Subjectivity in truths. Do you agree with this?

Trifoilum

Trifoilum

find wisdom, build hope.
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
A comment from an article in Kotaku; (which is an interesting article by itself, if a bit -- glossing over the human factors) :
Dear assholes, do you know what a panopticon is? Well, the internet is an inverted panopticon, where everything is visible but you. The biologically ingrained visual and aural cues that normally trigger empathy in face-to-face interaction are completely absent on the internet, and as a result, the empathy is absent, too! The world of faceless electronic text and that of the emotional cues required for proper interpersonal relations apparently belong to non-overlapping magisteria, meaning there is a good reason for you being a total dick!


But wait! Cognition also suffers in the absence of empathy because others' points of views are never considered with any appreciable weight. Instead, each person's individual experiences and opinions swell from private, personal significance into (illusory) godlike solvency in order to fill the vacuum that empathy's absence creates. You have The Answer, go fill that text box with The Answer! Right?


Well, when everyone assumes their opinions and experiences amount to objective facts, what you have (see: every Kotaku article addressing a social issue) is about two hundred people who have shown up to tell you The Answer. Sometimes that answer is "who cares" or "man up" or "lol hipster" but what's common among them is that they are presented as exclusive, objective truth, but what they really are is almost nothing.



You are you. That's why the things you say seem important to you. It's why you assume you know what's what and why, but the solipsism and objectivity which flow naturally out of the experience of you being you are actually, it turns out, pretty fucking unfortunate now that there are 7 billion other people with whom you have to get along. Until you can learn to overcome your own mistaken faith in the truth of your opinions, you are basically an animal in front of a keyboard, making the digital equivalent of grunts and snorts, which happen to take the form of words like "man up" and "who cares" because you know some words and animals don't. I'm serious about that.


So, next time you see that blank text box staring at you, think of it this way. Besides the fact that the box is ultimately there to make money for the people who run the site, it's practically like pointing a microphone in the face of a stranger and broadcasting whatever they happen to say to the rest of the world. To everyone else, you are that stranger. Until you fully grasp the implications of that, having a discussion with you around will continue to be excruciating for the rest of us because the mere presence of your grunts and snorts takes away contextual mass from other things which are not thoughtless bullshit.
Click to expand...

In short; our opinions are directly related to our experiences. Truths and lessons and wisdom. What we feel, what we don't feel; what feels good and not. What we learned, what we gained, what we lost, and how we see it. What we see will be what we believe, and what we believe will be how we live. And how we live will be what we'll say in a game review site anonymously.

Looking at Kotaku and/or any game review site or forum does indeed show a certain-- feel of how the message is being represented.

"Mass Effect 3's ending sucks because blah blah blah (and this is the TRUTH!)"
"Felicia Day sucks because blah blah blah blah (and this is the TRUTH!)"
"JRPGs are gay (and this is the TRUTH!)"
"OMGWHYDIABLO3SOCOLORFULITDIDN'TFITTHISISGAYSUXDUDE (and this is the TRUTH!)"

Or the opposite spectrum. In various levels of eloquency. With various levels of backings. With various levels of emotional outbursts.

It's not exactly confined to those sites; from politics to Kim Kardashian to Planned Parenthood-- even to Emotional Support and Advices...
Almost everyone, me personally included, seems to suffer with this syndrome, in various degrees.
In what I'm seeing; in every perspective, lies truth; and in every truth is subjective. Matters of the heart.

So. Do you agree? And is there anything we can do about it? Should we?
 
We should stop using the internet to discuss things and talk face to face instead. (and this is the truth!)
 
Trifoilum said:
our opinions are directly related to our experiences. Truths and lessons and wisdom. What we feel, what we don't feel; what feels good and not. What we learned, what we gained, what we lost, and how we see it. What we see will be what we believe, and what we believe will be how we live...and in every truth is subjective.
Click to expand...

I agree that truth is subjective. It is also subject to change. So what is true today may not be true tomorrow. As our experience level changes so does our truth. Which raises the question, is there any ONE truth that NEVER changes?
 
Trifoilum

Not entirely sure I understand what you are pointing or trying to get at. But if the question is are our expressions a product of our experienced, well, sorry, I think it might sound condescending, but yeah that's an obvious conclusion.

The trick for me is to stop providing insight based on what I know, but rather include all the points of view I don't know. And of course how do you do that. But being cognizant that there are things you don't know and so your conclusions are half full is a product of getting older. You spend the first half trying to articulate ideas and strong positions, the second part understanding you don't know everything. Not sure what's next. Haven't gotten there yet.
 
[MENTION=5219]Rferraris[/MENTION] : don't worry :) you don't sound condescending :D
THe point is...I think, beyond expression; but truths. What we know and don't know. What we sees as right or wrong. What we think is good, and bad, etc. Not merely what we said (which is part of them), but the values contained inside what we said.

[MENTION=731]uberrogo[/MENTION] : hahahahaha, But what about the facehashtaggingphotobloggingmappingthingie?
You have a very valid point. Unfortunately, I'd also think netizens are one of the group who'll detach from the internet the last...

[MENTION=5224]Sadie[/MENTION] : That is an interesting question. Even worth of life-- and loss of it, which tend to be the most important truth of all, has different values depending on culture and belief. God? Different. Love? Different.
If we're going meta; even truth are seen with different values...no? Some sees the truth as the absolute ideal to pursue; some actively choose romance and idealism, etc.
 
I agree to a point where seeing people's expressions and getting a "feel" for them would help and backstories are helpful too and would help a person to empathize with another I still think that face to face interaction doesn't necessarily mean people will behave any nicer.
After I started performing in public I was genuinely disturbed at how many people feel the need to come and express their opinions of your performance to you and that they truly consider their personal opinion/taste as gospel. Some would just straight out come tell me "You suck and you should stop" and expect you still to be gracious toward them as if they'd just expressed some great truth of the universe and you should be happy that they helped you to see the light sooner than later. It didn't take long for me to understand that the good and the bad was equally more telling of the specific individual's taste not anything you should base life decisions on. If it inspires you to do something and it makes you happy then you should do it (an it harm none, minus offending others taste<---not your problem ;D)
 
Trifoilum

"Rferraris - don't worry :) you don't sound condescending :D
THe point is...I think, beyond expression; but truths. What we know and don't know. What we sees as right or wrong. What we think is good, and bad, etc. Not merely what we said (which is part of them), but the values contained inside what we said."

Well in sort of sticking with what I said earlier, and reiterating what you said, our truths are developed over time as we develop who we are, which is a product of who, what, where we have been. The problem, and I'm not looking for a euphemism, is that we are not born with a sense of humility, although it does seem that humility is something we may naturally come to at later points in life. But certainly we are rarely born that way. So here you are in front of a keyboard, and as Kotaku states, without the dynamic of having facial expressions or other clues to augment what you're about to say, it becomes a cathartic expression, maybe a diatribe, rant or screed. But we have so much sensory input. We are overwhelmed by the media. And either directly or subliminally we are told what to feel. We are presented with people, groups or ideas that want to attack us. Maybe the terrorists are coming, maybe women's rights make them baby killers, with the emphasis on killers.

So outlets and forums are just opportunities for us to expresses our pent up hatred and fear. We want to rage but until now had no one to inflict our wounds upon. Now to a limited degree you are my captive. I will say want I want and regardless of what happens after that, I.e. you respond; you don't; someone else gets involved. I still had my chance to say what I want, regardless of whether it makes sense, the context, who it offends, etc. and I don't think I've said anything here that isn't really taken from Kotaku.

Is it wrong, well not to my thinking I am ignorant to how things might be in Jakarta. Americans might be a lot of things, but I've never been punished for speaking my mind. Maybe those freedoms are recognized across the world, maybe they are not. Again I am ignorant. But coming from my mind set we shouldn't look to prevent people from saying whatever it is they say. It, in the end, I believe ameliorates us as a society. We learn from our mistakes, the stupid things we say, from the embarrassment of insulting others.
So the free form text experiment works to make us more inclusive, and if not like minded, maybe at least capable of understanding different points of view.

What could be done, assuming you don't agree freedom of expression is a good thing. Well, get rid of the Internet. China. Control the outlet. Regulate it. Send the red coats to slaughter your family if found guilty of the crime of "thinking." I supposed these are some ideas. But then you have repressed and oppressed the people and this will, maybe not today, but in time come to haunt you. You can only force your ideas on people for so long before they will die fighting your control. And if it's done in the name of god, and you'd have to pick a god. Certainly many to choose from, unless you are ignorant of the world around you, but I would suggest letting god fight its own battles.
I'm busy writing essays on public forums and working too hard trying to feed my family.
 
Reverie said:
I still think that face to face interaction doesn't necessarily mean people will behave any nicerD)
Click to expand...

True, f2f people who are mean might enjoy that emotional reaction which they can't get online.
 
Wha? I...am not sure we're talking about the same thing...but well, we seem to be in a similar wavelength.
Rferraris said:
Is it wrong, well not to my thinking I am ignorant to how things might be in Jakarta. Americans might be a lot of things, but I've never been punished for speaking my mind. Maybe those freedoms are recognized across the world, maybe they are not. Again I am ignorant. But coming from my mind set we shouldn't look to prevent people from saying whatever it is they say. It, in the end, I believe ameliorates us as a society. We learn from our mistakes, the stupid things we say, from the embarrassment of insulting others.
So the free form text experiment works to make us more inclusive, and if not like minded, maybe at least capable of understanding different points of view.
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure you also noticed this, but from what I'd seen, There are different 'amount' of how much were...too much. And on which situations.
Quite a lot of people, Indonesians included, believes in saying their minds.
Quite a lot of people, Indonesians included, also get pissed for those who speak too much, too harsh, too strongly, too rebellious, etc.
However, what might be seen as shy in a culture, can be insulting in another.
Which does not mean one should or shouldn't say one word or another;
but when one claimed what one said or didn't say is right/wrong, in some ways you've got to take note of those, no?
Which is a different matter altogether...?

What could be done, assuming you don't agree freedom of expression is a good thing. Well, get rid of the Internet. China. Control the outlet. Regulate it. Send the red coats to slaughter your family if found guilty of the crime of "thinking." I supposed these are some ideas. But then you have repressed and oppressed the people and this will, maybe not today, but in time come to haunt you. You can only force your ideas on people for so long before they will die fighting your control. And if it's done in the name of god, and you'd have to pick a god. Certainly many to choose from, unless you are ignorant of the world around you, but I would suggest letting god fight its own battles.
I'm busy writing essays on public forums and working too hard trying to feed my family.
Click to expand...
Wuh?
 
This comment is suggesting the internet doesn't allow for empathy to occur, therefore people act like assholes when they're on it? Eh...I'm not buying that.

It seems to me that people are assholes on the internet because there are no consequences for their actions. Likewise, the reason they don't act like assholes in real life is because there are consequences. Empathy, if it fits into the equation at all, is probably a marginal variable at best. Hell, the majority of recorded history (which obviously predates the internet by thousands of years) is virtually defined by people believing they are right and attempting to enforce those beliefs one way or another.

Newsflash: people are --and always have been-- opinionated assholes who think they're right. The internet just raises the veil on how deep that actually runs.


...and that's truth. : )
 
Korg said:
Hell, the majority of recorded history (which obviously predates the internet by thousands of years) is virtually defined by people believing they are right and attempting to enforce those beliefs one way or another.
Click to expand...

... and the irony is that none of the people who believe they are right, are actually trying to convince themselves that they are wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
i disagree
one's perception of truth may be different from another's, but the truth is not subjective.
as winston churchill so famously said;
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."
 
If the very conceptions of objectivity are subjective, then perhaps the internet can be one giant self-therapy session, which admittedly it can be for some.

Although there is negativity online, I have also received empathy and compassionate words on forums. Apparently, many have learned the concept of giving advice the way they would want to receive it.

I really like how the article points out the need for face to face interaction. Face to face interaction may not always be easy or even rewarding, but it at least allows us to be present to each other.

I saw this strange entry about Defending Subjectivity.
 
I agree that communicating on the internet many reduce empathy, because there is no face to face contact, the inability to read another's reactions and tones, and the reduction of negative social concequences.
However, I think the internet is also extremely beneficial for communication and building empathy as it enables many people to actually speak their mind, free from certain social and cultural pressures present in every day life. It also enables people that are separated by cultural backgrounds, ways of life and geographical sistance to communicate, thereby increasing exposure to different people, opinions and truths. This can only be a good thing- increased exposure- increased experience- increased awareness- increased understanding- increased empathy.

The 'reality' of the world, of conciousness, is that there is billions of truths- each equally important and relavant for every single inhabitant of the world. Everyone see the world from their own perspective, based on the entirety of their experience, within their personal cultural framework and this perception is then articulated using the language that they know. I believe that all reality is subjective, but it is possible that there is a Truth. But most truths are subjetive- and how can they not be? Thats why I like math and chemistry so much- its as close to a universal language that we have. Most 'truths' or 'objective facts' are dished out through authorities and accepted as accurate by popular consensus. We know know that the world is speherical and that is our truth. For a long time most authorities and people accepted that it was flat and it was their truth. We can only learn Truth by being exposed to, listening to and understanding many other truths. How can I understand life without first understanding the life of a man in China, a girl in Finland, a child in India,and old woman in the rainforest? I live in the minority world, as Im sure many people on this forum do. Our lives are completely different to the majority of people in this world. The truths they know are very different to our own. While it is theoretically possible to have all this experience and exposure through face to face interaction, it would be a logistical nightmare. The internet enables us to do this much more quickly, and often you can find information that hasnt been filtered through mainstream authorities, unlike the history books and encyclopedias.

Its possible that the internet may be able to foster a true, deeper empathy, one that is less bound by limited experience, culture, age, sex, way of life, social pressure and geographical location. I guess we'l see the results soon enough through our childrens generation which are living in the internet age.
 
It's kind of hard to take someone seriously when they're using language like that… it gives you the impression that he's using other people's ideas to make himself feel superior, or to appear insightful or something.It's sort of like the www.Cracked.com version of having an idea. In fact, I think I actually read this exact same idea on Cracked a few months ago… this guy sort of takes the points made there and then mixes them with his own opinions/misery.

I don't know if the empathy online in genuine or not… I think that sometimes it is. It depends on the person. It's easier to feel one thing and say another online, and I don't think that our online personas are the same as our real life ones, but I'm not convinced that going online makes people into heartless soulless sociopaths. I do think that the 'missing pieces' are important… but I also think that the trolls who just like to attack people without expressing any ideas or making any points are probably jerks in real life as well…

And yeah, as other people on this thread have said, people have always expressed themselves according to what they know/believe… so what, just because we're online we're supposed to hold back or feel ashamed of what we believe/think/feel, because it doesn't impress some random guy?
 
I'd argue as follows:

Belief isn't truth. Belief is subjective in that it is prone to disillusionment or change. Truth will effect you regardless of your agreement of its existence or its awareness of it.

If truth exists, it doesn't need to be obtained in order to exist. If nobody ever existed, the truth still would.

Truth is simply where ideas match candid, objective reality without distortion.
I won't promise anyone will be able to contact it.
I won't promise it will be reached through the senses, or the mind, or in any meaningful measure of its entirety.

I won't promise that anyone is able to handle the truth without a safe cushioning of pretense and denial, thus rendering that person distanced from the truth.

The truth is distinctive and has distinctive properties to be discovered, particularly when compared to shabbier and flimsier ideas used to detract from it. At least, that is what I have found.
 
@Trifoilum

"In what I'm seeing; in every perspective, lies truth; and in every truth is subjective. Matters of the heart."


Subjectivity is a comforting thought, I'd have to admit. It's especially useful when I feel the need to find the inconsistencies in everyone else's opinions in order to settle comfortably into my own opinions. I don't have to. All I need is to take what I find useful for myself and leave everyone else to be happy in their own worldviews.

And if objective truth exists, then it is clear that we do not grasp it in full.
 
knight in battle said:
@Trifoilum

"In what I'm seeing; in every perspective, lies truth; and in every truth is subjective. Matters of the heart."

Subjectivity is a comforting thought, I'd have to admit. It's especially useful when I feel the need to find the inconsistencies in everyone else's opinions in order to settle comfortably into my own opinions. I don't have to. All I need is to take what I find useful for myself and leave everyone else to be happy in their own worldviews.

And if objective truth exists, then it is clear that we do not grasp it in full.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top