/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7201146]

>objectivity

[Anonymous No.7201161]

>>7201146
I really can't stand it. I think, "objectivity," and "rationality," really have become the fetishes of the middle and lower classes in the absence of religion but most people don't have the education or objectivity to understand the limits of those things and identify where they do and don't apply, so calling someone's objectivity into question is just a way to say they're wrong and a poopy-face.

[Anonymous No.7201202]

>>7201161
Absolutely agreed. The "objective" people are just people-objects, not yet subjects in the full sense of the word.

[Anonymous No.7201219]

>>7201202
Please explain anon I'm confused

[Anonymous No.7201316]

>>7201219
Basically "objectivity" in a person, just means having the objective parts, a mouth, an arm, a voice, etc, but they aren't yet a "person" in the sense of having character. E.G., they are autistic. Just mocking them

[Anonymous No.7202310]

>>7201161
yes and this stems from the dissociation of the philosophy from the rationalism of what the proponents of the movement called the enlightenment, because the philosophy was a tool for theology and the proponents of the movement called the enlightenment believed that they no longer need God as an hypothesis, they were better than the clerics so they rebutted the philosophy as meta-physics, that is to say, meta-theoretical-physics, which means a field disconnected from empiricism since the rationalist-humanist-liberal from then on strongly has faith in his faith of being an empiricist, whereas he is not since he is only empiricist for the cachet of empiricism, from his faith in the stance that, as long as his little deliriums connect more or less to experience sooner or later, he is right and an empiricist...

[Anonymous No.7202854]

>>7201146
>frogs

[Anonymous No.7203072]

>>7202854
>>frogs