The history that I know. It is that history that I write about and record. A history from a different perspective. That's true for each of us. Our view of history is tainted by our beliefs. Personal history is subjective, whereas others peoples history is objective. Well that's true but the objectivity is dependent upon how close you are to the other person. In short, it's often difficult to talk bad about your momma! Objectivity can be lost in that situation. That is also true with politics. When we adopt a particular policy based on our own wants or needs, we can lose objectivity. Mostly that is the case when that policy will cost us something on a personal level. It is far easier to be objective with other peoples money.
It is this balance between objectivity and subjectivity that arises so much passion in people. The pro side will usually argue for objectivity, we must remain objective. this is the objective decision. That certainly sounds like the way to go doesn't it? We all want an objective opinion, an objective judgement. But can you form an objective opinion without first having formed a subjective view? Perhaps if you were Solomon but not if you're the average person. You have to remember even the decisions of Solomon didn't directly effect him and that's the rub isn't it? It's pretty easy to make a decision that satisfies the needs of the many, when you are not one of the many. The very reason politicians and legislatures often exclude themselves from their decisions. Obamacare is a prime example of that. It's a tremendous plan, it's so great we will exclude ourselves from its' mandates. That is one form of objectivity. Immunity is often granted to those making the rules. It's the do as I say, not as I do mentality. Really a subjective decision as it benefits the one making the rule.
That's true even if it is just a short term gain, ie: votes. It's a ploy politicians have been using forever. I don't expect that will change anytime in the near future either, In fact, I can't see it ever changing. But I was talking about history. History is a subjective thing. The current trend is to find someone to blame for history. The object is not to define or explain that history, the object is to place blame. In that way the hope is to gain an advantage of some type. The object there being, make history beneficial to me! Hey it's an objective view of history, you did this to me. The narrative being you are responsible for the past. That's correct, you are responsible for the past in the objective view. For that reason you need to make it right. Subjectively objective.
I have nothing to gain by the recording of history. It's not like I'm getting paid to present a point of view. It was that way at one time, when journalists were paid for their views. More often today the journalist is paid to support the opinion of his employer. It's the only reason I can think of for some of the articles I read in major newspapers and television broadcasts. There certainly isn't any objectivity being shown. I remember when a reporter did just that, reported. He or she reported the facts as they knew them to be, no opinion, just the facts. It's what I try to write, the facts. Yes my facts are subjective. I make no pretense of objectivity. I record my history the way I see it. I do hope that one day someone will read that history, from an objective viewpoint, and gain some insight into the past. That's what I'm attempting to do, explain the past. I'm not interested in placing blame, I'm just trying to understand. If you want to know what you believe, write. Of course then the important part of that is to read what you wrote. Do you understand? For me, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. And who is to blame for that?
It is this balance between objectivity and subjectivity that arises so much passion in people. The pro side will usually argue for objectivity, we must remain objective. this is the objective decision. That certainly sounds like the way to go doesn't it? We all want an objective opinion, an objective judgement. But can you form an objective opinion without first having formed a subjective view? Perhaps if you were Solomon but not if you're the average person. You have to remember even the decisions of Solomon didn't directly effect him and that's the rub isn't it? It's pretty easy to make a decision that satisfies the needs of the many, when you are not one of the many. The very reason politicians and legislatures often exclude themselves from their decisions. Obamacare is a prime example of that. It's a tremendous plan, it's so great we will exclude ourselves from its' mandates. That is one form of objectivity. Immunity is often granted to those making the rules. It's the do as I say, not as I do mentality. Really a subjective decision as it benefits the one making the rule.
That's true even if it is just a short term gain, ie: votes. It's a ploy politicians have been using forever. I don't expect that will change anytime in the near future either, In fact, I can't see it ever changing. But I was talking about history. History is a subjective thing. The current trend is to find someone to blame for history. The object is not to define or explain that history, the object is to place blame. In that way the hope is to gain an advantage of some type. The object there being, make history beneficial to me! Hey it's an objective view of history, you did this to me. The narrative being you are responsible for the past. That's correct, you are responsible for the past in the objective view. For that reason you need to make it right. Subjectively objective.
I have nothing to gain by the recording of history. It's not like I'm getting paid to present a point of view. It was that way at one time, when journalists were paid for their views. More often today the journalist is paid to support the opinion of his employer. It's the only reason I can think of for some of the articles I read in major newspapers and television broadcasts. There certainly isn't any objectivity being shown. I remember when a reporter did just that, reported. He or she reported the facts as they knew them to be, no opinion, just the facts. It's what I try to write, the facts. Yes my facts are subjective. I make no pretense of objectivity. I record my history the way I see it. I do hope that one day someone will read that history, from an objective viewpoint, and gain some insight into the past. That's what I'm attempting to do, explain the past. I'm not interested in placing blame, I'm just trying to understand. If you want to know what you believe, write. Of course then the important part of that is to read what you wrote. Do you understand? For me, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. And who is to blame for that?
No comments:
Post a Comment