As I understand it, modernism is the belief in the objective, while postmodernism is the belief in the subjective. It seems that postmodernism tries to devalue any sort of standard for objective knowledge because it lacks rationality, since we can never experience what is imperceptible, but I believe this to be a mistake. I understand that objectivity is irrational, and I understand that subjectivity proves any objective to be false but also the inconsistency of what knowledge means.
We must contemplate the true nature of knowledge and its purpose. Knowledge, as I perceive it, is meant to serve as a foundational framework upon which others can build and advance, driving progress in fields like technology and medicine. Both the strictly objective and entirely subjective approaches fall short in fulfilling this purpose. Perhaps it is intersubjective knowledge that truly aligns with this objective, as it facilitates effective communication and mutual understanding among individuals.
It seems as though those who claim to advocate for objective knowledge might have miscommunicated their stance, as intersubjective knowledge is likely what they intended to emphasize. Denying the existence of any knowledge standard appears to be an inaccurate viewpoint, considering the significant advancements we've achieved in technology and other domains. Similarly, endorsing knowledge that is entirely independent of perception appears irrational, lacking a scientific method to validate its rationality. If we shift our perspective on modernism from its inherent irrationality to its possible original intention, we can recognize that postmodernism falls short of achieving the intended goal. Modernism, too, failed in accurately describing itself. Hence, we might benefit from focusing on the true essence of knowledge and acknowledge that intersubjective knowledge aligns most effectively with our purpose for having knowledge to begin with.
Would you agree that objective knowledge is irrational, subjective knowledge is useless, but intersubjective knowledge is useful?
thanks for taking the time in the first place to listen to what I was talking about and secondly, exploring what I said. Thirdly, thanks for giving it some thought and analysis. And then a question for me to ponder. I appreciate that very much. This is what I think is proper dialogue. Many others could take a leaf out of your book. Of course, there are many people on this site who do that. Just not so much here in the religious section.
I take the view that objective knowledge is not irrational per se. I don't agree that subjective knowledge is useless. I will need to explore the idea of intersubjective knowledge before I can determine its application. (I won't do that here but will research and return to discuss it)
As a theist, I hold to the view that everyone's including God's view is subjective. Nevertheless, since, I also hold to the view that God alone is perfect and eternal and the measure of truth in every dimension his subjectivity alone is an objective basis for everything else. In Economic theory, the theory of utilitarianism is a theory of objectivity. The ends justify the means. The great good argument is considered objective in its nature. In Legal theory, whether a fact is considered reasonable or not is based on the reasonable person. The tests can be either objective or subjective. If it is "what would a reasonable person understand in the circumstances" it is objective. If it is what would that particular person reasonably do in those circumstances", then it is considered a subjective test. In literature, there must be an objectivity of a kind in order for us to communicate. These letters on the screen must be objectively understood as particular letters of the English alphabet. If someone just subjectively understands them however they want, then communication will devolve. Words must have meaning objectively. Of course - it is true that words evolve over time. Of course, not all words evolve over time. Mathematics and Science both require objective truth and knowledge to exist in order for them to make rational decisions. For example, how could a scientist determine the age of the earth or anything without the view that some things remain consistent throughout history? If the speed of light dipped, or changed, it would cause enormous problems not just for scientists but for everyone. It is a constant and therefore it is an objective picture of knowledge.
Of course, subjective knowledge is also useful too. It depends on what the knowledge is and why it will be used. When I fall in love, it is a subjective experience. And while there may be better alternatives for me to marry or for someone else to marry, the subjective test will in the West at least become a measuring stick of some description. Preference is also subjective knowledge. I prefer Coke to Pepsi. It is subjective knowledge and therefore useful. In theology, subjectivity is also relevant and at times useful. I believe there are objective principles to follow in the Scriptures, but most of the time God wishes for us to apply wisdom to certain situations. This application of wisdom is going to be a form of subjective knowledge and experience.
Interestingly, although I don't yet understand inter-subjective knowledge, my particular view is as follows:
- I don't 100% agree with modernism. The reason for that is not everything is black and white. Not everything requires a right or wrong absolute answer or response.
- I don't 100% agree with post-modernism. The reason for that is not everything is somewhere between black and white. There do exist some absolute truths that are absolutely right or absolutely wrong.
I hold to the view - that "There is ABSOLUTELY no such thing as an ABSOLUTE", is a self-defeating statement. It rationally proves that absolutes do exist. As such so does objective knowledge. It is akin to the agnostic statement that "we can know nothing about God", another self-defeating statement. It rationally proves at least one thing about God can be known, and therefore that god exists.
As a Christian, I also hold to what I have explained to you before as covenantal theology. Sometimes called Trinitarian Theology. It is the idea I described to you in relation to the Garden of Eden. There is freedom - therefore subjectivity is useful. Yet true freedom MUST be defined by boundaries. Hence, objectivity is rational. Freedom loses its meaning if the Boundaries are removed. I used the term Trinitarian Theology because it is only within the Christian Religion that Trinity is known. Yes, there are other religions that have three-headed or multi-headed gods. There are other religions that have similar - but NONE that reflect the Trinity as Christians articulate.
The Trinity is a unique concept. It is both simple and complex. It is both objective and subjective. It reflects both the One and the Many. Yet unlike other similar views - it completely separates the creator from the creation. The creation does not evolve into the creator. This distinction is unique. And it consistently reflects the objective and the subjective. But more than that the Trinity despite being distinct condescends itself to become part of the creation in the person of Christ.
Hence, in contradistinction to every other religion where the creation desires to become God, God in Christianity, adds to himself humanity. He maintains this distinction. It's fascinating.
Again thanks for listening, and for considering, and for exploring. Now I will go and explore and research your question to me.
