OBJECTIVITY AND SUBJECTIVITY
hello. hehe. gee.
I realised that the last time we spent 1 plus hr in the seminar room talking about knowledge and truth. Now i realise maybe knowledge is subjective and truth is objective. Anything that changes or differ for different people are subjective. Anything that is standardised throughout forever for everyone is objective. *Hope my definition's ok*
So...knowledge is NOT truth. Because knowledge is relative! It changes as time goes by. You see last time people use shaman to heal illness, now we use real medicine. People last time believe that evil spirits are harming them causing illnesses. Now we believe that bacteria and germs are causing illnesses. Both which may not be true! Perhaps next time we might realise that illnesses are really caused by Gods and bacteria and germs are just a tool to conseal the fact that there are Gods. Knowledge changes over time, differs for different communities.
Truth is objective. Truth may or may not be within the reach of humanbeings. You never know, the truth might be that we are all just part of a computer game designed by some GODS community out there. And they are playing us at the moment. You never know if the matrix really exists. You never know that all the scientific knowledge that we know are real or just an illusion. Use ur imagination.
So back to morality. Since we say morality of a action depends on our conscience. I believe that our conscience is relative. Differs for everyone. Some people thinks that killing 1 to save 100 is morally correct. Some people thinks that its not unjustified, maybe killing 1 to save 10000 then would it be morally justified. IF morality is relative, it means that you cannot have a clearcut definition to identify wads morally right or wrong. Because what you feel is morally right might not be moral to him. It depends on our background, our education, our enviroment. There is no clearcut way to define a certain action is morally right.
Secular theories - Secular theories say that morality is defined by the genes and enviroment of a person, and since everyone has got different genes and different enviroment, everyone got different level of morality. Thus, morality is relative.
Philosophical theories - Philosophical theories are those consequentialism, deontology and aristole's moral virtues. If you dunct understand any of them u can go to wiki and check. I read up on all those shit before i posted the previous post. Briefly, for moral virtues, it means to seek the centre of everything. Its bad to be too kind but its bad to be too selfish also. The best is to find a centre between two extremes. For example, someone asks u to donate marnie. Its morally wrong NOT to donate if you can, but its wrong also to be extreme and donate all your money such that you got none for urself. So we shld always find a compromise between two extreme. Thats moral virtues if i am not wrong.
Religious theories - Religious theories are wadeva rules or regulations which your religion preaches. For example, God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. For Christians, the act of sacrificing his son is morally right. But for me, i think its damn stupid. If you wan to die you should just die, why infringe upon your son's rights to live.
I dno wads the zombie thingy. Anyway, I believe that before we start a discussion, we should always have knowledge of the certain subject. Thats why philosophy classes fail. Philo teachers shouldnt just give a topic and throw it at the students. Its equivalent to saying "to make cotton, lets start inventing some steam engines and spinning jennies". I mean to say how are students supposed to formulate all the complicated philosophy theories in just 1 hour, when all the genius philosophers took like years to come up with those theories. Therefore, the students should be exposed to all the theories and knowledge of the topic beforehand and then discuss the topic. A discussion should also be guided by a teacher with lots of information and knowledge. Only with information and knowledge can a discussion go well.
I wish i have got the power to save the world.
I realised that the last time we spent 1 plus hr in the seminar room talking about knowledge and truth. Now i realise maybe knowledge is subjective and truth is objective. Anything that changes or differ for different people are subjective. Anything that is standardised throughout forever for everyone is objective. *Hope my definition's ok*
So...knowledge is NOT truth. Because knowledge is relative! It changes as time goes by. You see last time people use shaman to heal illness, now we use real medicine. People last time believe that evil spirits are harming them causing illnesses. Now we believe that bacteria and germs are causing illnesses. Both which may not be true! Perhaps next time we might realise that illnesses are really caused by Gods and bacteria and germs are just a tool to conseal the fact that there are Gods. Knowledge changes over time, differs for different communities.
Truth is objective. Truth may or may not be within the reach of humanbeings. You never know, the truth might be that we are all just part of a computer game designed by some GODS community out there. And they are playing us at the moment. You never know if the matrix really exists. You never know that all the scientific knowledge that we know are real or just an illusion. Use ur imagination.
So back to morality. Since we say morality of a action depends on our conscience. I believe that our conscience is relative. Differs for everyone. Some people thinks that killing 1 to save 100 is morally correct. Some people thinks that its not unjustified, maybe killing 1 to save 10000 then would it be morally justified. IF morality is relative, it means that you cannot have a clearcut definition to identify wads morally right or wrong. Because what you feel is morally right might not be moral to him. It depends on our background, our education, our enviroment. There is no clearcut way to define a certain action is morally right.
Secular theories - Secular theories say that morality is defined by the genes and enviroment of a person, and since everyone has got different genes and different enviroment, everyone got different level of morality. Thus, morality is relative.
Philosophical theories - Philosophical theories are those consequentialism, deontology and aristole's moral virtues. If you dunct understand any of them u can go to wiki and check. I read up on all those shit before i posted the previous post. Briefly, for moral virtues, it means to seek the centre of everything. Its bad to be too kind but its bad to be too selfish also. The best is to find a centre between two extremes. For example, someone asks u to donate marnie. Its morally wrong NOT to donate if you can, but its wrong also to be extreme and donate all your money such that you got none for urself. So we shld always find a compromise between two extreme. Thats moral virtues if i am not wrong.
Religious theories - Religious theories are wadeva rules or regulations which your religion preaches. For example, God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. For Christians, the act of sacrificing his son is morally right. But for me, i think its damn stupid. If you wan to die you should just die, why infringe upon your son's rights to live.
I dno wads the zombie thingy. Anyway, I believe that before we start a discussion, we should always have knowledge of the certain subject. Thats why philosophy classes fail. Philo teachers shouldnt just give a topic and throw it at the students. Its equivalent to saying "to make cotton, lets start inventing some steam engines and spinning jennies". I mean to say how are students supposed to formulate all the complicated philosophy theories in just 1 hour, when all the genius philosophers took like years to come up with those theories. Therefore, the students should be exposed to all the theories and knowledge of the topic beforehand and then discuss the topic. A discussion should also be guided by a teacher with lots of information and knowledge. Only with information and knowledge can a discussion go well.
I wish i have got the power to save the world.
posted by Enghow at
2:17 pm
1 Comments:
Thats true, I totally agree with you that you have to have knowledge for each subject that you comment on. Of course, being a religious theory, you can be freely subjective and express your personal opinions with ignorance and that makes you an expert in religion.:)
By
Kevin, at 12:03 am
Post a Comment
<< Home