Postmodern aficionados often claim that objectivity doesn’t exist. I just read the following statement on a thoroughly Postmodern/Christian blog: “…I believe in accountability, not objectivity.” The Saturday Night Inquiry question is this, and it is a three-part question: “Doesn’t it actually take a certain amount of objectivity to claim that there is no such thing as objectivity? Furthermore, how does one actually “do” accountability without objectivity and/or a set of objective standards?” And finally, I ask, “To whom exactly does one offer this sort of accountability if there is no objective reasoning involved in a choice of persons?”
Also, it’s cool if you don’t think objectivity doesn’t exist, but be sure not make any blanket and/or absolute statements, or suggest something that actually requires a bit of objectivity, like “accountability.” It makes no sense to try and have it both ways.
So, let’s agree to disagree and leave the practical ramifications to real time.
Nope. Re-read what I said, over and over and over again.
Have a good and cool day, Luke.
couched responses? it maybe my style, i’ll work on writing clearer.
so what your saying is that we can be objective, totally? you’re right. we don’t agree. there is such a thing as objectivity, but like i’ve said before, i don’t think we’re completely capable of it. this conversation is proof.
peace.
… arghhh.
The moment you used the word “unacceptable,” it became a debate. It may be your style, but it seems to me like you are trying to win a debate. Which is fine with me, but at least be aware of it.
Objectivity: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. It’s included in the same definition you cited earlier, Luke.
I’m not making any assumptions. I stated the case in my previous comments to you. I asked a three-part question regarding a purely postmodern statement concerning “accountability and objectivity.” I think I’ve been pretty clear on what I believe to be inherent problems to the “I believe in accountability, not objectivity” statement. I addressed the inherent problems I see in your couched responses. I’m done, unless you have anything to say about all of the above.
Seriously, good luck at LTS. You will most definitely need it!
Again, be well.
there’s a lot of assumptions you’re making. let’s recap. i’ve ask you to define objectivity. what is it, how can we do it, and what implications are there in this term? is objectivity the complete picture? what do you exactly mean? i’m trying to understand this concept as you understand it. there are many definitions of “objectivity” i’ve presented three. is it one of those, a combination of one or the other, or a “both/and”?
your comment to me on “stop making absolute statement like “there is no such thing as objectivity” is not one i’ve made. i’ve presented two i’ve heard from the pomo stuff i’ve read and defined their difference. i never said i supported one or the other. you seem to be reading into a lot of my comments, when all i’m trying to do is flesh out your meaning.
“Seriously, Luke, how about trying to really think about the things you write rather than being so bent on winning debates?”
i had no idea we were in a debate. i’m trying to understand what you think objectivity is. you’ve danced around the question. please let me know what your definition is. then we can debate, if you see if.
Luke, you are neither dealing with the questions asked, nor are you taking quality time to read what I wrote in my first comment here to you. You are, however, doing a great job of warping points to create questions/arguments that you use to actually avoid the questions.
For example, you keep saying that I attribute blanket statement to all pomos when I write “pomos don’t like blanket/absolute statements.” Then you cite variation in pomo thought in your attempt to prove that I can’t actually say, “Pomos don’t like blanket statements!” Um, doesn’t the fact that you cite variations in pomo thought as proof that I can’t attribute the dislike of blanket statements to pomos actually prove that pomos don’t like blanket statements? Said differently, doesn’t the fact that you are in effect saying that “no two pomos are the same” actually prove the point that blanket or absolute statements are not welcome or celebrated in postmodern thought? Seriously, Luke, how about trying to really think about the things you write rather than being so bent on winning debates? You are actually proving my point about blanket statements in pomo thought when you write that postmodern variation prevents me from attributing a blanket statement to postmodern thought. Seriously.
Also, you again write that objectivity “just is.” It’s an obvious continuation of your argument that objectivity exists outside of us somehow. It’s one thing to say “objectivity just IS,” or “objectivity exists outside of us,” but it is another thing to actually prove such a statement. Again I ask, if objectivity exists outside of us, then where? Where does this sort of objectivity exist? How do we find it if we have no inherent ability to either discern it, recognize it, or apply it? Furthermore, if objectivity exists outside of us, then does it not have to exist in the very contexts, biases, and interests that you cite as the problem? In other words, if we, as postmoderns suggest, are limited products of our immediate contexts, biases, and interests, tot he point that we can not be objective, then how do we find and use this objectivity that lives outside of us? How can you even say with confidence that “objectivity exists outside of us?!?” Where does it live? Does it exist in these detrimental contexts, biases, and interests? So, are you saying that OBJECTIVITY is nothing more than some sort of expressed culmination of our individual contexts, biases, and interests? If so, then what good is it? If so, then how did you even come to the conclusion that objectivity exists outside of us? Again, you are running in a vicious circle of self-imploding epistemology. If it isn’t so, then please back up your “objectivity exists outside of us” with something substantial. Just because you say it is so, doesn’t make it so. And you made the statement.
Re: my statement about being able to be objective to a point: We can be objective. Do we know all? No, of course not. But we do know enough. And we can be authentically objective according to what we do know. We are not God; our knowledge and understanding are limited, in contrast to God, but we are knowledgeable, and as knowledgeable beings we can be authentically objective in situations within our scope of knowledge. That’s “seeing through a glass darkly (finite),” and “knowing the difference between good and evil” (revelation) at the same time. It seems to me that you are arguing an “all or nothing” point of view. You sound more modern than you are probably comfortable admitting! The dichotomy you are suggesting advances an either/or. Either we have to know everything, or we can’t be objective! I’m suggesting that we can’t know everything (God), but the knowledge/revelation we possess is enough to foster authentic objectivity without reducing/limiting objectivity to our immediate contexts, biases, and/or individual interests. Of course, this statement actually assumes that we agree that the Bible is a revelatory book that speaks truth and offers us something more tangible than our immediate contexts, biases, and interests. The revelation in the Bible actually offers an alternative to the very things you are saying. It offers objectivity to a world seriously preoccupied with their own contexts, interests, and biases. Its offer is a real one. It comes from outside of us, but results in internal change and understanding (objectivity comes from within us). Postmodernism, however, reduces the Bible to the very contexts, biases, and interests that are cited as limitations. Again, it’s a vicious circle.
Perhaps our disagreements are a product of our different understandings of the Bible. We are having a conversation that has everything to do with our understanding of Christianity. A pomo will situate the Bible in the same contexts, biases, and interests that they cite as problems for objectivity. The result? Their Jesus looks like them (see the different Jesus’ produced by the Jesus seminar!). I approach the Bible as a revelatory book. It is an offer to rise above the very contexts, biases, and interests you cite as problems for objectivity. It’s truth originates from outside, and was moved inside via the incarnation. This revelation is the standard and alternative to the issue you cite re: objectivity, biases, contexts, and interests.
If we disagree on that, then I don’t see this conversation ever ending.
As an aside, you are going to have a great time at LTS. Your style of conversation should lead to loads of fun while you complete your studies in that community. LOL!
Be well, bro.
” I said pomos don’t like those things, but yet they practice their own version of the blanket statement by saying things like “objectivity doesn’t exist.—
funny, i provided two examples of variations of pomo thought you haven’t dealt with. there’s plenty more than that, but i thought i’d keep it simple. yet you persist on saying “all pomo’s do …” which doesn’t work, esp. for pomo.
“If this objectivity of which you speak does exist outside of us, then where, exactly? Because all that is outside of us, if we are not inherently able to be objective, are our immediate contexts. ”
what’s your definition of objectivity? you state that we must ground objectivity in something.. i say that it’s we who are grounding and must work to become objective (scientific method is a modernist way of doing this). objectivity is, by it’s very nature, ungrounded, it IS.
” think we can be objective, to a point,”
then we’re not really objective then are we? once again, i’m asking you to explore what objectivity means. is it journalistic or philosophic? which are you using?
“even trump the limited contexts you cite”
the best we can do is say “this is how i see it from a white straight american male (etc. etc. etc.) perspective. it’s not trumping the context, it’s working inside it and naming it for what it is.
Luke, over at F-book, your last comment said, “You say you don’t like blanket statements, yet you try to cast all pomos into one pot in your last paragraph. Unacceptable. Plus you can’t ground objectivity. Objectivity is already present and exists outside us. It is the “us” which is grounded in context and therein lies the problem.
Nope. I never said that I disliked blanket statements or propositional truth. I said pomos don’t like those things, but yet they practice their own version of the blanket statement by saying things like “objectivity doesn’t exist.” I’m still not so so sure what you have to say about that point. Furthermore, why is such a characterization “unacceptable,” as you say?
Also, I have no idea what you are even talking about when you say “objectivity exists outside of us?” Really? What does that even mean? And where does such a thing exist? Where did it come from? How do you know?!? On one hand, you say that we are all imprisoned by our contexts, biases, interests, etc., and can therefore not make objective declarations; on the other hand, you say that objectivity exists outside of us, presumably in the very contexts you have already cited as so detrimental that we can not rely upon them at all to make objective declarations. If this objectivity of which you speak does exist outside of us, then where, exactly? Because all that is outside of us, if we are not inherently able to be objective, are our immediate contexts. Talk about a vicious and self-imploding circle!
This is a cool conversation. Your thoughts are appreciated and good, though I would heartily disagree.
I think we can be objective, to a point, and that the propositional truths inherent to the faith are dependable and even trump the limited contexts you cite. I also do not believe that one can cite accountability without objectivity, unless the one citing such a thing is willing to admit that his/her standards of accountability are purely and entirely rooted in the context, biases, and interests previously cited as detriments to the very objectivity he/she claims is thwarted by such things. It makes no sense, Luke. Seriously. By what standard is one accountable if no objectivity exists, save the very context that they claim prevents it?
Yep, Sonja. One would think so. Otherwise, what in the world are you investing your accountability into? I honestly think the statement “I believe in accountability, not objectivity” is utterly void of any meaning whatsoever.The statement is in fact reflective of the postmodern mindset that proclaimed it.
The questions is then, how does the postmodern do theology? Do they do the same sort of thinking there too? Gawd.
I’ve been turning this one around and around.
I’m not a huge fan of accountability because I believe that love and grace can accomplish so much more.
But still … I’m pretty sure that accountability depends on a certain amount of objectivity. You need some kind of objective standard that the parties to the accountable-ness could agree to and abide by. Right?