What difference does someone ******* their sister make to me, or you? Oh right, none. You should learn to be rational and objective.
ROFL!
Words mean things... and how PERFECT does the above demonstration get; in the science of reading Left-think, wherein the would-be 'contributor', prefaces its conclusion, by asking what difference does the subject make, to YOU or THEM? Which is the GEOMETRICAL CENTER of: SUBJECTIVE REASONING... only to close by implying that it's reasoning is the OPPOSITE OF THAT?
I'm all about the learnin'... so allow me to offer the Intellectually Less Fortunate, a lesson in perspective... When you are worried about how something will affect YOU... the species of reasoning you're applying in that consideration is
SUBJECTIVE.
This, by way of comparison, to the circumstance wherein you are wondering 'How will this affect something BIGGER THAN JUST YOU... It may be your family... it may be your neighborhood, your company, Town, County, State of Nation. When you're considering THAT perspective, you are applying
OBJECTIVE Reasoning.
Objective reasoning is what the Founders of the United States used, when they were designing our governance, it was what was being applied, when the Founders who framed and ratified the US Constitution.
Objectivism is what was being applied when the Founders explicitly rejected Socialism... choosing instead, the Constitutional Republic, which applied democratic representation.
And Objective reasoning is what was being applied, when the law was debated and passed, in every respective state, to forbid sodomy... ergo: to outlaw homosexuality. Because doing so precluded the normalization of the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy... and in so doing it precluded the normalization of reasoning which describes its subjective nature in painful detail, while claiming such is the GEOMETRIC OPPOSITE OF THAT.
See how that that works?
I appreciate your desire to introduce terms like "Objectivism", "Objectivity" and "Subjectivity".
On another note... I can't help but see a certain irony when the Right uses the term Objectivism.
Ayn Rand is credited with turning the term Objectivism into a specific political philosophy. Her movement was built around the notion of objectivity (which refers to "external" facts discoverable by the light of Reason. This is in contrast to subjectivity, which is more tied to internal feelings/perceptions).
What I find interesting is that Ayn Rand - the scion of U.S. Libertarians - was notoriously anti-religious and anti-conservative. She had a famous battle with William F Buckley, who rightly saw her as dangerous to the Conservative movement. Of course, Reagan settled this dispute by offering himself as the franchise of both. Reagan's ability to appeal to both Libertarians and Conservatives has lead to serious intellectual confusion on the Right, where people confuse these two very different philosophies.
Keep in mind that "Objective" and "Subjective" are fairly technical philosophical terms. "Objective Reality" is often referred to as the "external world" as it exists apart from the
limitations of human consciousness and bias. Whereas Subjective Reality often refers to what the subject perceives, e.g., subjective impression.
Subjective impressions can be infected by human perception, e.g., I can have a subjective impression of a curved stick, but in reality the stick is straight but submerged in water and only
appears curved. In this case there is a difference between the external world of facts and the subjective world of impressions. Subjectivity can also be infected by time or history, e.g., our intellectual predecessors thought the world was flat, and they treated this as a fact. The history of science is filled with intellectual revolutions that discard "objective facts" that people once took seriously.
The Enlightenment Philosophers, lead by Descartes and Kant, have spilled a lot of ink on the difference between objective facts and subjective impressions or feelings. Also, please note that post Enlightenment philosophers, like Nietzsche or Heidegger, have spilled a lot of ink deconstructing the objectivity/subjectivity divide, claiming that "objective" findings are not universal truths floating above the vagaries of time and space (history and culture), but infected by an embedded self whose relationship to the "external" world is irreducibly mediated by a particular time and place. Meaning: what people accept as true is very much dependent on their historical era and geographic location. For instance, we in the intellectually advanced West used to think that women were irrational and therefore incapable of meeting the demands of civic function. This is why they were excluded form voting and holding office. Indeed, female inferiority was seen as a fact because it was supported by
science and the medical community. However, the social world evolved and the supposed fact of female inferiority turned out to be little more than a bias. I mention this only to show the potential pitfalls with using terms like objectivity.
You might read Thomas Kuhn's
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" to see how "objective reality" is not as solid and universal as we take it to be. Indeed, we use to think it was a fact that the earth was the center of the solar system (which fact supported the Biblical cosmology and the power of the Church). This fact (called "geocentrism") is where our rational, objective reasoning lead us. But then our knowledge changed and we realized that the earth rotated around the sun (heliocentrism). History is filled with cultures who take their version of objectivity too seriously, and use it as a basis to kill, torture or, thinking of Galileo, imprison.
Also, I'm not sure the divide you sketch between objective and subjective makes sense the way you've laid it out. I see your point, but I'm a little confused by how you are using objectivity and subjectivity. For instance, a subject using rational self-interest can unwittingly further the general or national good. That is, because I selfishly or subjectively care about my children, I want my neighborhood, town and nation to be set up correctly, so it maximizes the freedom and rights of citizens. In this way my concern for self implies a concern for the larger world beyond my subjective impressions and selfish concerns. Which is to say, I'm not entirely convinced by your dichotomy, though I think I understand your general point.
