The Problem of Subjectivity
When I speak of a problem, I speak of something that affects us all. This problem is especially important, since we take for granted that people’s fundamental understanding of the world is unique to them. Furthermore, since we can only know reality through the lens of ourselves, we must attempt a higher level of abstraction in order to understand the subjectivity of others. I think subjectivity is a problem which must be resolved at its root, since nothing can be truly proved true or false unless we have mutual respect and a desire for consensus.
The first point should be about strong convictions, particularly those which come from dogmatic arguments — we are all familiar with strong statements, such as “you can’t possibly disagree with this, the majority of people agree on it” or “you should agree with this because you’re a bad person if you don’t” and so on and so on. These arguments are fallacious and extremely intellectually dishonest, so it’s easy to disregard them. Complete strangers online seem to demand moral uprightness on certain topics, especially in favor of their own agenda. Such demands include “you must disavow this and this thing if you’re on our side”, “you must support what I support, or you will be socially ostracized”, and the classic “you must be willing to give up your own identity for that of the group”. I don’t think this is the crux of the problem, but merely a symptom of it — people find comfort in believing what others believe, especially if it seems morally right.
The next point is about objective facts. Say, for instance, we provide 10 people with some statistic: in the United States, suicide is the 12th leading cause of death, firearms accounted for 52.83% of U.S. suicides in 2020, and men in the U.S. died by suicide 3.88x more than women in 2020. This is information, despite it having a very strong emotional component, and I would imagine that most of those 10 people would have personal answers or beliefs about the statistics. But in the end, what is useful about the subjective component here, if we are attempting to make sense of reality? Certainly, it is a tragedy that suicide is such a problem, but isn’t it more helpful to discern the causes and effects, rather than have some moralistic tirade? I didn’t specifically choose this statistic on purpose, and I understand that people use statistics to invent their own narratives. My point is, when we interpret information, we don’t have to be ideologues, and we certainly don’t have to have some closed-minded, one-dimensional view of the world. The more we accept to be possible, the easier it is to let go of subjectivity. Only then can we expect any understanding to be had!
Another point is regarding the effect of experience on our judgments, and how it may distract from our attainment of the truth. Experience is something we use to make inductive models, and thus we rely on it to make sense of observable patterns. However, those models aren’t good enough, since they are capable of being inconsistent. Many experiences seem pleasant or unpleasant, fair or unfair, justified or ridiculous, but ultimately, they are nothing more than a disorganized set of “things that happened”. How can a person develop the ability to objectively understand things that happen to us? Accepting that all things are equal, one can at least attempt a solution to the problem of subjectivity — instead of gravitating to one thing or another, we can calmly assess reality and derive meaning from it. In this way, people can try to bridge the gap between one another, and not immediately use themselves as the sole mode of meaning.
Yes, we are involved in reality as subjects, but the subject isn’t the center, nor is the object. The real center is the nexus between these two points. Subjectivity ultimately distracts us, as it makes us into the world, and the world a subset of ourselves. Instead, it seems wise to consider that the world of our mind and the external world are interwoven, and equally important — at least such a position would make it easier to comprehend ideas, feelings, and experiences alike. I am not against being ourselves, but rather, I take issue with the idea that nothing can be done about our differences. I would say that we are much more similar than different, and the only real separation between us is our subjectivity, our frame of reference. By accepting that our frames of reference are different, we might also bridge the gap, and more can be understood about our reality.
This is already a lot of groundwork, but there is so much to cover that I needed to be comprehensive about it. Many questions don’t have clear answers, and some interpretation may be necessary. If you have something very complex, like the issue in Ukraine, global inflation, or the supply chain crisis, there are certainly many explanations and interpretations that may lead us to the truth, but the point is that, without applying rigorous mental effort and humility, one cannot expect to make sense of reality whatsoever. In conversation, we are simply not given enough time or respect to articulate our positions, and many people speak on things they do not know much or anything about. One must be efficient at interpreting information, and not let themselves by deluded by bad personality traits or presuppositions. If we are maturing, our ideas are becoming more well-formed and coherent, but if we are not, then our ideas will stay the same and prevent us from changing. We must try to strive towards something objective!
Subjectivity is not necessarily a bad thing, and it is natural to have, but it is certainly one of the reasons why people are not unified in any serious way.
Thank you.
