Books

I'll only weigh in this far on the objectivity debate.

A very wise professor of mine always said aim for authenticity not objectivity. I still don't understand exactly what she meant, but she did claim that the objective-subjective dichotomy was, for humans, inadequate. We are always to strive for truth and authenticity in accordance with Biblical moral standards.

I don't know what she meant exactly, but I think she was getting at something.

As for our old pal Mista T., he was as even-handed as one could expect an Athenian to be. He held little appreciable malice toward the Spartans. Most of his criticisms were leveled at the leadership of the Delian league.

I was remembering him last night. Where is he?!?

I'm afraid I can't agree with your professor.


Even if we are unable to arrive at objectivity (genuine truth), it should still be our aim.

We should never aim lower than the truth.


However, I would also say that authenticity covers a multitude of sin.

I was being playful with Thucydides' name. Carry on!

Haha, thanks for spotting that M. I was thinking about Mistpa. Where did he go!?

She claimed that the striving for "objectivity" is some aberrant, stoic philosophical quest that is not the same as seeking authentic truth. That how we view objectivity is flawed because some-odd philosopher came up with it, so we really should give what we wish to share another name.

I wish I had asked her more about it. It gives my brain a one-time error as well.

He came. He saw. He left.

Hmmm.

When I've heard other people say similar things (aim at authenticity not objectivity),
they have normally meant, simply, to BE authentic yourself.

This would mean to be honest about your bias, and your perspective;
having bias is alright if you're forthright about it with the listener.


At this point, I'm really not sure WHAT your professor actually meant.
So I'll retreat to having no position on her position...
although I do have positions of my own, lol.

: )

Yeah, that is what I'm trying to understand too. Because she was most assuredly not saying that.

The sentence is a leading star for many inside the area of jurisprudence, not only in America. Sometimes strict constructionism limits the judicial interpretation too much, while judicial activism is staggering in the opposite ditch. As you're saying, or as I interpret what you're saying, "reasonable" is a standard that will inevitably be interpreted in various degrees by various people.

How does strict constructionism apply to case law? Is case law more along the lines of judicial activism? I think the latter, anyways, in the case Minnesota v. Carter 119 S. Ct. 469 (1998), regarding the Fourth Amendment, Scalia reasoned that the court need not "apply the fuzzy standard" of "reasonable expectation of privacy" but simply read the Fourth Amendment. It says, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in "their 'houses' against unreasonable searches and seizures". As Scalia pointed out by citing to authority as far back as 1816, there is no question that "their houses" means "his own house".

The other Justices, relying on years of case law, came to the same conclusion, saying that the defendant does not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" while in the home of another.

In this case strict constructism was clearly the best alternative in retrospect. But it takes some mind to say, when you're in the middle of it, that we don't need the case law that has developed over years, thus, in this case, the Fourth Amendment gives us the correct answer to the issue.

I believe strict constructism should be the primary source whenever interpreting the law, but you should by no means be strictly limited by it.

Rats, I just friggin hate it whenever I've been so tired posting something that I have gotten so lazy that I shorten the words without even noticing.

Note to self: Don't post when sleepy.

Agreed. Originalism > Strict Constructionism.

Common Law matters.

I think I sort of know what you mean by authenticity rather than objective/subjective. Is the historian or writer being truthful? Are they striving to be objective, although they really can't be totally objective? Are they writing to flatter or appease or are they writing and telling the truth? How is the writing skewed? Is it skewed on purpose or only through the fact that no human is objective?

I had a very good teacher in high school who always said "consider the source". She meant what was their purpose in writing in the first place, and to consider the character of the author. Someone with convictions like a Thomas More would be a possibly more authentic author than someone without convictions like a Wolsey.

Well, that makes a difference in trusting his history, but everyone is touched with the brush of subjectivity. It's impossible to be conpletely objective, though some people are more objective than others.

Now that I am thinking about it, I believe authenticity and objectivity probably are pretty close cousins. The more authentic a writer is, the more objective he will strive to be, unless he is insane. Then he can be both authentic and subjective.

That's the problem with reading history, it is difficult to know who is telling the truth and who thinks he is telling the truth. Sometimes even people who think they are authentic and being honest are self deluded.

I was talking to a friend about Diogenes. I misremembered his search. I thought he was looking for a truthful man, my friend corrected me and said he was lookin for an honest man, and are they the same thing? I said I think you can be truthful without being honest, but I do not think you can be honest without telling the truth.

It sounds to me that she thought truth was not absolute- which is error. It sounds like she believes that if a person is authentic, believes in what they are writing, then that is the truth according to the person, but that is really heresy. A person can be authentically wrong. Hitler was self deluded into thinking he was authentic, deluded by his own sins. So Mein Kampf was written with authenticity, but is not honest, because it is not truth. Although I am sure he thought it was truth.

Nope. I repeat, that is not what she was getting at.

I don't know what she was getting at.

She was getting at something, but it was some broadside against truth outside human perception.

Again, her misgiving was mostly how we divide objective and subjective. That it somehow does not line up with individually ascertaining truth vs. untruth.

She just never expanded on why it's inadequate. I'm reading one of her books right now to see if I can strike oil.