Thoughts
The stupidest part about objectivity is that our definition of objectivity is subjective.
Journalists believe that objectivity means giving both sides of the story. A judge rules objectively by considering both sides of an issue and ruling in favor of justice. At what point do we start distinguishing, interpreting? At what point is thought corrupted by our "senses"?
Jakob von Uexküll conceived the Umwelt, the network that constitutes the "objects of experience." This network includes the physical environment, the organism, its senses and its constitution. There's what's there; then there's what we're able to sense; then there's whether or not we sense correctly.
We can't smell what dogs smell. We can't "see" what bats "see," nor do we even have ways of talking about how they "see." Many insects hear through their legs by picking up vibrations in the ground, and can hear sounds that humans can't.
While I thank God for the five senses, it makes me wonder what we're missing.
Sometimes I want to escape. I wish I didn't care about credibility or legitimacy or the opinions of my teachers and my friends and strangers. I almost don't. And then I do again. Why is that? It's not a question I can answer objectively.
I want to write a few clever, somewhat subversive but ultimately pointless romantic comedies, sell them to major studios for a modest sum, invest it, move to a poor country and live out my days writing a variety of novels that are all weird, all in different ways.
Some kid in Kansas who doesn't fit in will read them and will try to change the world. He will never meet me.
Individual pieces of art are triggers. Someone hears a song and it triggers a song in them. This can be applied to all art and this can be applied to all science and eventually to all human experience. Think of it like a tree, branching outward forever. Even if human thought goes "backward," it's still extending.
It looks amazing in my mind and one day maybe I will draw it for you. Who are you? Are we infinitely unique individuals who share commonalities or are we a single mold designed to accomodate infinite variation? Are we the same person?
If humans did not exist, would the human world exist? All the cars and computers and fire hydrants would still be around, going unused. But it wouldn't be the same place. We are the leaders of the world, and we're kind of doing a shitty job. It could be worse. (I'm just trying to remain objective.)
There's too much.
Journalists believe that objectivity means giving both sides of the story. A judge rules objectively by considering both sides of an issue and ruling in favor of justice. At what point do we start distinguishing, interpreting? At what point is thought corrupted by our "senses"?
Jakob von Uexküll conceived the Umwelt, the network that constitutes the "objects of experience." This network includes the physical environment, the organism, its senses and its constitution. There's what's there; then there's what we're able to sense; then there's whether or not we sense correctly.
We can't smell what dogs smell. We can't "see" what bats "see," nor do we even have ways of talking about how they "see." Many insects hear through their legs by picking up vibrations in the ground, and can hear sounds that humans can't.
While I thank God for the five senses, it makes me wonder what we're missing.
Sometimes I want to escape. I wish I didn't care about credibility or legitimacy or the opinions of my teachers and my friends and strangers. I almost don't. And then I do again. Why is that? It's not a question I can answer objectively.
I want to write a few clever, somewhat subversive but ultimately pointless romantic comedies, sell them to major studios for a modest sum, invest it, move to a poor country and live out my days writing a variety of novels that are all weird, all in different ways.
Some kid in Kansas who doesn't fit in will read them and will try to change the world. He will never meet me.
Individual pieces of art are triggers. Someone hears a song and it triggers a song in them. This can be applied to all art and this can be applied to all science and eventually to all human experience. Think of it like a tree, branching outward forever. Even if human thought goes "backward," it's still extending.
It looks amazing in my mind and one day maybe I will draw it for you. Who are you? Are we infinitely unique individuals who share commonalities or are we a single mold designed to accomodate infinite variation? Are we the same person?
If humans did not exist, would the human world exist? All the cars and computers and fire hydrants would still be around, going unused. But it wouldn't be the same place. We are the leaders of the world, and we're kind of doing a shitty job. It could be worse. (I'm just trying to remain objective.)
There's too much.