I argue subjectivity, not objectivity, is the best way to know the truth about reality because I believe that Nietzsche’s and Abram’s ideas better reflect the human attitude toward the environment and their perceptions of the environment. The idea developed by Nietzsche does not refute the statements that were made by the philosophers who praised objectivity. Instead, he claims that there is no objectivity at all, as an objective point of view can only be developed using several points of view, not a single one (Nietzsche 25).
Therefore, it is essential to be able to look at the problem from a number of perspectives instead of perceiving one’s outlooks as the universal truth. This does not mean that the objective view of the world is not possible, but Nietzsche states that the more perspectives on the issue we can get, the more objective we are. An extended number of perspectives, therefore, is the basis for the concept of objectivity and it should not be based solely on the implications of one’s view of the world.
At the same time, Abram claims that we tend to be perceived as spectators when we go with the objective view of the world (Abram 34). He believes that it is critical to take into account one’s experience and subjective opinions to make up an objective interpretation of the environment.
When it comes to the opposing view of the world, Descartes’ ideas, for instance, are based on the fact that even though the subjective reality is acknowledged by the majority, the cornerstone of the objective reality is the basis for the non-physical thinking (Descartes 10). Therefore, he considered that any knowledge that is available to an individual was subjective, but the thinking progression and the ability to process that knowledge were the essentials of one’s objective existence.
Despite the fact that Marx and Engels disliked idealism that was inherent in Descartes’ works, their view of objectivity was similar to the previous works in the field. Marx and Engels also added the notion of materialism to the body of knowledge regarding objectivity as they believed that “matter” is the only thing that actually exists and there is no God or any other concept behind a man’s consciousness (Marx and Engels 18).
By stating that, for example, “racial prejudices influence police brutality,” we may argue that this particular issue can only be reviewed as a subjective interpretation of reality. According to Nietzsche’s and Abram’s ideas, we may suppose that the opinion of the society regarding this matter is merely based on both their personal and communal experiences. Therefore, police brutality cannot be assessed objectively because of its multifaceted nature and the number of parties that are involved in the hypothetic discussion.
Police brutality can also be perceived as a pure example of objectivity as the law enforcement officers are influenced by their duty to preserve safety and do whatever it takes to protect civilians. In this case, Marx and Engels’ materialistic ideas and Descartes’ concept of non-physical thinking justify the actions of police officers by supposing that their objective thinking is objective within all available contexts.
The ultimate decision regarding this issue should be subjective because the objectivity of police officers can be viewed as subjective by the majority of the society or any given individual whose life may be endangered due to the law enforcement officers’ actions. One should review all the points of view in order to reach an objective verdict, and it is not possible in real life without exploring all the available perspectives before the decision-making process.
Works Cited
Abram, David. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than- human World. Vintage, 2003.
Descartes, Rene. Discourse on the Method: Of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences. The Floating Press, 2009.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. On Historical Materialism. Progress Publishers, 1984.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. A Genealogy of Morals. Macmillan, 1897.