The success of science easily might seem to show that we can be more objective and less subjective. However I understand science as a social activity like what Kuhn does. That's to say science is inter-subjective. The ontological rock upon which science stands is human subjectivity so that each scientific theory is a heuristic device which for the duration of the theory is applicable and applied solely to the human culture and the natural environment within which that theory or worldview rests.
Human cultures of belief and practice all exist by permission of the subjects and their intersubjective agreements and permissions; even immovably traditional cultures of belief and practice exist by permission of the subjects.
True, many unique subjects of unique experience are downtrodden by dictatorial leaders who may be either revolutionaries or traditionalists. Those unfortunate downtrodden ones are less free consequently feelings and attitudes that each is a unique subject are alienated by powers that turn the people into objects to be controlled.
Aristocles wrote:
What I am saying is it appears the approach of any absolute aspect may differ from convention, namely the hard and fast distinction of subjective/objective, especially an absolute distinction.
If I tell a conspiracy story regarding the creation of objectivity and subjectivity and how it appears to be more of an attempt of the "educated" to manipulate others, then it may add to appreciation of the less distinct aspect. If we talk of how we tend to fixate upon the distinction so as to lessen others, then it may help to disengage the convention. If we explore how our "uniqueness" or equality is often a weapon for profit/control, then the deeply ingrained convention not rest as well.
For "educated" might we agree to replace it with "free"? 'Educated' sometimes is loaded with snobbery and manipulation through snobbery. Education is itself really holy and not to be confused with indoctrination. The subject, the pupil or student , is sacrosanct as a whole life subject with feelings, and the good educator doesn't treat the pupil or student as an empty vessel requiring only to be filled with knowledge or , worse , ideology.
Yes, I am aware that it's disparaging to tell someone that they are not thinking objectively. People in education or in philosophy- talking- clubs are required to be objective as much as is possible for them. Objectivity is enthroned in Bernstein's 'elaborated code' which is the language 'code' that I am using right now. I am trying to be as objective as I can because you, Aristocles, and I have an implicit agreement between us and Scott that this is how we ought to behave in Phil Club forums.
Above all however, you, I, and Scott are free people who have tried as much as we can to rid ourselves of preconceptions and to put ourselves in others' shoes. What I believe is that we could not possibly do so unless we were not only using language to communicate but also talking as subjects of our unique experiences so that we have a basis for comparison with others and consequently recognise that others are other than ourselves.
As for advertisers telling us that we are free to choose their product or not, they are liars because they well know that there is a large section of the population that lacks the ability and knowledge to see through their lies. Same goes for some politicians, some estate agents, and some marketing managers. It would be great if all people were able, from their actual stances as ontological subjects, and from their knowledge of the world, to see that some if not many other ontological subjects of experience are hostile to their wellbeing.
