There is something that I am still fleshing out, and I suppose this is the place to do it. I wanted to get a better handle about what being objective means. In a recent discussion post in my world religions class I proposed that being objective means to view things “as they are” not “as nothing is.”
I believe there a a couple of types of objectivity. The first, imagine you witness a car crash. You see the whole thing happen. You have a perspective and because you don’t really have a dog in the hunt you are able to be objective about who crashed into who. Eye witness accounts are reliable to an extent. If a bunch of unrelated people see and report the same thing with minor details missing or changed, it’s a safe bet that you can paint an accurate and objective picture. Criminal investigations are built on this kind of thing. But if you show up to the scene of a crash and everyone is saying the exact same thing, then you know that you have a conspiracy. People can be objective, but only to a point in this way because we all are finite beings and only have one point of view.
Another type is a person who walks into a movie without any preconceived notion about what the movie will be like. They are able to just view the movie, but it’s not as if they are not forming opinions about it the whole way. This is where I feel much of culture wants to pull objectivity into. Culture would have us believe that to be objective is to have no starting point. If you have no place to start, then you can’t get anywhere. Also, it is quite impossible to have no starting place. To be void of perspective is to be not human. A video camera has perfect objectivity by this definition. But cameras don’t present themselves as evidence in a connivence store robbery case. It doesn’t do this not because it doesn’t care, it doesn’t do it because it can not care.
To strive for this objectivity is to strive for a deletion of humanity.
More on this to come.