The Perils of Objectivity

One of the significant ways in which we got around the world is to look at the world in a very objective manner. We did this through the use of language, which has been greatly aided by a false understanding of science in the later part of our existence. We used language in two distinct but interrelated ways – a) used metaphors b) named things and combined words to form a rich scale of meanings.

Hence we started labeling everything we saw and defined them and then compared them to each other. By doing so we treated everything as independent objects stripping them off from the context to which they belong and as a result lost the real meaning that lay in the relational context of different objects.

Once we started treating everything as objects we also committed the ‘original sin’ of assigning independent attributes to them. So we feel that a position in an organization must be filled by a person having some specific attributes. Similarly friends must have some specific attributes. Spouses must be this or that. Children must grow up in a certain way. Schools must educate everyone on this and that. And so on. No room for diversity. No tolerance. No trust. No respect. All darn ‘fundamentalism’.

We screwed up the whole thing. By assigning attributes we equated human beings to a stone or a piece of gold. Somewhere in the process we forgot that human beings ‘breathe’. Human beings think and create. Human beings love. Humans beings change…..just as any other thing in the world.

But what can I do? The worldview so skewed that reality is beyond cognition and recognition.

I don’t hate when people:

a) see an original idea and start thinking of something else they have had come across even remotely close. If not, fake it or force the idea upon others.
b) think that their spouses must be this or that
c) quote this fellow and that fellow and fear to voice their own thinking afraid that it might sound incredible or unauthentic or not fit to be ‘retweeted’ by others.
d) measure the seriousness of a disease by the size of the medical bills they pay
e) measure the worth of a human being by the money the person has or the superficial beauty he/she possess.
f) measure the quantity of milk in terms of ‘inches’.
g) say that ‘you ought to have done that’ or ‘you must behave like that’ or ‘these are the 10 ways to reach the top (don’t know where it is)…
h) think of Jolie when making love to their wives.

and it goes on…

I don’t hate anything anymore as much as I don’t hate a piece of gold or hate a river flowing by. I am amazed how over centuries we have lost touch with our selves thereby losing our consciousness. Can we bring it back?

I doubt it can be done since we are so used to ‘averages’. This is because we would have to use ‘averages’ whenever we want to assign ‘attributes’ to anything. So, we have become a bunch of ‘average’ objects. How dare one talks about merit and talent in this environment of ‘averages’?

I don’t hate anything anymore. I laugh out loud. Do you?

We named and named and named. We pointed at everything and named it. We combined names. This is tea and this is a house and this is a teahouse. We used names to describe other names. This is anger. This is a man. And this is an angry man. Each name identified something that could then be seen as separate from all other things. We created hard edges in the world. We created distinctions and we believed in our distinctions and we became one of the things in the universe that existed separate from all other things.

One of the ways that we managed this objectification of the world is through the creative use of speech acts. We labeled everything. We defined things and gave them names. We named the natural world. This is a rock. This is dirt. That is the sun. We named ourselves. This is John. This is Mary. We named activities. This is running. This is crying. And we built things and then named them too. This is a house. This is a hammer. This is road. We also named things that were more complex and subtle. This is a feeling. This is a moral value. This is right. This is wrong.

Read more at evolutionaryphilosophy.com

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: