From objectivity to subjectivity, truth to opinion.
other day there was a doubt about the kind of speech to be used in a dissertation. Not about what speech should be employed, but on the objective discourse itself.
This question arose when I made the comparison between objectivity and subjectivity.
Apparently there is a difference of degree between them. If the speech is a subjective "think" about the theme in a speech goal is "authoritarianism." You exchange the "think" by "is." The dictionary has
dissertation by the scrutiny of a particular subject. However, this test refers in respect of a writing, exclusively to their own opinion of the author, since, if it is not a scientific thesis, both experience (empirical) and mathematical proof are not used.
If both are not used then the speech itself is merely a rhetorical exercise and the author's argument is necessarily subject to its subjectivity.
However, it can be argued that this "opinion" arises from the author's personal experience, and this can be understood as empirical (I know that if A then B because I witnessed the phenomenon) or even substantiated by quotes from renowned authors (one author says that if A then B).
However, these statements are not true.
Even if we treat the personal experience and empirical experience (and that the truth would serve as confirmation of the proposal in the speech), the relationship between opinion (taken as true) and not direct experience.
not direct because the whole experience gets to our right (and therefore to our ability to scan) through the senses and these senses function as filters (see the different shades for a bee and a human). If filters are, then what comes to our reason is only a portion of the truth. Based on this "piece of the truth" the survey takes place essentially in the comparison of this phenomenon with other phenomena (A for B, over C, etc.). That is, plots compared to plots of real truth.
Therefore, this test would only be complete (ie it would be a fact) the comparison is absolute (in the whole compared to all).
Likewise, citations not serve as grounds for the truth, for they can only have been written in the same way (using the experience or other citations).
And even though the author, the dissertation, use all sorts of arguments (experiences, quotes, math, science, rhetoric, etc.), this would be insufficient. Still not reach the field of truth. Continue in the field of view. Otherwise, if in possession of the truth (and I believe we have not), science would be complete and there would be nothing more to be discovered or researched; philosophy would have found the latter argument and could no longer be disputed, the mathematical instrument would be the final and definitive; there was only "quoting", the rhetoric would be extinguished.
Therefore, our objectivity is always subject to our subjectivity and our truth will always be an authoritative opinion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment