on objectivity (Patreon)

2.1 and some change for revisions.
today I wrote the experience of getting peed on.
...so let's not talk about that.

The friend I mentioned asked recently, "isn't all writing quality subjective?"

I sympathize with the question. Until a few years ago, I probably would've said 'yes'.
But no, I don't think so.
At least not if we want to be pragmatic about it.
And as long as we're engaging in linguistic communication for the purpose of furthering understanding, we should probably be pragmatic about it.

At a certain point, you can argue that everything is subjective.
That point is called "nihilism" and I don't think it's very healthy for anyone.
But a lot of people seem to cling to it, especially for art.
Taste is subjective. How much you like something is subjective.
But there are ways to talk about the quality of something objectively.

Dealing with objectivity is probably a necessary precursor to talking about anything with mutual understanding.
Frankly, the fact that they don't teach some semblance of what is objective or real in either religion or education is mind-boggling.
Yes, God is real, or he isn't, whatever, I don't care--
But if I put an object on a table-- let's say a ball-- we can both pick it up and hold it and turn it around in our hands and put it back down, and we can both agree that, yes, there is a ball on the table.
It is objectively real.
There is a ball. It is there.
If you really want to be a contrarian you can argue "but what is a ball" and talk about the lack of a clear-cut molecular boundary where the ball allegedly begins, and if it is really spherical--
But then you're either being a contrarian or a nihilist and either way that's not helping anyone and I probably hate you.
If we want to make progress, we have to accept that language is utilitarian, ergo, things can be objectively real.
It is not useful to lose the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity in philosophical nihilism.

In the same way that we can agree There Is A Ball, we can agree that there could be multiple balls. We can also agree that the ball is bigger or smaller than another ball, or that it is perhaps made out of a certain material.

Now say we want to play basketball.
We are going to want a ball that possesses certain characteristics.
It should bounce, and it should be sized so that it fits through the hoop.
The above are criteria with which we will select a ball for our given purpose.
If we have a selection of balls with varying characteristics, then some of those balls are going to be objectively good bad for it.

• A bowling ball is not good for playing basketball-- good luck dribbling.

• Neither is a large beach ball-- that won't fit.

• You could probably use a ping-pong ball. Might be difficult to keep track of, but you could do it.

• A soccer ball could work. Hard to dribble, but maybe if you really try.

• How about a kick ball? That's pretty good.

Once we have established that Things Are Real and Can Be Objectively Something, then we can start speaking more fluidly about it. If we understand what our values implicitly are, then we can use terms like "better" or "worse":
A kickball is objectively better for playing basket ball than a bowling ball is.
And once we're at that point, then we can probably just use words like "good" or "bad" and let the need for comparison be implied:
A bowling ball is objectively bad for playing basketball.

This works because we have a goal and we have decided that what our values for achieving that goal are.
We can then speak about them implicitly, but nevertheless have a clear and useful conversation about what, objectively, a good ball to play basketball with might be.

This shouldn't be mind-blowing, but many people online really like to dissolve everything into nihilism and contrarianism, so perhaps it is useful or refreshing to rebuild a basic foundation of What Is Real and also how do we use language.

So, isn't all writing quality subjective?
No, not if we want the word subjective to mean anything.
Once we establish what our goals and values in writing are, we can start talking about what techniques are objectively best to accomplish those goals.
And then we can say something like...
Objectively good writing effectively accomplishes a given goal by using various techniques which we can treat as tangible points of discussion and analysis.

--

For the record, a lot of my opinions on objectivity and reality I've inherited over the years from cass.
I used to be a pretty hardcore nihilist, and that kind of actively ruined my juju for years afterwards.
One of the things I appreciate best about her is that we can reality check and ground each other so we don't float off into la-la-lands and become crazies.
She's pretty good for that, and I find that she has a somewhat revolutionary perspective on a lot of things.

...In fact, if you're interested in some of her perspective on stuff, and I daresay you should be, you may be interested to know that she recently opened a tumblr ask blog, where you can ask her for advice, opinions, or general perspective on life and emotions.
She's good for it, trust me.
If you're interested, it's right here:
https://www.tumblr.com/friendlylocaloracle

c: ughhhhhh fine