subjectivism

[jimmy]

May I suggest that one interprets the dollar amount as the number of dollars one has to give to the sales person. Expensive or cheap, legitimate evaluations, refers to the dollar amount on the tag which would be an objective evaluation. However, expensive or cheap can also be a gut reaction which would be subjective.

Expensive or cheap is completely subjective and is dependant completely on demand. The price goes up as demand goes up. It is also dependant upon how much I personally value the product. So a guitar might be valuable to me, but not to you. I might be willing to spend a thousand dollars whereas you would only spend 200.

One of the meanings of objective is that the information exists outside of oneself. The weather report itself is not a part of person’s natural being. Subjective means that the information comes from within a person’s mind, emotions, memory, etc.

I can accept that pretty much.

The key to the difference between objective interpretation and subjective interpretation is the location of the information one is receiving or reviewing. I probably have a broader understanding of the word interpretation which is most likely why we are on different pages. Chalk that up to my old neighborhood.

You might be right about why we are disagreeing. I have a problem with combining the terms objective and interpretation. Interpretation implies a personal reading of the subject, which can’t be seperated from my values and experiences. I might see a price tag on a guitar and see that it costs $800. But as soon as I start interpreting that and saying 'that is a lot for an acoustic guitar" I am interpreting and it is all subjective. That is a lot for an acoustic guitar for me, for someone who doesn’t play often in front of other people, and who doesn’t have a lot of money. But for Jimmie Page or some other world class guitarist, that wouldn’t be a lot.

 

[grannymh]

Expensive or cheap is completely subjective and is dependant completely on demand. The price goes up as demand goes up. It is also dependant upon how much I personally value the product. So a guitar might be valuable to me, but not to you. I might be willing to spend a thousand dollars whereas you would only spend 200.

I can accept that pretty much.

You might be right about why we are disagreeing. I have a problem with combining the terms objective and interpretation. Interpretation implies a personal reading of the subject, which can’t be seperated from my values and experiences. I might see a price tag on a guitar and see that it costs $800. But as soon as I start interpreting that and saying 'that is a lot for an acoustic guitar" I am interpreting and it is all subjective. That is a lot for an acoustic guitar for me, for someone who doesn’t play often in front of other people, and who doesn’t have a lot of money. But for Jimmie Page or some other world class guitarist, that wouldn’t be a lot.

I understand what you are saying about interpretation implying a personal reading. I will keep that in mind. Thank you.

 

[ejp123]

After reading comments, I think the implied question is about authority. (probably a whole other thread). I just like to have personal experience confirm or deny religious teachings. This is where I believe subjectivism comes in. From the catholic perspective, I don’t think this is allowed due to the belief of papal infallibility.

 

[grannymh]

After reading comments, I think the implied question is about authority. (probably a whole other thread). I just like to have personal experience confirm or deny regions teachings. This where I believe subjectivism comes in. From the catholic perspective and don’t this allowed due to the belief of papal infallibility.

I would say that infallibility refers to duly declared Catholic doctrines and not necesarily to a person.

However, there have been a few times when an individual Pope declared a particular doctrine from “the Chair” of authority (Latin–Ex Cathedra) which means he had the authority of infallibility. An “Ex Cathedra” statement follows from years of studying Divine Revelation given to the Catholic Church. Please note that “Ex Cathedra” only applies to a particular declaration of doctrine. It does not apply to every word the Pope speaks. In his position as teacher, usually the Pope is speaking about infallible Catholic doctrines.

I, too, use personal experience (subjectivism), when I think about Catholic doctrines.
Often it helps me understand where the Church is coming from. Sometimes, I do my own objective searching as to the history of a particular doctrine. In the end, I yield to the wisdom of Catholicism.

 

[ejp123]

I would say that infallibility refers to duly declared Catholic doctrines and not necesarily to a person.

However, there have been a few times when an individual Pope declared a particular doctrine from “the Chair” of authority (Latin–Ex Cathedra) which means he had the authority of infallibility. An “Ex Cathedra” statement follows from years of studying Divine Revelation given to the Catholic Church. Please note that “Ex Cathedra” only applies to a particular declaration of doctrine. It does not apply to every word the Pope speaks. In his position as teacher, usually the Pope is speaking about infallible Catholic doctrines.

I, too, use personal experience (subjectivism), when I think about Catholic doctrines.
Often it helps me understand where the Church is coming from. Sometimes, I do my own objective searching as to the history of a particular doctrine. In the end, I yield to the wisdom of Catholicism.

But what if a personal/subjective experience does not confirm doctrine? There are some experiences I have had that just don’t confirm doctrine. As a catholic, this is not even considered to be a possibility. Am I to toss out my experience and integrity and say it never happened or conclude that I am automatically wrong, the church has spoken? That is my struggle.

 

[grannymh]

But what if a personal/subjective experience does not confirm doctrine? There are some experiences I have had that just don’t confirm doctrine. As a catholic, this is not even considered to be a possibility. Am I to toss out my experience and integrity and say it never happened or conclude that I am automatically wrong, the church has spoken? That is my struggle.

Please do not put yourself into an “either/or” situation.

That being said, I am searching for an answer to your question. I am not sure that one can always apply subjective or objective to all experiences. For example, consider the doctrine that God exists. Four years ago, I experienced real thoughts that God could not exist. (The reason for these thoughts is private.)

For me, the possibility of God’s non-existence was a real personal experience that did not confirm Catholic doctrine. To simply toss out my experience was not an option because I find some value in every experience, good or bad. What was strange was that what I was experiencing happened in the middle of the 49th International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec. Toward the end of the day, while my insides were churning, my body was moving along with the crowd headed for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which concluded the day’s events. The homily was slightly above average. It presented information about the existence of Jesus Christ and His obedience to the Father.

In a previous post, I pointed out that information can have two sources–from within ourselves, i.e., subjective and from outside of us, i.e., objective which is not directly influenced by our emotions or memories, etc. Subjective thinking can be just as valid as objective thinking. What I am describing – which may or may not be similar to what you are referring to – is that I was faced with two different conclusions about the existence of God. My own and that of the priest giving the homily.

I happen to be one of those people whose [subjective] gut instincts usually are on target. This does not mean that I always depend on my instincts. Most of the time, I try to use reasonable, objective reasoning. Nonetheless, I do not dismiss subjectivity even when I do not use it. Four years ago, for me, integrity meant considering fairly both lines of thinking, mine and the priest’s homily. With this kind of integrity, seeking the best solution, I did not have to beat myself into thinking I was automatically wrong or that my experience never happened. I could freely choose to agree with the priest and the doctrine of God’s existence. As for my personal experience of non-belief in God, I accepted the experience as it was. I could accept it because my own integrity taught me to test it. Having tested my experience and then choosing to accept the word of the priest, my faith in God became stronger.

Did I draw on my previous feelings and experiences of Catholicism when I was listening to the homily? Of course, I did. This is why it is important not to get into an “either/or” position. Most times the reasonable way to come to a conclusion is to use both subjective and objective reasoning. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish one from the other.

Again, my comments may or may not pertain to your situation. Hopefully, something therein will be a spark for your own thinking.