Then look at the semantics of "good", a lot iffier. You have to have some sort of scale and some sort of purpose.

"Christian" is a tough word for semantics. "Nihilist", not so tough.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. Well, if they are nihilists they must be fake Christians (assuming Christians believe something)

That said, I agree 100% that liberal Christianity is problematic. (Unless it establishes itself as a distict sect with its own set of rules and goals.)

[TwilightZone]

5. A thought about Gore....

I think that Gore is current idolized on DU for the simple fact that he is not currently running for president. No recent record, no campaign speeches, no debates, no adjusting the message for specific audiences.

He just isn't facing the same kind of scrutiny as our other candidates, because he's not getting the same types of exposure. Should he actually enter the race, it's very possible that the honeymoon at DU would be over fairly quickly.

[ruggerson]

6. very valid

he's our Fred Thompson.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. An honest man cannot be an effective candidate... he doesn't want to be corrupted.

[ruggerson]

8. there is an argument to be made that an honest man

cannot be an effective president either.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Perhaps even moreso than candidate, if for no other reason than an

honest presidents accomplishments will be judged against other presidents lies.

[monktonman]

15. 666 the post of the devil.

[TwilightZone]

10. I've thought about that. I've also considered that he simply loves his current job.

With obvious reason, of course. He's visible, he's popular, he's doing something that he loves, supporting a cause he believes in like few others.

Frankly, I cannot imagine why he would want to give that up to re-enter the nasty world that is American politics.

[Igel]

13. Rah.

Sorry, I don't do "rah-rah". A singleton "rah" is the best I can manage, even at the best of times.

[thegreatcause2]

16. We are mammals who use the group

As we live and grope through life, our incalculable ignorance always makes us scurry back to the protection of the group. The group needs convenient lies in order to keep the group a group and rock solid strong. The mad adventure called life would be different if we did not have to suckle on the teats of the herd.

Your torment may be in realizing the situation you find yourself in. Your best option is to simply cheer up.

[salvorhardin]

17. Does it?

Is that really true that the group needs convenient lies? That is the position taken by Leo Strauss and it seems to be a spurious one at best to me. It's true that human groups seek unifying ideas and that in the past this function has been served variously by such religion or nationalism but why can't we bond over shared factual ideas? For instance, Carl Sagan's "pale blue dot"?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

[ileus]

18. It's hard to be objective when you're subjective.

[MGKrebs]

19. It seems we are sometimes so desperate for a hero that we

will believe and/or ignore anything to create one. And we often condemn those who disappoint us. Perhaps not as much nihilism as manicheanism... we invest so much hope in our ideals, it's easy to get carried away and only see things as "all good" or "all bad". Once we "pick a side" we tend to see through that filter.

Lately I've been thinking about idealism vs. pragmatism. I don't think it's true that you have to be one or the other. A lot of pragmatists are still idealistic, they just have a different schedule.