Lately I’ve been watching as people get more and more upset and argumentative fighting over who’s right, democrats or republicans. I’ve also been watching so many other arguments to the point of stupidity about which cell phone system is better… All of it has a common thread. There is a continual “that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong” implied corollary to everything everyone says but at the same time, the division between people because of the arguments is surreal. The PC attitude has accomplished one thing in its now fully developed stage of life: The disenfranchisement of the entire western civilization.
Why? Because people are arguing about subjective beliefs. To put it another way, 2000 years ago, this would have been about whos god was kewler, not about which moron for president should run the country. We’re witnessing the new religious wars. Everyone entitled to their own opinion regardless of if they have facts to back it up, and everyone joining together making cliques just like junior high. If you agree, great, come be part of my clan (religious sect), if you don’t, well I can’t tell you you’re wrong, but I don’t want to talk to you any more.
I have news people: Bush and Kerry were equally bad for the country and equally wrong in their position (not that you could actually tell the difference, since they were just spouting whatever polls showed would score them points). The reason why they were both wrong? Subjectivity.
There are three types of statements. Preference, subjective and objective. Preference is (hopefully) based on the objective evidence. (I.e. I prefer this car because it has just as good gas mileage as that one, but has more horsepower.) Often preference is based on values. (I value horsepower over comfort, thus the fact that the rid isn’t as smooth doesn’t matter to me). Value is based on experience, which is hopefully based on objective results assimilated into one’s memory to form a whole.
Objective statements are those that communicate scientific results. These are statements that given all of the current knowledge are confirmed to be true. In the case of logic arguments, these can be said to always be true because of a logical proof that demonstrates that there is no possible contradiction in the statement. If it is a mathematical argument that you’re conveying, then it can also always be true. (i.e. must always be true, to have any mathematical value)
Subjective statements are “I feel this” or “I have faith that” which have no objective backing or are based on objective information that does not support the claim. I’m sure you can come up with lots of examples of both Kerry and Bush doing this. They do it on a regular basis. Generally they both trot out studies done, that have little or nothing to do with the topic and use it as proof that they’re approach is better than whatever failed before. My personal favourite example of this is the US and Canadian food guide. The food guide is based on many studies, but the ones that interest me the most is what got us the “protein is as bad as candy” deal. The funny thing is that some Master’s degree student wanted to get his masters, so he cooked up a study to prove his point that protein was bad for your kidneys. He took < 100 people and gave them lots of protein and others very low protein. ‘Lo and behold at the end of the study, the people taking protein had kidney problems more often than those that didn’t. Thus the food guide was born and the fattening of America began. No one bothered to question a study that was done specifically to prove a subjective conclusion. No one bothered to say, “wait a minute, you don’t create a study to prove a point, you create a study to try and disprove it.” No one said “WAIT! Be objective!” Turns out that the people in the study all had kidney disease and as a result of making their kidneys work harder (protein takes more effort for your kidneys to digest) their weak kidneys failed more often. (Go figure) End result? >40% of the American population is obese because one guy decided that he was right without any objective proof, and created a study to prove it. Every study (there has been two, because no one bothered to think the guy could have been wrong) since has proven that protein has absolutely no negative effect on healthy kidneys and when taken in correct proportion (1/3 of your diet should be protein, 1/3 fat and 1/3 carbohydrates) is actually beneficial to your kidneys (don’t get me started on Atkins).
The end result of all subjective statements is negative. They destroy, they never create. People are wrong in their opinions based on feelings almost always (sometimes they get really lucky, but it’s more like winning the lottery odds than anything) and the result of acting on wrong assumptions is always negative.
For instance, say I made an assumption that cocaine was ok for me because all of my friends on it seemed healthy and happy. (And I hadn’t seen the f*ck up that their lives had been outside of the front that they put on) I would then act on this and start taking cocaine, and completely destroy my life, my children’s lives and everyone else’s lives. Why, because I decided to create a preference based on a subjective assumption instead of objective fact.
It also results in arguments that can only be resolved when someone brings in objective fact. (You know, the guy at the party that you all jumped all over, because he pointed out reality to you) The end result is statements like “you’re both right” (impossible) or “Well you’re entitled to your opinion, I don’t agree.” Little tip for you: If you hear either of these statements, run, run as fast as you can. They are your tip off of a subjective argument that can only lead to the horrible separation that you saw between democrats and republicans, and you see between Protestants and Catholics.
First let’s take apart these statements. “You’re both right”. What exactly does this mean? It means that two opposing views on the same topic are correct. To put it another way, A is A but it’s also B. First law of logic. A is A. It cannot be B, it cannot be C or anything else. If A becomes B then it is something else, and it is no longer A. Thus it is impossible to have two correct answers to the same question. There are only three possible results to any disagreement. Either you’re right, or they are right, or you’re both wrong. This kind of thinking (you’re both right) is endemic in the day and age post Kant, and post Communism. It came from Kant stating that you can never know the truth, so everything is subjective and you’re always wrong, and so is everyone else. Communism was the bastard child of Kant, begat by Marx and Ingles, as a result of this assertion that is very tasty at first blush. It is based on the premise that if both of us are wrong, then how can we measure which is a better position? Communism’s answer is that the will of the majority (society, socialism) is always the better position. The end result was 50 million dead in the USSR and millions of Jews dead to the National Socialist Party of Germany (Nazi). And make no mistake, all of these dead isn’t as a result of the assertion that society is always more important, that’s just the nasty side effect. It’s the base position that there is no truth, therefore you’re wrong that caused these massacres.
“Well you’re entitled to your opinion”. What does this mean? Well to start, let’s get to the implicit start of this sentence. “I think I’m right, but you’re entitled to your opinion.” Makes it much clearer eh? If you believe you’re right, then the other guy MUST by definition be wrong. Are you entitled to be wrong and continue to hold that wrong opinion? Sure, so long as you don’t communicate it, and don’t act on it. The moment you do either, it is the moral requirement of those that believe in truth to shout down the person that is wrong, and to prevent them from acting on their wrong assumption if anyone other than the person themselves is going to be hurt by it. (i.e. shouting down terrorists when they spout their crap, and killing them dead when they decide they want to be a martyr and kill a whole pile of people with a suicide bomb) So what you’re really saying is “you’re wrong, and I know it, but I’m not going to do anything about it.” Or “I think you’re wrong, but I don’t believe in myself enough to stand up for what I believe in, and thus will not defend my position.” In the former, the apropos statement “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” (never said by Churchill, simply a really good para-phrase, but such is most quotes) In the later, you don’t have the belief in one’s self to even stand up for what you believe in. Fortunately, most of the time it’s the former, not the later.
Notice the key here. There is no objectivity. Objectively, we can state that there is truth. Why? Because the statement “There is no such thing as truth” (often used by subjectivists) can only be true if it is in contradiction with itself. And then you’ll get the logical second response… “There is only one truth: There is no truth”, which of course is creating a contradiction in and of itself. Further we can state objectively that socialism can only ever lead to death. (any form of it, “the third way” or otherwise) Why? Because it’s based on a contradictory statement to start with. It relies on individuals sacrificing themselves for the greater good, which if people did so, would result in the destruction of society because all of the individuals would be dead. And if they don’t (like now) then they are hypocrites and anti-society be definition. Thus we can absolutely and completely state that socialism in any form is wrong. And start to find the right way.
In an objective argument, the only loyalty of anyone in the argument is to find the truth. It isn’t about ego and “being right” it is about finding the truth so that you can better your own life with the knowledge. (and we all know just how much knowing the number of moles in a in a grain is going to make our lives better…(chemistry)) Hence the term objective. There is no “point of view”, there is no “balance” and there is no “I am right.” There is only these are the facts, and here is the non-contradictory result. You may be right because you are the one to state it, but you’re simply a messenger of the truth, and thus do not have any value in that truth. (Rather humbling eh? Keep that in mind the next time you tell that guy that buds into the argument you’re having and points out the truth to you, that he’s arrogant) You can see the folly of the other way by looking at our adversarial system of justice as it stands now. It is no longer about finding the truth, it is about selling your position to the jury. The arguers of the case (messengers of truth) thus become more important than the truth that they are supposed to be presenting. (arrogance) Hence the failure of our (in)justice system as it stands now.
In a world where the highest value is truth, not opinion, where preference is based on fact and values based on those same facts there is no disenfranchised because we are all one under TRUTH. It is time that the world drop subjectivity and acknowledge the evil of the concept and work to stamp it out. It will take a long time. We have to change the learned behaviour of an entire world. We have to start by banishing socialism to the pit of hell (ironic from someone that knows objectively that there is no god eh?) where it came from, and then work backwards from there. It’s time to embrace the values of the renaissance, and the values of Aristotle again, and come back into the light, instead of continuing to crawl inexorably into the shadow that is ignorance created by the belief that you can never know anything, and you’ll always be wrong.
Then and only then can we come together as individuals with a common cause, to learn what it is to be part of a brother/sisterhood working on a common goal, with a common purpose: Truth. Truth is the destroyer and the creator. It destroys the evil of lies and liars. It creates freedom, it creates everything around us. It ties us together, it allows us to move forward. It educates us, and it improves our lives if we allow it to. It’s time to believe in truth again!