I wanted to talk about briefly the ideas of objective and subjective that were raised in last week's class.
For me, I learned about the terms objective and subjective in terms with how objectivists would think about them. I learned that objective means founded in fact and subjective means founded in opinion. It had not really occurred to me that there were two schools of thought there. It's hard for me to understand to an extent the way that interpretivists think of objective and subjective. There is definitely an appeal to it. I like the idea of objective being based in agreement and subjective being based in disagreement. To be honest, that is really how I view many things in the world already. The issue for me is not so much how to think of the terms, but simply how to define them. I would like to think a little bit more in terms of the interpretivist approach, but it is hard for me to change how I have always thought to define something.
interesting points. But when you then about the emperisist's view of objective (i.e. being based in fact) don't you think that IS the same as the interpretivist's view (i.e. based in agreement) --- that is to say, didn't several people get together and agree when they determined "this is a fact"? I think this is particularly interesting given changes in our society about knowledge and what it means to know. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI never thought about it that way...that is very interesting. So then I have to question the nature of what we mean by fact. This is a deep subject and maybe I'm delving a little too deeply into the philosophy of it. Either way, this is still a new way of thinking for me.
ReplyDelete