The debate between an objective view and subjective view has been going on in my mind since a long time. I have never been able to decide which is better and ought to be followed. In Indian Philosophical thought, though we have the idea of one Absolute entity, but there are so many different paths one could follow. There are so many schools of thought viz. Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita, and may be more. Which one of them is the best? Some say that its a matter of preference. And some try to prove the supremacy of their own convictions. So, is it completely left to the individual to decide? If thats the case, then he/she may choose any of these or may come up with a belief system of his own and this may contradict the existing systems. It would also not be correct to say that an individual is free to choose as long as he chooses something from the existing ideas and does not start his own new theory. When there is no clear 'best' philosophy, then how can we prevent others from coming up with new ideas? It is quite possible that there is a 'best' philosophy waiting to be discovered. But allowing complete freedom to an individual could also be dangerous, because a person who is not bound to anything may get easily misguided by others or his own mind. So, there is a need for an objective idea also.
Simply stated, facts are objective and opinions are subjective. But things are not as simple as this. What are facts for one person may not be facts for other person. And facts also change with time. Before going to war with Iraq, the whole American nation believed that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This was a fact for them. But later, they realized that their 'fact' was wrong. And the world came to know the true 'fact' about the importance of oil. There are many such examples. What we consider as knowledge or facts are based on what we read in books or newspapers or perceive with our own senses. But we know that there have been attempts all around the world at all points of time to misguide people by publishing false data to satisfy the selfish interests of the people in command. So, what we consider as 'facts' are highly questionable and cannot be believed to be certain or absolute.
And the same goes for opinions also. Our opinions keep changing with time. There was a time when I used to believe that Mahatma Gandhi's idea of non-violence was a weak idea and had led to a national weakness. But it was much later that I really started understanding what non-violence actually was. It took me a lot of effort to be able to appreciate the enormous strength that is required to practice this great idea. There was a time when I used to consider all religious activities as mere superstition. It was only much later that I realized the depths of spirituality and religion. So, opinions also change. And its not just me. This is true for everyone around the world. I once heard a very interesting quote, "If you are not a communist at the age of 20, then you don't have a heart. But if you are still a communist at the age of 40, then you don't have head". I don't quite remember who said this, but it shows that opinions change and, in fact, that opinions must change as we grow. No one is perfect. We are all on a journey towards something better. Something more wholesome. Something more complete and free from imperfections of any kind. Till we have reached that goal, there is room for continuous improvement of our ideas and opinions.
So, as we have seen, in a practical sense, both objectivity and subjectivity is a function of time. Even as a definition, objectivity is not really a universal constant. Physicists used to believe that all the laws of the world are objective and subjectivity was totally discarded. But with the advent of Quantum Mechanics, subjectivity came back to limelight. The idea of the system properties depending on an act of measurement by a subject completely throws objectivity out of the window. I guess the only subject that still has claim to being objective is pure mathematics. But as far as we are talking about this 'physical' world and its objects, we are sort of forced to consider subjectivity as a very important part of the process.
So, for our daily life or for our common belief systems or while taking decisions, what idea should we follow: Objectivity or Subjectivity? I guess its not correct to follow one to the exclusion of the other. I guess the correct approach would be what I like to call "Objective Subjectivity". I don't think this is a new term, but the interpretation given here may be new.
The first thing to realize is that all human beings on this planet are unique. We have our own way of doing things. We are all entitled to our own set of belief systems. Even people who belong to the same line of faith, are seen to follow it differently. The way I love Christ or Krishna may be quite different from the way someone else thinks about them. So, let us allow room for subjectivity. Each one is free. But as discussed above, a complete freedom from societal rules can lead to many people being easily misguided. And in the name of freedom, they may become bonded to some very destructive ideas as is seen in the case of terrorists. So, although a person is free to follow his own ideas, but it must be subject to objective considerations also. A person must think whether his belief systems will hurt or injure those following other belief systems. There must be tolerance in society. Belief systems that preach themselves to the exclusion of others are absolutely immoral and have no place on this planet. Another important thing is that people following a certain belief system must be open to debate. It is important not to follow things just because it is written in some book or because some person has said so, no matter how great the person may be. In the Bhagwad Gita, Sri Krishna repeatedly says Arjuna to think about the ideas and decide for himself and not follow the ideas just because they are being said by the Lord himself. In the Indian system of philosophy, we have a very rich and healthy system of constructive debating.
So, I guess thats the solution to the problem of objectivity and subjectivity. We need "Objective Subjectivity". The subject is free to choose as long as he follows the objective ideas of tolerance and is open to other ideas.
PS: I could have chosen to call it "Subjective Objectivity". The reason for choosing "Objective Subjectivity" is that the most important thing, in my view, is subjectivity. Because the aim of all philosophical thought is emancipation of the individual and not the world as a whole. The world will always continue to be a mixture of good and bad and will always go on. The sum nature of the world does not change much and if at all it changes, it is temporary. It is the individual who undergoes a permanent change. So, subjectivity is the crucial thing. But this subjectivity of each person has to be qualified so as not to lead to exclusion of other people's subjectivity. Thats why "Subjectivity" is qualified by calling it objective..!!
Simply stated, facts are objective and opinions are subjective. But things are not as simple as this. What are facts for one person may not be facts for other person. And facts also change with time. Before going to war with Iraq, the whole American nation believed that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This was a fact for them. But later, they realized that their 'fact' was wrong. And the world came to know the true 'fact' about the importance of oil. There are many such examples. What we consider as knowledge or facts are based on what we read in books or newspapers or perceive with our own senses. But we know that there have been attempts all around the world at all points of time to misguide people by publishing false data to satisfy the selfish interests of the people in command. So, what we consider as 'facts' are highly questionable and cannot be believed to be certain or absolute.
And the same goes for opinions also. Our opinions keep changing with time. There was a time when I used to believe that Mahatma Gandhi's idea of non-violence was a weak idea and had led to a national weakness. But it was much later that I really started understanding what non-violence actually was. It took me a lot of effort to be able to appreciate the enormous strength that is required to practice this great idea. There was a time when I used to consider all religious activities as mere superstition. It was only much later that I realized the depths of spirituality and religion. So, opinions also change. And its not just me. This is true for everyone around the world. I once heard a very interesting quote, "If you are not a communist at the age of 20, then you don't have a heart. But if you are still a communist at the age of 40, then you don't have head". I don't quite remember who said this, but it shows that opinions change and, in fact, that opinions must change as we grow. No one is perfect. We are all on a journey towards something better. Something more wholesome. Something more complete and free from imperfections of any kind. Till we have reached that goal, there is room for continuous improvement of our ideas and opinions.
So, as we have seen, in a practical sense, both objectivity and subjectivity is a function of time. Even as a definition, objectivity is not really a universal constant. Physicists used to believe that all the laws of the world are objective and subjectivity was totally discarded. But with the advent of Quantum Mechanics, subjectivity came back to limelight. The idea of the system properties depending on an act of measurement by a subject completely throws objectivity out of the window. I guess the only subject that still has claim to being objective is pure mathematics. But as far as we are talking about this 'physical' world and its objects, we are sort of forced to consider subjectivity as a very important part of the process.
So, for our daily life or for our common belief systems or while taking decisions, what idea should we follow: Objectivity or Subjectivity? I guess its not correct to follow one to the exclusion of the other. I guess the correct approach would be what I like to call "Objective Subjectivity". I don't think this is a new term, but the interpretation given here may be new.
The first thing to realize is that all human beings on this planet are unique. We have our own way of doing things. We are all entitled to our own set of belief systems. Even people who belong to the same line of faith, are seen to follow it differently. The way I love Christ or Krishna may be quite different from the way someone else thinks about them. So, let us allow room for subjectivity. Each one is free. But as discussed above, a complete freedom from societal rules can lead to many people being easily misguided. And in the name of freedom, they may become bonded to some very destructive ideas as is seen in the case of terrorists. So, although a person is free to follow his own ideas, but it must be subject to objective considerations also. A person must think whether his belief systems will hurt or injure those following other belief systems. There must be tolerance in society. Belief systems that preach themselves to the exclusion of others are absolutely immoral and have no place on this planet. Another important thing is that people following a certain belief system must be open to debate. It is important not to follow things just because it is written in some book or because some person has said so, no matter how great the person may be. In the Bhagwad Gita, Sri Krishna repeatedly says Arjuna to think about the ideas and decide for himself and not follow the ideas just because they are being said by the Lord himself. In the Indian system of philosophy, we have a very rich and healthy system of constructive debating.
So, I guess thats the solution to the problem of objectivity and subjectivity. We need "Objective Subjectivity". The subject is free to choose as long as he follows the objective ideas of tolerance and is open to other ideas.
PS: I could have chosen to call it "Subjective Objectivity". The reason for choosing "Objective Subjectivity" is that the most important thing, in my view, is subjectivity. Because the aim of all philosophical thought is emancipation of the individual and not the world as a whole. The world will always continue to be a mixture of good and bad and will always go on. The sum nature of the world does not change much and if at all it changes, it is temporary. It is the individual who undergoes a permanent change. So, subjectivity is the crucial thing. But this subjectivity of each person has to be qualified so as not to lead to exclusion of other people's subjectivity. Thats why "Subjectivity" is qualified by calling it objective..!!
No comments:
Post a Comment