Disclaimer

The only philosophy course I have ever taken is Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Most of what I have been writing is not technically correct. A philosophy student knows I am attributing the wrong words to others' ideas. I apologize.

I also think writing takes place in stages. In the first stage, ideas are written. This blog is still in this first stage. I try to express ideas. One day I might come back and turn these ideas into intelligible and clear writing, but right now, I am concerned with putting ideas out there. This is especially true with the last two posts explaining my philosophical foundations. Philosophical foundations take time to form and even more time to express.

I also prefer active writing. I assume everyone knows I am writing my opinion. I also prefer hyperbole and making things personal. I assure you nothing written in this blog is mean spirited. If you take offense; please comment. I prefer to rectify problems instead of letting them fester (that is why ML angered me).

I had an external visitor yesterday who commented on another page. She gave a perfect example of what subjective behavior entails. The visitor commented, "my understanding of the entry itself may have been increased had I known whose blog it was." The visitor denied absolute Truth. The value of the entry changed with who wrote it.

My advisor did the same thing when I said someone had criticized our research. His first question was who? (I was the one criticizing the research. He caught me in a lie, but you get the point.)

An objective person would have commented on the entry here. He would have said "this post makes very little sense. You, WB, are wrong. Churches and academia do form normative thinkers." He would have stated what the Truth was.

A subjective positivist would have reacted similarly to the external visitor. This post is not intelligent or from an intelligent person, therefore, this post is not worth thinking about. A subjective positivist does not care about philosophy from some unknown blogger.

An objective positivist would have said this post is not true, therefore, it is not worth my time.

A subjective normativist would say the author should learn how to write better. He would think about the points that he understood. He would think about who wrote it. He would then decide what philosophical foundations should be and express his personal opinions.

An objective normativist would say the author should learn how to express his ideas clearer. He would think about the points he understood and compare them to the Truth. He would then say what philosophical foundations should be.

Positivists avoid irrelevant discussions. There is no use talking about uncorrupt government, because there is no such thing as uncorrupt government. There is no use talking about what we should or should not be doing in Africa when children are starving and people are dying of AIDS. It is the philosophy of reality. It is the philosophy of the here and now.

Normativists enjoy irrelevant discussions. What should government do? The answers they create are usually deemed infeasible by positivists. It is the philosophy of the ideal. It is the philosophy of what should be.

My proposition is the majority of society, the knowledge workers especially, have became too positive. They have shunned normativism without proper reflection. This stagnates growth as sub-optimal reality is chosen in favor of ideal improvements.

I also propose that subjective positivism is the philosophy of my colleagues, but this has to change if our society is to improve.