"Pure objectivity" is a myth

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Leucius Charinus »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 1:58 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 9:41 am. .. as a prior step I am interested to identify a simple classification system for the texts themselves. Such as the above.
I don't understand how such a classification contributes to the effectiveness of research into Christian origins.
It would contribute in the same manner as a library classification system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_classification

What are the benefits of classification?

The National Archives of Australia (nd) indicates that classification creates a logical, uniform approach or "common language" that people can use to name, organise, retrieve and share content.
https://records.unimelb.edu.au/resources/classification


Benefits of using classification schemes

Using one or more classification schemes for the classification of a collection of objects has many benefits. Some of these include:

* It allows a user to find an individual object quickly on the basis of its kind or group.

* It makes it easier to detect duplicate objects.

* It conveys semantics (meaning) of an object from the definition of its kind, which meaning is not conveyed by the name of the individual object or its way of spelling.

* Knowledge and requirements about a kind of thing can be applied to other objects of that kind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classific ... on_schemes

User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2900
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by maryhelena »

What is truth - said Pilate.

Reading some of this thread brought Pilate's question to mind. It also brought to mind this quote from Umberto Eco:

"Perhaps the mission of those who love mankind is to make people laugh at the truth, to make truth laugh, because the only truth lies in learning to free ourselves from insane passion for the truth"

Laughter, they say, is the best medicine. But to laugh at the truth? Perhaps to do so would enable us to hold on to enlightenment and give blindness a miss? After all, when one is initially searching for truth one is fired up with enthusiasm - then as the years pass, while the commitment remains, realization about the illusive nature of one's quest should bring not despair but joy. One is happy with one's journey - one can laugh at truth's intransigence, laugh at the game it is playing - and laugh also at oneself for one's past seriousness in thinking it could be caught. Truth, methinks, sets it's own game rules, it is not committed to our perceptions of it. It is very quick to catch us unawares. Perhaps the penalty it imposes on those who believe that they have caught it, the penalty for trying to stop its game of hide and seek   - is blindness?

Truth? If the word means anything at all, then it must refer to more than simply the facts of a matter.
It seems, to me, that 'truth' is a bit like the north star. The north star has a fixed position enabling seafarers to chart their journey. 'Truth' has it's own fixed position in our minds, it enables or guides our minds on our own journey to new intellectual destinations. 'Truth' is the motivator, the guiding light - like the north star it is not itself the destination.

Knowledge is never static - our intellect is evolutionary. Sometimes we need to let go of the old idea in order to welcome the new. Heresy is, after all, the bedrock of christianity. If nothing else heresy is the Christian gift to the world.....
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by lsayre »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:44 pm And the way one sees the world is the only way; there is only one way that is "true" and correct. Ambiguity and shades of grey and complexities among humans are seen as threats, not positives.

And there always an authority of some kind: if not Hitler, it is Ayn Rand and her prophet, or another religious leader, .... always someone or some authoritative book or writing that is the bedrock of all thought. Another Bible.

And there is a fundamentalism about it all. A belief in fundamental truths -- whether about the nation or religion or party.

And all of that closes off a person from open-minded inputs and genuine critical thinking and critical self-reflection. And from other people as they really are (they are not "ignorant" or slave-makers when you get to know them, not really).
Neil, once again you appear to be rather clearly and completely confusing intrinsicism for objectivism. And once again you are thereby the one rather tribally perpetrating hate and isolation (if merly via pulling and playing the "cult" card) for those who desire to freely associate and trade (at the level of Laissez-faire) and thereby evolve (as if by an invisible hand) a non-tribal society. There is a rational and peaceful means of being social and achieving a society while critically avoiding the subjective application of force, such as exists within our societies today (which likely evolved slowly over time out of tribalism). And as to the truly needy, no one (this side of the heartless tribal brute who demands that sacrificial extortion [via subjective force at some level, likely masquerading as law] from those of ability is demanded) is stopping anyone from personally helping them (alone, or via free association) as their heart felt compassion leads. I.E., no one is stopping "you" from "freely" assisting the needy. And no one has the authority to 'force' me. (or visa-versa)

A key aspect of any tribally rooted society is the threat of and/or outright use of force (be it masquerading as violent protest, or masquerading as law) in the name of benevolence...

Ayn Rand stated it this way (in volumes from which I can only provide the briefest of snippets):
A proper association is united by ideas, not by men, and its members are loyal to the ideas, not to the group. It is eminently reasonable that men should seek to associate with those who share their convictions and values. It is impossible to deal or even to communicate with men whose ideas are fundamentally opposed to one’s own (and one should be free not to deal with them). All proper associations are formed or joined by individual choice and on conscious, intellectual grounds (philosophical, political, professional, etc.)—not by the physiological or geographical accident of birth, and not on the ground of tradition. When men are united by ideas, i.e., by explicit principles, there is no room for favors, whims, or arbitrary power: the principles serve as an objective criterion for determining actions and for judging men, whether leaders or members. This requires a high degree of conceptual development and independence . . . . But this is the only way men can work together justly, benevolently and safely.

The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob.
Philosophically, tribalism is the product of irrationalism and collectivism. It is a logical consequence of modern philosophy. If men accept the notion that reason is not valid, what is to guide them and how are they to live?

Obviously, they will seek to join some group—any group—which claims the ability to lead them and to provide some sort of knowledge acquired by some sort of unspecified means. If men accept the notion that the individual is helpless, intellectually and morally, that he has no mind and no rights, that he is nothing, but the group is all, and his only moral significance lies in selfless service to the group—they will be pulled obediently to join a group. But which group? Well, if you believe that you have no mind and no moral value, you cannot have the confidence to make choices—so the only thing for you to do is to join an unchosen group, the group into which you were born, the group to which you were predestined to belong by the sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient power of your body chemistry.

This, of course, is racism. But if your group is small enough, it will not be called “racism”: it will be called “ethnicity.”
I might inject here that the smallest minority is clearly the individual. Any tribal brute (with brute here implying any level of force) level society (from small group to large, and even up to nations) bent upon promoting a falsehood such as collective "civil rights" must suppress (by force if/when necessary) this very fact (in conjunction with suppressing [at some/any level, even if merely via never ending taxation] complete and unhindered individual rights to life and property) while promoting itself as the benevolent means to an end. And generally this "means" involves running at some to any level a protection racket (or a sort of collective Stockholm Syndrome, with its infusion beginning at the level of such as a state sponsored education, or a church, or a madrassa, or the neighborhood gang, or liberation theology, etc...). And this "end" generally involves masquerading as some vague and subjective derivation of achieving the "greatest good", while standing to collect the sacrificial (even if voted upon) "sin" offerings.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

lsayre wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 2:41 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:44 pm And the way one sees the world is the only way; there is only one way that is "true" and correct. Ambiguity and shades of grey and complexities among humans are seen as threats, not positives.

And there always an authority of some kind: if not Hitler, it is Ayn Rand and her prophet, or another religious leader, .... always someone or some authoritative book or writing that is the bedrock of all thought. Another Bible.

And there is a fundamentalism about it all. A belief in fundamental truths -- whether about the nation or religion or party.

And all of that closes off a person from open-minded inputs and genuine critical thinking and critical self-reflection. And from other people as they really are (they are not "ignorant" or slave-makers when you get to know them, not really).
Neil, once again you appear to be rather clearly and completely confusing intrinsicism for objectivism.
The words of mine that you quoted are the results of anthropological studies into the processes of and nature of "radicalization" that leads to memberships of certain types of groups loosely described as "cultish". I could have added footnotes to the scholarship behind each of the phrases I used. It is not hate research. It is promoting and encouraging understanding of human nature, of how society and humans work.

lsayre wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 2:41 am And once again you are thereby the one rather tribally perpetrating hate and isolation (if merly via pulling and playing the "cult" card)
The research is generally used to promote more peaceful and constructive responses to groups deemed as problematic in some way to the well-being of others in society. It was a sharing of my understanding based on my own experience.

I don't hate people who have fallen into the same misdirections I myself fell into. I can't help but have a kind of compassion for them.
lsayre wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 2:41 am for those who desire to freely associate and trade (at the level of Laissez-faire) and thereby evolve (as if by an invisible hand) a non-tribal society.
The idea expressed here and in the remainder of your comment is rooted in an ideology, not in anthropological research into the nature of humanity or human societies.
lsayre wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 2:41 am I might inject here that the smallest minority is clearly the individual.
Such a minority, without any context of a social relationship, produces a person who lacks the ability even of language.

Nurturing and caring are not slave-master relations.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by lsayre »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:19 pm
Such a minority, without any context of a social relationship, produces a person who lacks the ability even of language.

Nurturing and caring are not slave-master relations.
As to the first, you seem to evade the entire provided context for the evolution of a society built upon the individuals free and voluntary association and free trade in your intentional and skillful demotion of the individual and promotion of the tribal system. Let alone evading rational and reason based family responsibility. I.E., you ultimately accept that "It Takes A (tribally evolved) Village".

As to the second, compelled (as in forced) extortion in the name of benevolence toward the needy is exactly that, a master-slave relationship. Every time you (or I) head to the polls to vote we are intentionally thereby offensively forcing (imposing our will upon) anyone who does not vote as we do to be compelled into the slavery of a submission to our demands. We are thereby conceding (I.E. submitting) that the tribe transcends the individual, in the whim (mystic) based hope that somehow (how, blank out...) our vote (and its offensive enforcement) will mystically and mysteriously promote some derivative of a "greater good". We establish an elitist class (often also via vote) to collect and distribute the sacrificial tribute extorted from us thereby. Thus clearly 'Masters'. Is a man any less a slave if he votes for his Master, let alone votes for the Master who will preside over those of the opposing vote (or be of a different race, or clan, or gang, or opinion, etc...)? And lastly here you evade the force free alternative of voluntary benevolence and charity, individually, or via free and voluntary association. Quite effectively (even if via voting) we accept (or are compelled to accept) whim or feelings derived mysticism. A subset of this being our acceptance (via merely whim/feelings/hope again) that collective wisdom thereby indeed is that which arises from a pool of individual ignorance.

Modern society has been duped (this being the Stockholm Syndrome aspect at play) into subjective submission to tribal force (I.E., into acceptance of being a subject). And much of this stems from being presented with only the various of diverse options that reside under the umbrella of either subjectivism or intrinsicism. A false dichotomy of choice akin to Pascal's Wager. Get them while they are young, and they will accept that only the diverse forms of these two choices are extant and viable options. And they will thereby become incapable of envisioning any other options. Such as objectivism. And again, the operative word here is force (from an offensive perspective). One means whereby to suppress alternatives has always been to play the "cult" card. A subset of this being the "heresy" card.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

lsayre wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:08 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:19 pm
Such a minority, without any context of a social relationship, produces a person who lacks the ability even of language.

Nurturing and caring are not slave-master relations.
As to the first, you seem to evade the entire provided context for the evolution of a society built upon the individuals free and voluntary association and free trade in your intentional and skillful demotion of the individual and promotion of the tribal system. Let alone evading rational and reason based family responsibility. I.E., you ultimately accept that "It Takes A (tribally evolved) Village".
Your view of how society evolved is a political ideological one. As far as I am aware it is not based on scholarly research, let alone the experiences of many of us. Your political ideology is your definition of humans and society, it seems to me.

Do you really mean to use words like "intentional"? This is what I was trying to address earlier -- a presumption that outsiders are somehow "intentionally" or "wilfully" blind or only in need of the "light" to understand. This is not a constructive way to view our fellow humans.
lsayre wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:08 amAs to the second, compelled (as in forced) extortion in the name of benevolence toward the needy is exactly that, a master-slave relationship.
Yes, agreed, but that's a simple tautology.
lsayre wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:08 amEvery time you (or I) head to the polls to vote we are intentionally thereby offensively forcing (imposing our will upon) anyone who does not vote as we do to be compelled into the slavery of a submission to our demands.
No I'm not. That's simply not true. Except in someone's imagination. How is anyone else "compelling" me to submit to their demands by voting a different way from how I do? That's simply not so.
lsayre wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:08 amWe are thereby conceding (I.E. submitting) that the tribe transcends the individual, in the whim (mystic) based hope that somehow (how, blank out...) our vote (and its offensive enforcement) will mystically and mysteriously promote some derivative of a "greater good".
Individuals cannot exist without society. Individuals find personal fulfilment of their personal potentials through their participation in a society. Without society we would not even have language.
lsayre wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:08 amWe establish an elitist class (often also via vote) to collect and distribute the sacrificial tribute extorted from us thereby. Thus clearly 'Masters'. Is a man any less a slave if he votes for his Master, let alone votes for the Master who will preside over those of the opposing vote (or be of a different race, or clan, or gang, or opinion, etc...)?
You are talking in the phraseology of old English now. You are channelling someone else's words here. That is not you speaking your own thoughts but someone else's. (One thinks of words like "brainwashed" but that is a misunderstood term, as is the word "cult".)

There really are societies that are true democratic systems where people who are assigned by the society to have responsibilities are held accountable to those societies. One does not have to have a master-slave relationship when part of a society.

lsayre wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:08 amAnd lastly here you evade the force free alternative of voluntary benevolence and charity, individually, or via free and voluntary association. Quite effectively (even if via voting) we accept (or are compelled to accept) whim or feelings derived mysticism. A subset of this being our acceptance (via merely whim/feelings/hope again) that collective wisdom thereby indeed is that which arises from a pool of individual ignorance.
None of that makes sense to me -- it seems to be coming from a view of human nature that I do not recognize or see in other humans or experience in my fellowship with them.
lsayre wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:08 amModern society has been duped (this being the Stockholm Syndrome aspect at play) into subjective submission to tribal force (I.E., into acceptance of being a subject). And much of this stems from being presented with only the various of diverse options that reside under the umbrella of either subjectivism or intrinsicism. A false dichotomy of choice akin to Pascal's Wager. Get them while they are young, and they will accept that only the diverse forms of these two choices are extant and viable options. And they will thereby become incapable of envisioning any other options. Such as objectivism. And again, the operative word here is force (from an offensive perspective). One means whereby to suppress alternatives has always been to play the "cult" card. A subset of this being the "heresy" card.
There is certainly propaganda that has been used to shape our societies. But you seem to have a very cruel and heartless -- I would say "dehumanized" -- view of human nature. It comes back to the black and white view of the fundamentalist thought processes.

You cannot see that your own viewpoint, your view of society, of people, of your ideology, is entirely the product of certain strands of political thought and is not "pure objective reality" as distinct from all other views of thought. That is, I submit, a very dangerous outlook. It contains the seeds of potential tyranny in the guise of freedom -- like so many other anti-human tyrannies have done in the past.

Pure objectivity is a myth and your ideology is yet another myth claiming to be pure objectivity itself.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: ""Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by DCHindley »

I'm getting confused whether the subject here is "'Pure objectivity' is a myth," or "'Pure myth' is an objective?"

DCH :confusedsmiley:
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Secret Alias »

Poetic aphorism which hits the nail perfectly.

For me the question is "what the fuck are we doing here?" I'm busy family man with my own business. In my spare time I try to figure out religion and the meaning of life. If I encounter someone who helps me gain some objectivity and perspective I like that person and thank Peter for creating this space. When I think I'm dealing with an old crank or a young mental case who are hear because they have some agenda I'm unhappy and express myself according. The only agenda should be truth-seeking.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:15 pmThe only agenda should be truth-seeking.
You have expressed a lot of angst over the presence of this thread but I have not yet seen where you have engaged with the actual OP. You have expressed many outrageous nonsensical assumptions about what the OP must, in your view, be saying. But it really is about "truth seeking", as you put it -- more than you would know, unless you read it.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

pst.... SA,.... the OP is taken from the works of people of "another species" -- scholars.... whom we revere, yes? show some respect! ;)
Post Reply