In class on Thursday we discussed the differences between subjectivity and objectivity. Kierkegaard argues that objectivity is absolutely true, independent of existing individuals. Subjectivity is true to an existing individual as an individual and it depends on the investment that an individual puts toward this truth.
Dr. J mentioned that when something is intersubjectively verified by multiple existing individuals, that particular thing (idea/object/etc.) obtains an objective truth. I understand that our society is built around that idea for the most part.
I do not understand how an object/idea/etc. can gain an objective reason/truth from a group of individuals. If individuals are intersubjectively giving an object meaning that is true to them personally and such a view coincides with others, how does that make the object obtain a set objective truth?
In other words, if we learned that objective reasoning is INDEPENDENT of individuals, then how can reasoning become objective from a group of individuals? This concept seems to detract from Kierkegaard’s argument.
If such subjective reasoning can become objective just by multiple existing individuals verifying such a concept, then is there such thing as objective truth? It seems to me that objective truth cannot exist in this sense.
We also learned that objective reasoning comes about from something being true in itself. I would argue that this truth stems from subjective truth since an object/idea/etc. is dependent on the thoughts/opinions of existing individuals. For example, we would think that a chair is naturally a chair because it is true to itself and exhibits “chair-ness” and chair-like qualities. However, existing individuals termed the object “chair” and gave a definition to chair (such as some device to sit on, more or less). Hence, if existing individuals gave a name to an object, such as a chair, then is there such thing as objective truth/reasoning? Multiple individuals simply verified their subjective truths with each other to create a common subjective truth, which we call “objective truth.”
If everything stems from subjective truth and reasoning, why do we even have the term “objective truth?” It seems as though nothing is independent of the individual, since names/concepts/etc. originate from individuals. We mentioned briefly in class that objective truth is “invented” in a way. Why does Kierkegaard not support this argument (or it seems as though he does not)? Wouldn’t the non-existence of objectivity support his argument by proving that “truth is subjectivity?”
I think you make an interesting point. It is true that objectives are defined by the agreement of many individuals' subjective beliefs. However, I feel that this is just a demonstration of the creation of language. How did we agree that a chair is a chair? Not necessarily because of the essence of the object is 'chair', but because humans naturally feel the need to communicate and enough people agreed that the object should be termed chair. This means we did define 'chair' by an agreed subjective. However, it's 'chair-ness' is objective. Even if there was no one around to name this object 'chair' it would still exist in exactly the same way (all of its properties would remain exactly the same), it would merely lack definition.
ReplyDelete