Where do I state or assume the premise that humans can’t be objective? In this very article I say that “the objective situation is always more or less inhuman,” the alienated outsider is “alone with the real world’s cold physicality that outlasts all our self-centered fictions,” and that “This model of our experience takes as central the existential confrontation with how things really are.”

I do take a pragmatic view of objective truth, but that’s about how objective knowledge is obtained and confirmed. Science is more objective than pseudoscience, for example, because science’s applications (technologies) are more reliable.

I don’t deny there’s such a thing as objectivity. On the contrary, elsewhere I compare scientific detachment with the existential or aesthetic appreciation of the world’s strangeness. That’s what makes nature’s monstrousness special compared to moral values, because the negative aesthetic reaction piggybacks on objectivity as opposed to reflecting only the subject’s idiosyncratic taste.

Anyway, I’m not sure what you’re on about. I did a PhD in a science-centered analytic philosophy department. I know all about objectivity.

Knowledge condemns. Art redeems. I learned that as an artistic writer who did a doctorate in philosophy. We should try to see the dark comedy in all things.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store