Is there a "Finish Line" in the quest for "absolutes".

by gumby 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    HS, your remonstrations to the contrary notwithstanding, I find nothing in your last posts that provide convincing evidence that any human being can be truly objective.

    I quoted Hayakawa to demonstrate that every commonly used word to describe "honest" conversation is tainted with subjectivity. And words, after all, are simply the summation of our comprehensive abilities, and therefore a self-description of our nature.

    Again, I query: wherefrom comes the compulsion to convince others that we are being objective?

    One answer (I alluded to it above) is that Western civilization is permeated with the Aristotleian concept (or, consequences of interpretation of that concept) that everything is provable, eventually; the so-called scientific method. Thus, we tend (by social approval and cultural conditioning) to elevate what we perceive to be "purely cerebral" analyses as being an objective reflection of truth.

    This process is itself subjective, and promotes subjectivism.

    Another answer (a subset of the above) is that as JWs we were taught to utilize, think in terms of, and teach others, by the "proof-text" methodology. And now, on the flip side of the same coin, we as exJWs frequently employ the same techniques, for the same reasons: To prove a point.

    This process is equally subjective.

    I'm not trying to just stupidly argue about the meanings of words here: I honestly believe that no human can be objective, and that our healthiest option is simply to face that, and feel the freedom within ourselves to admit it.

    Craig

  • gumby
    gumby
    It seems that most participants who have posted on this thread do not feel that it is possible to be objective, that is, to able to step aside from emotions of personal preferences when it comes to matters such as the WTS. I beg to differ. Though this may be difficult, it is possible and it is essential in order to evaluate what is true and what is not in *any* given situation.

    Maybe not.

    Lets suppose a dub family of 5 were clean living, well adjusted people until the parents leave the faith. They begin getting a bit wild and sink a bit in their habits and lifestyle, their kids go off into left field as the daughter gets knocked up at 14, the boys a stoner/drunk who is one has lost a goal he once had to start a bodyshop, and so on. They let many values they once had... go down the shitter.

    The question: Would this family have prospered better and been happier as dubs?

    True, not all who leave the dubs act this way by any means, but are their some cases in some people lifes in which knowing the truth can bring more harm than good?

    The problem lies in not knowing who would fall victim to this.

    Gumby

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Gumby,

    The question: Would this family have prospered better and been happier as dubs?

    Objectivity is about evaluating a situation without personal bias.

    You may evaluate that this particular family given the facts, may have been better served never having been Jehovah's Witnesses. However, evaluate another experience. This experience is of a person well known to myself, a First Nations girl, abused as a child by every man who noticed her, later became a dime-store prostitute and an alchoholic. Two older JW's took great patience in teaching her how to read and helping her clean up her act. She is now a very happily married JW with two children, and she can read.

    What does an objective person make of this? Remember objectivity has no bias. What if this experience was given to you about the Lutherans, would your reaction be objective?

    Best regards - HS

  • gumby
    gumby
    Objectivity is about evaluating a situation with personal bias.

    Isn't that subjectivity?

    As far as objectivity.......can it be accomplished without a bias?

    Gumby

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Gumby,

    That should have read 'without a personal bias' ( I have edited the post ).

    As far as objectivity.......can it be accomplished without a bias?

    Yes it can, though it requires that a person follows the discipline of critical thinking skills. A critical thinker is by definition an objective thinker.

    Best regards - HS

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    HS, I repeat Hayakawa's assertion (with edit inserted):

    A person who has such predispositions might still, by putting them aside, succeed in being impartial, but being unbiased suggests that he has [no predispositions] to start with...

    I would be satisfied, as a counter-argument, if you'd provide me with the name of one person, or one book, that unequivocally satisfies the criterion of "no predispositions to start with." The books and writers you've mentioned so far clearly had a predisposed purpose, however eloquently and politely they expressed themselves.

    You say:

    A critical thinker is by definition an objective thinker.

    By who's definition? And what parameters delineate "critical" thinking?

    Respectfully,

    Craig

  • outoftheorg
    outoftheorg

    IN MY LIFE EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE LIVES OF OTHERS, TRUE OBJECTIVITY, WITHOUT BIAS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.

    BUT IT SELDOM IS.

    AT LEAST A SMALL AMOUNT OF BIAS IS ALMOST ALWAYS TO FIND ITS WAY INTO DECISIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

    HOWEVER I BELIEVE IT IS A GOAL THAT SHOULD ALWAYS BE IMPORTANT TO EACH OF US.

    IF WE DO NOT, WE WILL BLAME ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS ON THE WBTS OR SOMEONE ELSE.

    WHEN WE AS INDIVIDUALS ARE ALWAYS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULTS OF OUR OWN ACTIONS.

    HAVING BEEN A JW CAN HAVE HAD A POSITIVE EFFECT ON OUR LIVES OR IN OTHER AREAS HAVE AN EXACERBATING DAMAGING EFFECT FOR US TO LIVE THROUGH.

    USUALLY IT HAS BEEN A MIXTURE OF BOTH GOOD AND BAD TRAITS THAT I SEE FROM THE LIFE IN THE WBTS CULT.

    FOR ME PERSONALLY THE BAD FAR OUTWEIGHED THE GOOD.

    FOR OTHERS IT HAD GOOD RESULTS. USUALLY THIS WAS IN PEOPLE WHO HAD NOWHERE TO GO BUT UP, AS THE GIRL THAT HS DESCRIBED.

    IF WE FEEL A LOT OF DELIVERANCE? IN DWELLING ON THE BAD DANGEROUS TRAITS THAT ARE FOUND IN CULTS AS THE CAUSE OF ALL OUR GRIEF AND FAILURES, ARE WE JUST KIDDING OURSELVES?

    I THINK SO.

    Outoftheorg

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Craig,

    A critical thinker is by definition an objective thinker.

    By who's definition? And what parameters delineate "critical" thinking?

    By the definition of a dictionary. Critical thinking like objectivity is not a descriptive gesture, or a grammatical term, it is a teachable discipline. Watanbe's 'Critical Thinking An Introduction To Reasoning' is a very good start in evaluating this discipline. Critical thinking relies on objectivity, the disciplines are symbiotic.

    Every so often I suggest that a poster lacks critical thinking skills and they hit the roof thinking they have been insulted. It is about as insulting as someone saying, you cannot speak Icelandic. It is not a crime, it is just a language that has not been learned and it can be quite easily taught.

    Best regards - HS

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    HS:

    Every so often I suggest that a poster lacks critical thinking skills and they hit the roof thinking they have been insulted.

    Yes. I well remember that some time ago you made a remark to me about that (re: Was Fred Franz a Scholar?), and in re to which I recently made a post on another thread. Your observation was well-taken; it set me back in my chair, and I thought about it for a long time (and still do).

    As a practical demonstration of the objectivity of critical thinking, I'd appreciate an answer to my query:

    I would be satisfied, as a counter-argument, if you'd provide me with the name of one person, or one book, that unequivocally satisfies the criterion of "no predispositions to start with." The books and writers you've mentioned so far clearly had a predisposed purpose, however eloquently and politely they expressed themselves.

    Out:

    AT LEAST A SMALL AMOUNT OF BIAS IS ALMOST ALWAYS TO FIND ITS WAY INTO DECISIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

    HOWEVER I BELIEVE IT IS A GOAL THAT SHOULD ALWAYS BE IMPORTANT TO EACH OF US.

    I agree. It is definitely a goal!...but an unachievable one.

    imho.

  • gumby
    gumby
    Yes it can, though it requires that a person follows the discipline of critical thinking skills.

    I think where diffrences come in on objectivity, is how both sides view what "truth" is.

    One side says there is no absolute truth (which is getting to nitpicky and technical for my tastes), and the other side who feels "truth" simply means that which has been accepted by the majority as truth.

    An example: You line up 100 men men and have them all put their index finger out. You then proceed to hit the tip of their finger with a hammer. After you get the shit beat outta ya....ya ask the 100 men if it hurt when you hit their finger. My guess would be about 99% would say it hurt like hell. That to me is an accepted truth, and saying getting your finger hit with a hammer really hurts is definately an objective view, and not a subjective one.

    Gumby

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit