Thursday 8 October 2009

Objectivity or Subjectivity?

I'm trying to be all clever and academic this year so I can actually get a good degree... so here's a philosophical question posed by a tutor that I have attempted to answer... Objectivity or Subjectivity?

A great poet and a scientist stand in front of a beautiful tree, and their reactions are observed.


The poet feels inspired by a sense of hope and growth, and that he is in the presence of Mother Nature. Or perhaps he knows that the tree was planted as some sort of memorial to a friend, and it invokes sadness. Maybe it is early Spring and the new buds remind him of new life and fresh beginnings.

The scientist observes the species of the tree, its stage of development, the way the chlorophyll absorbs sunlight to sustain it, how the tree will benefit us by removing carbon dioxide from the air, and the energy we can use by burning its wood.

So which perspective is more useful to us as philosophers? Looking subjectively at the tree, the poet conveys a greater sense of meaning through symbolism and association. But the scientist's observations are more precise and we gain verifiable, substantial information.

We obviously need both perspectives for a deeper understanding of life, so perhaps our aim should be to primarily view upon things objectively, but to remember that everything has a subjective interpretation that provides just as much meaning.