Objectivity

I will grant the Kantian principle of a priori phenomena, or things that are self-evident outside of experience and therefore objectifiable. I also grant that it is prudent to treat things and a "moral imperative" to treat others that subjectively seem to exist as if they objectively exist. But because every thought must come from a unique and therefore subjective perspective, nothing objective, or existing in reality regardless of any subjective perspective, can ever be known to exist. While Kant made substantial ground in attempting to refute this claim (in part by concluding that space and time are knoweable because they are synthetic a priori, or essential for knowledge), philosophers such as Hegel and political ideas like democracy, which rely on the outright assumption that objective thought is attainable, elude me. There are no such things as absolute knowledge or unbiased opinions.

Everything alive has an experience, and that experience is subjective. It need not be aware that it is experiencing, but all actions and reactions are individual (subjective) experiences. If a thing is not having any experience, it is not alive. Experience is limited to sensation. Awareness, or thought, is the ability to abstract from sensation. Thought influences further sensation in varying degrees. Every subject, or individual, because it has a unique perspective (placement in space and time), has unique sensations and therefore unique thoughts. It is impossible to extrapolate anything truly objective from experience, and it is impossible to extrapolate another’s subjectivity from your subjectivity. Language is organized thought, which can be communicated to others through symbolism. A codified system of symbolic representation can be taught/learned, but all symbols are always translated by each individual subjectively. There can be no shared or collective thought.

Anything perceived as being objective is done so only by conjecture. An individual cannot even know if it objectively exists. (In the old days this was exemplified with “The problem of the brain in the vat” but now it’s epitomized by The Matrix.)

In the same way, existence, or life, gives no objective meaning for itself. Subjectively, an individual’s priorities, preferences and prejudices simultaneously influence and reveal whatever meaning that individual has projected onto life. The diversity of individual interests, pursuits and import demonstrates meaning can be found in anything. It seems the only necessity for finding meaning in something is genuine participation in that thing. (Savvy readers will recognize this as a major tenet of Existentialism.) If we are to apply Kant’s moral imperative, then that imperative must include that we allow everybody to genuinely participate in existence.