Is there such a thing as "Objectivity"...or is there only "Subjectivity." Do you KNOW the difference?
Please provide examples if you wish.
Gumby
Is there a "Finish Line" in the quest for "absolutes".
by gumby 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Valis
Eh...Subjectively I say Gumball is a bastard.
Objectively I say he is at least good at being one.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
-
onacruse
We delude ourselves in thinking that we have achieved absolute convictions.
For example: The copy-and-paste "proof texting" from WTS publications, however old or new they may be, doesn't really 'capture' the timeline and circumstances of the day.
Moreover, our interpretation and selectivity of such quotations is biased, sometimes extremely so, by our own agendas (e.g. find everything wrong about the WTS that we can possibly find, and ignore the positives).
Everything is personal, and subjective.
The challenge we face is to recognize that, in ourselves.
-
hillary_step
Onacruse & Gumby,
I would view as objective an opinion that is not influenced by emotion and personal bias, whereas subjectivity remains the territory of internalization, quite different processes.
I would concur entirely with this statement :
Moreover, our interpretation and selectivity of such quotations is biased, sometimes extremely so, by our own agendas (e.g. find everything wrong about the WTS that we can possibly find, and ignore the positives).
It goes to the heart of much of the frustration I have felt on XJW discussion Boards regarding WTS issues. Not all that the WTS does is anti-social and harmful to its adherents, however somewhere a line does have to be drawn in the sand as to what is objective and subjective in order for any conclusions to be drawn about such matters. True justice requires an objective reaction to crime and lies at the very heart of why I believe that 'unconditional love' is not just impossible, but is actually unhealthy. This same noble objectivity should be applied in our anyalysis of WTS error, in order for our judgements to be fair.
On the matter of objective authors for example, yesterday I noted three authors who have written about WTS matters, all of whom have been badly hurt by the WTS but whose writings are, imho, objective. There authors are Jim Penton, Raymond Franz and Carl Jonsson. I put Mr. Penton at the head of this list as his work 'Apocalypse Delayed' clearly shows his ability to rise above his own ire with the WTS and write a book free of emotional bias but one that clearly outlines WTS failures as a religious organization.
Many, including many authors, fail the litmus test of objectivity in approaching WTS matters and often become anti-WTS fanatics in an almost grisly antithesis of the very 'theocratic' people that they find so repulsive. I find it all to easy to switch off such people.
Best regards - HS
-
SixofNine
Is there a "Finish Line" in the quest for "absolutes".
I would say the answer to that is unequivocally, yes. Said "finish line" is found at death, which seen thru an objective lens is the absolute end of a person. There is no more, it's over, goodbye, toodaloo, fin.
Have a nice day Gumby, and try to build something with your name etched into it that will survive any calamity lol.
-
El blanko
Theoretically, yes.
-
onacruse
HS, a few thoughts, re yours:
I would view as objective an opinion that is not influenced by emotion and personal bias, whereas subjectivity remains the territory of internalization, quite different processes.
How does one disassociate internalization from personal bias? Even using the word "opinion" makes any subsequent remark subjective, by default. Not to pick on phraseology! and thus when you say:
would concur entirely with this statement :
Moreover, our interpretation and selectivity of such quotations is biased, sometimes extremely so, by our own agendas (e.g. find everything wrong about the WTS that we can possibly find, and ignore the positives).
It goes to the heart of much of the frustration I have felt on XJW discussion Boards regarding WTS issues.
I concur. There is much very justifiable anger that we vent in our posts, and also much equally justifiable anger that we should vent against ourselves, as being the victims of our own delusions (whether self-induced or otherwise).
Not all that the WTS does is anti-social and harmful to its adherents, however somewhere a line does have to be drawn in the sand as to what is objective and subjective in order for any conclusions to be drawn about such matters.
Again, I concur. But when we draw that line in the sand, is it objective, or subjective?
True justice requires an objective reaction to crime and lies at the very heart of why I believe that 'unconditional love' is not just impossible, but is actually unhealthy. This same noble objectivity should be applied in our anyalysis of WTS error, in order for our judgements to be fair.
If not unconditional love, then what? Subjective social determination, perhaps as a collective (read "society")?
On the matter of objective authors for example, yesterday I noted three authors who have written about WTS matters, all of whom have been badly hurt by the WTS but whose writings are, imho, objective. There authors are Jim Penton, Raymond Franz and Carl Jonsson. I put Mr. Penton at the head of this list as his work 'Apocalypse Delayed' clearly shows his ability to rise above his own ire with the WTS and write a book free of emotional bias but one that clearly outlines WTS failures as a religious organization.
In a temporal sense, I agree with you. Each and every one of these gentlemen have provided me with much about which I need to think. However, the "mere" fact that all these authors have gone through the pain of being a JW automatically demands that their perspectives, and books, are subjective, as you say:
Many, including many authors, fail the litmus test of objectivity in approaching WTS matters and often become anti-WTS fanatics in an almost grisly antithesis of the very 'theocratic' people that they find so repulsive. I find it all to easy to switch off such people.
Yes to the first, hard to the last.
imo, there is no such thing as objective, at least in the universal sense. We are (insofar as we engage in honest self-recognition) extremely limited beings, in an apparently infinite universe. And God made us as such, and so what else can be expected from us?
Pardon me wherein I've reiterated some of your thoughts...we have much in common, and yet are so different.
Craig
-
gumby
Well......I was going to come up with some big brainy-ass comment to straighten all your arses out......till I read a post in another thread by a newbie named "Terry".....who blew away some minds here on the board, in his experience he related in that thread.
I thought it would be good to post his comments on this thread as they apply so well.
Thanks Terry!
Here's what he said.
I met a guy years ago who turned my head around by pointing out to me something I kept doing that was causing me alot of turmoil. He was a local Professor of Philosophy (which I never had much use for, frankly).
We were part of a once-a-month movie club that watched and discussed old classic films. We'd meet in small groups sometimes before the movie and just chat.
Inevitably a conversation will turn controversial. You just can't avoid it. In the middle of one of these back and forth duels at our table my Professor friend stops me and says to me:
"Did you know you may be falling victim to your own hidden premises?"
Which caused me to say: "Huh? Say wuh?" (I'm articulate like that.)
He then gently and methodically began to lay out something I'd never noticed.
"When we build a building we have to build it somewhere. And no matter how how we build it everything rests on the bottom foundation. It is just as true of any argument or carefully reasoned system of belief. In other words, you can't escape what you start with." Mr. Philosophy just sat there and waited for me to say something.
I thought it was so bleeping obvious I was wondering why he was telling me that since I was not five years old. But, he continued...
"In Philsophy there is something called a Presupposition. It is like a "hidden" foundation which is not the apparent foundation at all. Imagine putting a concrete patio in your backyard on top of the nice firm ground. But, what you don't know is that your backyard is positioned over a sinkhole! That is what a Presupposition is: a potential sinkhole."
I listened curiously wondering where would all this Academic claptrap would lead us. He persisted.
"I hear a lot of anxiety in many of your arguments, Terry, and I think that you think they are the result of questions that are too complex to answer. But, I don't think they are at all. I think you need to examine your premises and root out any Presuppositions that are hidden beneath the surface. You might be shocked to discover how many there are!"
I could not let this go unchallenged, could I? How could he, a stranger, know what I was thinking or how? So, I rose to the bait and challenged him to demonstrate this mysterious hidden thingy I had that was choking my thinking like a garden full of nasty weeds.
We had been discussing the very question raised on this thread here on the Discussion Forum. It was why a loving, caring, God of justice would allow His children to suffer for any reason at all.
I asked the Professor about this. He proceeded to use my very argument to demonstrate my inability to notice the error in my thinking.
"In a court of law the Judge sometimes makes you answer "yes" or "no" to avoid coloring your reply with evasions, does he not?", Professor Genius asked me innocently
"Um, yep. I think you are right." I replied.
"If the prosecuting attorney asked you that old hackneyed question 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' would you be able to honestly answer that one "yes" or "no" without implicating yourself in wife-beating either way?"
"Ha ha ha, no--because that is a trick question! The Judge would not allow it!" I exclaimed.
"Precisely!" The Professor explained, "Because there is a hidden premise which ASSUMES something that has not been established prior by evidence. It falsely colors your answer no matter whether "yes" or "no". It Pre-sumes wife-beating without having to prove it."
"So?" (Even O.J. knew that).
"So, you are falling victim to the assumption without proof. A great many things in your argument about God allowing people to suffer make that obvious."
"Such as?"
"Here are a few:
1.You assume not only the existence of God; but, a particular kind of being with particular attributes without having proved them as being so. What steps did you take to evidence?
2.You assume a basis for interaction with humans based on a number of definitions which you did not bother to prove; such as all-knowing information, justice, interference toward intervention, a bond or obligation, etc. None of these things did you bother to prove; you merely started out assuming them to be firmly in place. And from that starting point you've loaded the outcome! That is the reason you can't answer your own question. You did not bother to tidy it up before hand with FACTS! It is just a chain of unproven assertions leading to a puzzling conflict.
3.The very idea that there might be a hundred alternatives you've never even thought of doesn't enter in to your discussion. You simply assume you know ALL the facts to begin with. What if important data is outside your sphere of knowledge? It would be like tryng to decide on a radical medical treatment just on the basis of an Internet story! It sounds true; so it must be true? No.
"Okay okay, I get the point. I merely assumed what the Bible says about God as my starting point and my foundation!"
"Ah. Another huge set of presuppositions! What data do you have about what went in to that book? Just what people have insisted is true? Do you know if any political or religious bias existed in the editing? Do you know if the various sources available at the time the bible was canonized were themselves proved divine? Do you know how anybody would go about testing all those things rationally?"
"Well, I don't think God would allow humans to wonder what their purpose was without giving them some kind of information. That would not be loving".
"Here we go again! You are accepting at face value every single hidden premise without data! You start out again with assuming who and what God is based on the very book you have not proved to be authentically divine. That is a circular argument. You've heard many human beings tell you things in your lifetime. How many of those things did they get exactly 100% right?"
"Very few!"
"So, why accept what you've always heard about the Bible? Have you studied the formation of the scriptures historically? Or, did you just automatically take the package deal? You see, Terry, the world is filled with people who are guessing and calling it fact. That is what produces bibles and other religious ideas and documents. It starts with a need or an idea or a dream and gets blown into a myth and then somebody writes it down eventually without fact checking. Why do you accept all that? Because somebody says so?"
"People have used that book to control other people's thinking for thousands of years. How did they do it? They made the people under their control assume "somebody" had inside information that proved it and that they should listen."
I had to swallow hard when I heard that. My experience with the JW's made me blush.
**********************************************************************************************************
Well, that is the essence of my story. I went away with my head spinning. He was right, of course. I have always simply accepted my STARTING POINT as beginning with a Bible that is true and I went from there. That is a big assumption!
I've spent the last few years reading about the history of how the ancient writings and oral traditions go put together. There are a lot of scholarly books about it. I've since come away with a lot of my bubbles burst! So many politically motivated people had their hands on this that the bias is not hard to observe when you dig in and look objectively.
So, I relate all the above for a reason. Sometimes we find a problem where there really IS no problem and it is because we have assumed into our reasoning many unproven elements.
For myself, I find the more I depersonalize my concept of God, the less human I make him, the more I can excuse his not being much of a "father" in the traditional family sense. My own father was never around, so this is easy for me. My fleshly dad gave me life and left. Simple as that.
Holding the invisible super-dad in the sky to a higher standard just pisses me off. So, I ignore Him the way I feel he (she, it) ignores me. After all, as I've said elsewhere, why would anything that is a "god" need anything at all? It is the human that ages and suffers and passes away and not god. So, I begin my suppositions with no presuppositions without examining them first. Sometimes they sneak in. But, if I find a contradiction in life I know this is an alarm bell. It means I've got something wrong! Why? Because things are what they are. A thing, whatever it is--simply IS what it is and cannot be other than what it is. IF there is a "god", then that "god" is what it is. If God does not talk to me or answer prayers and lets me or others suffer and die; well that DEFINES the nature of what "god" really is. Actions speak the truth.
If I tend to blubber and get wordy; just ignore me. Thought I would share the above for what it is worth. (Which may not be much at all).
Terry
-
JT
find everything wrong about the WTS that we can possibly find, and ignore the positives).
we only apply the standard that wt follows when it speaks of other religions-
if you can find one article the wt has ever written about another religion helping folks develope a good relationship with god please post it
you state that everything is personal
well i disagree, if we present a dogma that the wt stated was based on the bible and it is not, then it ain;'t personal its just a fact
the wt taught that if a womans husband was involved in homose\xuality or beastility she could not divorce and remarry- wt stated that it is what the bible taught
yet we find out it was merely the personal veiws of the boys in writing
wt stated that it was a sin for oral sex, yet we find out that it was merely a personal opinion of some member of the writing staff who tried to put it off as the will of god
if anyone is to be accused of THEIR PERSONL views, then it is the wt
-
minimus
I'm absolutely sure that I'm usually right sometimes.