Though this topic is not new for ILP but i would try to deduce this to up up the last mile in this thread. Let us see what happens. All subjectivities ( or those who think they are ) are welcome to defend their positions.
I do not have any formal education of the subject thus my understanding depends on what i saw on internet forums. And, my understanding is that there are there are basically two types of subjectivists.
1 - Pseudo Subjectivists
There are some intellectuals, who are objectivists at core, but like to present themselves as a subjectivists, both knowingly and unknowingly too. They do it because either they want to criticise any particular position or promote what they like. There is nothing wrong either in criticising or supporting any position but this is not true subjectivity. It is nothing but merely using subjectivity as a mask to promote one’s objective opinions.
Most of the leftists and liberals fall under this category. When it comes to social issues like divorce, abortion, homosexuality or even suicide, they argue that one is free to take the decisions regarding one’s life. That is fine. But, when the same people claim that rich people should be taxed more and poor should be given extra subsidies, it is nothing but hypocrisy and mockery of subjectivity too.
May i ask why rich should be taxed more, or why poor should be given more facilities? Does this act do not violate the basic principle of equality? Is taxing rich extra not unfair to them?
Secondly, leftists/liberals claim that majoritarian view should not be imposed on minority. I second that opinion. But then, how the same people can ask a minority group (rich people) to be treated differently and unfairly? Do rich not have the same social and constitutional rights as homosexuals have? Is it a crime to be rich and deserve punishment?
This is what i define as pseudo subjectivity. The issue here is not what is good or bad for the society in general but sticking to preferred definitions. I am also in the favor of taxing rich more and giving some essential free facilities to the needy persons, but i do not support this so called misdefined premise of equality. My thinking is that whatever is necessary for the betterment of the society in the longer run, should be done, irrespective of whether it is unpleasant to minority or even majority.
That is my goal thus i am free to choose my means to accomplish that. I am also free either to use liberal or conservative means according to the circumstances because my aim is not creating either a liberal or conservative society, but merely a better society, and i do not mind to called an objectivist too, for the simple reason that i first decide goal, them means, not otherwise. I also have some rules about means, but if they come in the way of accomplishing the predecided goal, i do not hesitate in overruling those.
But, leftists/liberals (pseudo subjectivists) here tweak both the issue and concerned definitions too. They like to remain subjectivist till they talk about social issues, but as soon as it comes to economics, they become true objectivist. Then they tend to forget about their basic principle of proving equality and justice to minority ( rich people). If you ask them if it is okay to suicide, they say it is up to that individual to decide and society should not interfere in that one’s rights/privacy. Fine. But, the same people like the society to interfere in riches rights and privacy all the time. Why are these double standards? Either you interfere or you not, choose one. And, if you do not want to choose one, accept that i will do what i think is right, but do not call yourself a subjectivist. Subjectivists are not suppose to hold anything either truly good or bad.
Remember, i am not saying here whether they are right or wrong, my whole point is that leftists/liberals are not subjectivists but objectivists. They merely have a different objective opinion, and name it subjectivity.
2 - Sniper Subjectivists
This is a slightly rare kind of breed, and found once in awhile only, not often. These are shrewd intellectuals who never come out from their intellectual hideouts. They just keep shooting the same ammunition from their distant bunker, just like snipers. They do not have guts to face the opponent in hand to hand battle, because they know that they cannot kill even a fly with their bare hands, and entirely dependant on long range rifle. So, they keep waiting and waiting patiently for any opponent to come out in the open so they can shoot him from their same long distance sniper rifle. And, they take a shot once in a while then again lay down low in their bunker.
Being more intelligent than Pseudo Subjectivists, Sniper Subjectivities are well aware of their shortcomings. They know very well that they cannot argue on any else issue but this, because that will provide the same sniper rifle to the opponent too and he (opponent) would win every time because of having many other and better fighting skills.
Sniper Subjectivists claim that every one has its own subjective opinion, which tends to form slowly and steadily because of the beholder’s circumstances. I also agree with that. But, they take one step further and also claim that because of this phenomenon, there neither can be truly objective opinion thus it would be futile attempt even to try.
This a quite dangerous premise to have, for more than intellectuals think, including sniper subjectivists. They do not realize fully what they are suggesting. The issue here is not whether any completely objective (perfect by all means) opinion is possible or not, but whether all opinions have same worth or not.
For the sake of an argument, let us assume that it is impossible to conclude perfectness, so given that, should we also discard those options also which are better than the existing ones? If one cannot have Pule cheese (the rare and costliest Cheese in the world, though made from donkey milk)) all the time, should he also stop eating Parmesan also just because it is not of the highest grade? Of should he continue to have Parmesan without stopping his quest for better alternative? He may well end and Mascarpone in his quest. Is it better or it would be better to eat cheese not at all unless one does not get Pule?
The real issue is not this that all opinions are rooted in dasein, they certainly are, but that does neither mean that all daseins were the same and even they were, all people would have driven opinions of having same worth. The value and worthiness of the driven opinions depends more on the intellect of the beholder than the dasein. Millions of people were seeing apples falling from the trees since ages, but it striked only to Newton why they always fell to the ground, not go towards the sky. The the same way, millions of people are having bath in bathtubs since centuries, but it striked only to Archimedes when a particle is submerged in any liquid, it displaces exactly the equal liquid to its weight. The daseins were the same for millions, yet why a few always able to outthink the majority?
Secondly, these sniper subjectivity tend to forget one more very important thing. It is not important whether you get perfectness or even something better or not. The more important thing is to keep the intent for betterment alive. If that is lost, everything would be lost forever. If the intent would be there, the society would progress for sure. The progress may be slow and late, but there will be some for sure.
People do not realize this but Laden is better than Nietzsche because, Laden may be wrong but he at least believe that there can be something right. So, there are some chances that he may get it right in the future. But, there is no hope whatsoever with Nietzsche because there is nothing right and wrong according to him as everything is subjective and rooted in dasein or WTP.
with love,
sanjay