gumby, ya know, maybe Pilate had a lot more "truth" than we care to admit when he said:
"What is truth?"
Is there a "Finish Line" in the quest for "absolutes".
by gumby 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Golf
Gumby you wouldn't get me to stick out my finger and get whacked with a hammer. For what, to feel pain?
I've mentioned it before and I'm going to mention it again, I'm a high steel worker, what do you think it takes to walk around steel girders many stories above street level, subjectivity? You don't think having an objective view is must in this profession? Your dealing with heights and walking around narrow beams. For starters, take a plank and place it on cement blocks, one on each end, and walk across it. Once you've accomplish this exercise, can you imagine yourself being 5,10,20,30,60 stories above street level and doing the same exercise? Now, what do you call that, nitpicking?
Guest 77
-
hillary_step
Onacruse,
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.
Having a predisposed purpose does not negate a person having an objective viewpoint. Take for example a Judge who sits in judgment of an accused criminal. His predisposed purpose is to render judgment one way or the other after hearing all the evidence. He can chose to render this judgment objectively by not allowing his personal bias to become involved in the process, or he can make an unobjective viewpoint based on a personal bias.
A careful read for example of Mr. Penton's, quoting an original example, book will leave a person with the knowledge that the book had a predisposed purpose, but that it was written in an objective manner. You seem to be concluding that a predisposition automatically challenges objectivity. While this can happen, it is certainly not automatic to a person who has trained themselves to look at an issue objectively.
Best regards - HS
-
hillary_step
Gumby,
I think where diffrences come in on objectivity, is how both sides view what "truth" is.
Not really. Again, using the example of a court of Law dealing with an accused person. The judgment that is rendered has to be an objective one, based not on a personal viewpoint of a matter but by the facts. A Judge may render a decision that a person is innocent based on presented facts, his own subjective feeling however may be that the person is as guilty as a smiling gnome in a harem.
Best regards - HS
-
gumby
Having a predisposed purpose does not negate a person having an objective viewpoint. Take for example a Judge who sits in judgment of an accused criminal. His predisposed purpose is to render judgment one way or the other after hearing all the evidence. He can chose to render this judgment objectively by not allowing his personal bias to become involved in the process, or he can make an unobjective viewpoint based on a personal bias.
:Having a predisposed purpose does not negate a person having an objective viewpoint.
Excellent point.
I'm not sure anyone has 'qualified' the idea presented here enough so as to compare apples to apples in this discussion. Craig and I discussed much of this on the phone and the discussion also included "absolute truth" in which one bases being objective on. If we were to all agree that objectivity will be based on "accepted truthfulness" on whatever matter is discussed, then IMO things can certainly be viewed as objective rather than subjective.
Gumby
-
onacruse
Well, yet again, as is my wont, I may well have been proceeding with this conversation with a narrowly particular perspective of "objective."
HS, within the confines of categorized human interaction, yes, I agree that it is possible to be objective...at least insofar as the presentation of specific material is concerned (rather like www.qoutes.com)
However, I submit that as soon as personal commentary enters the fray, then objectivity exits.
And, in the broader sense, as far as any human being objective, I stand by my assertion: No human can be absolutely and unequivocally objective, because we are all limited beings in an apparently unlimited universe: the limits of our own being prevent us from being objective.
And there's nothing wrong with that, eh?
gumby, I always enjoy our conversations...when Kate and I get down to your neck of the woods, I'll expect you to at least buy a pizza! LOL
Craig
-
outoftheorg
APPARENTLY IN THIS THREAD THERE IS NO FINISH LINE.
Outoftheorg