Subjectivity vs. Objectivity

Another Kierkegaardian idea (considering that I'm in a class where I'm reading umpteen works by him) is that truth is subjective. This has raised some interesting thoughts in my mind. The first reaction to this is repulsion, linking it together with standard postmodern theories of relative truth. However, this would be far from Kierkegaard's own view; after reading his biography, I think he might have a lot of trouble with people who freely quote his sentences in Religious Epistemology essays in postmodern, Wittgensteinian ways (not that I have any particular beefs with any authors I read in Philosophy of Religion...). He did hold to objective truth; he was not trying to undermine this. Rather, what he was saying was that having a bunch of objective facts really doesn't mean a whole lot. Truth must become personal and internalized.

Why is it that the idea of truth as a subjective thing (in a non-relative way) rather than objective seems to be a problem? I do not propose to say "truth is entirely subjective" here, or really any other position, so much as bring some things out for thought. When I looked inside myself, I realized it is because objectivity seems to be more certain, while subjectivity lends itself to "its true for you but not for me" - even if not meant in a relativistic way, there is still a sense that people can arrive at completely different truths with no way to check to see who is right. Maybe, though, if we have faith in the methods of arriving at truth, this is not as much of a problem. In order to communicate truth objectively, I give facts, I give arguments. I give the "what" of truth. In order to communicate truth subjectively, I must rather tell someone the "how" of truth: how they can find it for themselves. I point to the path, not the destination. If this "how" is trustworthy, than do I need to worry as much that the "what" will be so radically different?

What really spurred these thoughts on (though I had been thinking about them before) was a conversation at lunch today about the inerrancy of the Bible. The following is not meant to disparage inerrancy - I am an inerrantist (though still trying to figure out what that means) - or even to deny that it has importance. Sometimes, however, this doctrine seems to be considered to be almost as important as the gospel message itself, and I wonder where the line should be drawn for "necessary ingredients of faith," "important but not necessary," and "debatable but let's get on with more important things." For example, why is it that people consider strict inerrancy, down to the last details, so important? It seems to be that it is because if there is any error, how can one know what is true and what is false? However, why is this important? It seems that it is only important if one assumes that one must come to Scripture and understand it primarily through human reason and scientific methods. Ironically enough, those who hold this view strongly say they do because they want to follow God instead of man, and yet it seems they are the ones who exalt man's understanding the most. On the other hand, if the primary way of understanding Scripture is through the work of the Holy Spirit, the discrepencies in some facts do not matter as much: the Holy Spirit can still guide us into the Truth if we let it. Again, it's the objective vs. subjective thing: objective, reasoned interpretation of Scripture, and subjective, Spirit-led interpretation of Scripture. The latter is less open to external scrutiny then the former (even if the Spirit leads in the church as a whole rather than in the individual, this is the case though on a larger level), but if it is reliable, then what is the problem?

Again, this is not to say that the Bible is not inerrant or that we shouldn't be concerned about correct doctrine. It is perfectly coherent to speak of letting the Holy Spirit guide us into the truth while maintaining inerrancy. These thoughts are more concerned with why we believe what we believe, and how we pursue truth rather than the truths themselves.

Kierkegaard on Teaching

"That if real success is to attend the effort to bring a man to a definite position, one must first of all take pains to find him where he is and begin there. This is the secret of the art of helping others.... In order to help another effectively I must understand more than he - yet first of all surely I must understand what he understands. If I do not know that, my greater understanding will be of no help to him. If, however, I am disposed to plume myself on my greater understanding, it is because I am vain or proud, so that at bottom, instead of benefiting him, I want to be admired. But all true effort to help begins with self-humiliation: the helper must first humble himself under him he would help, and therewith must understand that to help does not mean to be ambitious but to be patient, that to help means to endure for the time being the imputation that one is in the wrong and does not understand what the other understands.... For to be a teacher does not mean simply to affirm that such a thing is so, or to deliver a lecture, &c. No, to be a teacher in the right sense is to be a learner. Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner, put yourself in his place so that you may understand what he understands and in the way he understands it, in case you have not understood it before. Or if you have understood it before, you allow him to subject you to an examination so that he may be sure you know your part." - Kierkegaard, The Point of View for My Work as an Author I came across this quote in some of my reading, and I found it rather interesting. Any thoughts?

The Anderson Chicago Theorems

So I'm at Trinity right now, and I had an observation to make while driving through Gary. No matter when I drive through there, whether it be morning or night, weekend or weekday, it seems like there is always more traffic going into Chicago then out of it. I came to some startling conclusions when mathematically analyzing the data. Here are my results, maybe I'll write up a paper for some prestigious math journal or something. Lemma 1: The population of Chicago is expanding. Proof: Let C be the population of Chicago, X be the rate at which people are leaving, and Y the rate at which people are coming in. Then, C' = (approx.) Y - X. As noted, Y > X, so therefore C' is postive. QED. Axiom 1: The birth rate and death rate for Chicago are neglible compared to C'. Justification: This can always be controlled if necessary to make the results of this theorem work better, either by limiting Mafia activity or providing defective birth control. Lemma 2: C" is zero or positive. Proof: Suppose that C" were negative. But then traffic at Gary would get better over time. This appears to be a logical contradiction, so therefore C" is zero or postive. (Alternatively, outbound traffic could be getting worse, but in my vast experience of 1 and a half years this does not appear to be the case). QED. Axiom 2: C will not have an inflection point, or is linear. Justification: Because that makes my theory more interesting. Lemma 3: C is monotonically increasing and not approaching an equilibrium point. Proof: See Lemmas 1, 2, and Axioms 1,2. QED. Lemma 4: Chicago will either a) engulf the whole earth, or b) the earth will blow apart due to the weight of too many people. Proof: Let (W - C) be the population of the world oustside of Chicago. As C' is positive, (W - C)' is negative unless the birth rate/death rate ratio for (W - C) is large enough. If it is, there are an awful lot of people being born on the rest of the planet, so it stands to reason that the planet will explode because of it (though as in Axiom 1 this ratio can be controlled, so we can prevent this case). Otherwise, C will eventually include all of (W - C) and so Chicago will hold the entire population of the world. QED. Theorem 1: Chicago will reach critical mass and either attain sentience or nuclear fission. Proof: As the population of Chicago is increasing (to the point of including the entire world's population), and the size of Chicago is apparently not increasing as quickly, eventually there will be a high enough level of population density that either Chicago will start acting as a giant brain with an AI of its own (see Serial Experiments: Lain for an example on a global scale), or will act as a giant plutonium atom and start a nuclear reaction, whichever would make a better sci fi film. QED. Theorem 2: There will eventually be hordes of undead outside of Chicago. Proof: As proven by axiom 2, there cannot be an equilibrium point in C, so even after (W - C) is 0 C' will still be postive. This will make (W - C) negative, and the only way this could be is if there are mindless zombies entering Chicago through Gary. This entails that there will be said zombies in the population of (W - C). QED. I realize that this research will be startling to some, and perhaps even mildly controversial, but the math proves that this must be the case. Such grisly results for the future of humanity should be prepared for at once. One possible plan of action is to start watching as many sci-fi and horror films as possible in order to be ready for whatever Chicago and the world may throw at us.