Rise of Subjectivity

I have spoken often about how subjectivity underlies the cultural/moral language game. This latter concept (the game) shows itself today as the automatic and surface reactions people have about ethics. Cancel culture, for example, is a prominent version of this language game and its superficiality. Wrong and right are not two sides of the same coin, they are remarkably different in character.

But from a philosophy standpoint, where do we find deeper understanding in terms of current events?

Subjectivity is the idea that truth depends for its value on the perceiver. It relies on the individual perceiving and the idea that there are inherently as many truths as their are perceivers. With its loosely complex intellectual justifications not working with reality, it must rely on nihilism for support. These ideas are not only common, they are our current worldview.

How does nihilism effect a debate like Israel vs. Iran? Its simple: when one wants to take a stand and when they are naturally wrong, they use subjectivity as a cultural concept to justify their position. They forget that the zealots attacked first, they ignore the history of zealotry, they are unconcerned that Jews have, in reality, never been the aggressors in any sense of the word. When someone is right, reality defends them. When they are wrong, they must cover over reality and invent. These emotional thinkers invent reality, draw on tools (that we might also just call religiosity) to defeat their opponent in the "eyes" of the language game.

Jews in the Middle East wishing to have a sovereign nation and being forced into warfare by religious zealotry is not the same thing as religiously zealous nation-states wanting to "act out," or destroy the world. These are not two sides of the same coin, so the same expectations and demands cannot be place on each side. One side is "better" than the other.

How do I know this? From understanding value and objectivity. I can look at history and make simple inductions. I can look at what I know about history and I can prove things rationally. Not only are the Jews not trying to destroy the world, they don't even have the same link to primitive thinking - they are more a culture than a religion. This means they are (for example) not sending terrorists to open cultures and blowing up buildings. So, understanding how people think, how the game operates, will help one to understand how subjectivity corrupts any particular story.

Take the pro-life stance, for example. Should we support the rights of pro-life people to harass Planned Parenthood clinics? Even if this is considered "protesting," is it something that should be legal? The truth is: pro-life people are crazy and crazy people self-destruct and take others with them. They are spawns of religious zealotry and their thinking is not modern in the sense that it has benefitted from rational history. Pro-choice people are not the other and equal side of a debate. All one needs to do is fully understand the debate: pro-life thinkers make random un-scientific claims in order to create a world where more, rather than less, people die and rights are taken away. Pro-choice people do not alter the moral landscape (you can still refuse to get an abortion). This kind of calculation makes it somewhat obvious which "side" is suffering from the delusion.

If you don't agree with me, this will probably all be in vain. As is often the case, only those who agree will be happy and reasonable. But watch those that disagree with me, watch how their position changes, and how it is rooted (must be rooted) in nihilism. Ultimately, it must claim that there is no truth (an untenable position for one who uses words). In order to be pro-life, one must "forget" that the two sides are not even focused on the same issues. In order to be Muslim, one must forget history, forget reason, and forget all of the progress made the last century that reveals the destructive forces of religion.