Subjectivity

The line is drawn. Who decided to? What was it for? Why was it drawn there?

The questionable nature of a line subjects itself to much invalidation. Perhaps if lines were universally straight, then credibility would follow in parallel. However, in reality, this is not the case. It is true that lines are drawn by convenience, by reasons known to some and not to others, by random people at random times, and...ultimately...by simple subjective measures.

For example, a deliberation constantly following examinations among both students and teachers is the method of grading. The questions range from whether there should be a curve to justify the difficulty of the exam relative to the students' overall performance or lack a curve because the test should serve as an adequate assessment of lessons learned; whether a formal answer key should be established to provide a concrete reference with solutions or lack an answer key so as to judge each student's individual answers and see whether he/she understood at least the overall points; whether the exam should test on impossible material and become a virtual symbol of life or if it should instead be manageable and actually "test" whether a student understood the material or not...Exactly where is the line drawn when it comes to how much should be completely subjected to the teacher? How is the bar set? Do you compare one student to the class or do you set high standards despite the class failing? 


In matters of politics, when the aim of upholding the common public good for all peoples, how is the common good determined, and by whom, and who's standards? The example of Turkey as a secular state is a large paradox considering its majority (99%) population is Muslim, yet it disregards any laws pertaining to religion in order to advance as a modern state. The common public good, therefore, was pre-determined to equal "modernization." In the pursuit of this common public good, how much of the entire public was subjected to a single person's vision of the common good? 


In language--limited as it is--the simple utterance of an apology by saying "sorry" can, too, be subjected to so many different interpretations, yet be applied to any situation. Is saying sorry about not taking out the trash the same as saying sorry for killing a child's mother during war? The next time you say sorry, please question yourself on, from a level of 1 through 10, how sorry you really are, with 10 being the extreme extent to your sincerity. 


Language is, again, so limiting that even a simple phrase such as "I am" (the shortest possible sentence in the English language) can be translated using just as many, fewer, or more words in other languages. Some languages may not even directly translate "I am" and may, instead, say things along the lines of "I be" or "Exist do I." 

Then there's speed limits. Of course, they were invented with a purpose--to save lives. But when it comes to getting a ticket, what's the difference between driving 1 mile over the speed limit and 1 mile under? On the sheet that describes reasons for destructive driving, one of the boxes that can be "checked" as a factor includes a section on weather and time: was it a clear day, a foggy day, was it during night when it was hard to see? There is so much subjectivity that no two circumstances of getting a ticket could be identical.


My favorite point on subjectivity is exception. Where, who, and what are the exceptions? In law, arguably a black-and-white field, a king is distinguished from a peasant. But how is the king defined? By a crown? And a peasant-by his bare feet? In matters of objectivity, a king should not escape the law just as a peasant; if he committed murder, he should be subjected to the same punishment. But why does he get special treatment? Why is power the most easily subjected tool in the world? 


The way I see it, and as my philosophy has always been: If a fly cannot discriminate between you and I, between a king and his slave, then who is to say?

"The human understanding is like a false mirror, which, receiving rays irregularly, distorts and discolors the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it."  

- Francis Bacon