Another peeve
Kasia December 5th, 2007
When folks try to win an argument by inserting the word “objectively” into what is, by any evidence shown previously in the argument, a subjective statement.
Examples:
“The Rosary is objectively the best prayer.”
“The extraordinary form of the Mass (or the ordinary, for that matter) is objectively superior to the ordinary (or extraordinary) form.” (I haven’t actually seen anyone use the paranthetical version of the statement, but it would irk me just as much as the other.)
You might as well say “Vanilla is objectively the best ice cream flavor” or “Coke is objectively superior to Pepsi.”
That’s not to say that the person may not be correct. Maybe the Rosary really is “objectively” the best prayer you can pray. Maybe the TLM really is “objectively” more holy than the Novus Ordo. But simply saying it doesn’t make it so. Capisce?
To clarify, that does not include statements like “Masturbation is objectively a mortal sin.” Talking about mortal sin pretty well presupposes a Catholic context, and according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, masturbation is “objectively” a mortal sin. And since I am convinced that the Catholic Church’s teachings are true, I accept that statement. I also accept that someone who is, say, atheist will not accept the statement. It doesn’t make them right; it doesn’t make the statement untrue. But I understand that an atheist is unlikely to accept the notion of sin at all, much less mortal and venial and that masturbation qualifies; and it’s my job as a Catholic to try to convince them otherwise.
I haven’t heard that one yet. It must be the new fad, like “arguably” was a while back.
Maybe the next time someone says it, you could say, “Objectively? Yeah, I certainly object!” About the 20th time you did that, everyone around you would studiously avoid using that phrase.
Since when do words have to have finite meaning?!? Heehee, or I could just phrase all my arguments to you as, “*jectively speaking…” Then, it could be sub- or ob- … How’s that?
Tell you what, Jaibee - try it on Fr. John and see how it flies. Then we’ll talk. :-p
MissJean, it seems to be the big thing among trads in comboxes. Most recently I saw someone state that Haugen/Haas “objectively” trivializes the sacred nature of the Mass. While I’m somewhat sympathetic to that point of view, I don’t think it’s quite as cut-and-dried as the person who made the statement obviously did. And I have seen both of the particular statements I referenced (re: the Rosary and the extraordinary form) in comboxes. Made me want to bang my head against a wall.
IMHO the word “objectively” should only be used when you can point to an authoritative source for the statement. In science you point to the scientific study which proves the claim. In law you point to the court decision which proves your point. And in theological matters you point to the infalible, (or at least doctrinal) pronouncements of the Holy See or a Dogmatic declaration of a Church Council.
Well, I think you are obviously overeacting. (OBviously is obviously one of my pet peeves.) There’s actually a great chapter in a book I have, where all sorts of these things are discussed. “In denial” is the one I’m thinking of now. I’ll have to dig out the book.
TBS
“The Clam Rampant” is objectively the best blog I’ve ever read.
Furthermore, broccoli and tomatoes are objectively good eats… with all due respect to Clam and The Canuck
Hmm…DJ, I think you could make an argument for the broccoli and tomatoes one based on their nutritional value. They are objectively good eats. However, I subjectively hate tomatoes. I also subjectively loooove broccoli, especially lightly steamed with a little lemon juice sprinkled onto it! (Darn that Canuck…
)
I will always object to tomatoes being considered “edible” since they are actually related to belladonna. Or is it nightshade? I forget. But it’s poison, whatever it is. :-p
Ah, you have a good memory, Clam… it’s nightshade.
All arguments are subjective. The very fact that two people (two subjects) are involved make the argument subjective.
Objective argument is introducing premises into the argument that are true regardless of whether either subject likes it.
example: If you give someone poison, s/he will die.
If you cause someone to die, you kill him/her.
Therefore if you give someone poison, you kill him.
That is an objective argument.
As far as best prayers are concerned: that is subjective.
BTW, IMHO, the best prayer is the one one prays.
Kasia, I have been avoiding comboxes except at your site and Jeff Miller’s. There’s a particularly catty commenter at Gerald’s site who brings bile to my mouth. I’m getting enough of that at my workplace.
MissJean: that’s probably the best policy.
Puff: Thanks for the clarification. I had a vague inkling of that, but your spelling it out helps (my joshing with DJ about tomatoes and broccoli aside).
Out of curiosity, using your criteria, how would you characterize apologetics discussions? That is, when you have two people with two different sets of beliefs, but assuming that there IS such thing as objective truth…how do things like the existence of God or the divinity, death and resurrection of Jesus get classified?
Without basic accepted premises a debate cannot ensue.
As far as Atheists versus Theists is concerned. I like Mother Angelica’s tactic: When they ask you to prove that God exists turn it around and ask them to prove God doesn’t exist. After all they are in the minority.
They cannot give you a definitive proof that God doesn’t exist. Therefore they believe in something that cannot be proven and believing in something that cannot be proven is FAITH. So they have faith.
If he is right and when we die that’s it there is nothing: then he loses nothing and I lose nothing.
But if you (and we) are right and God and eternity does exist, then the atheist is going to know it for a very, very long time.
As for the others I would get the arguements as set forth in the catechism ( and the Vatican documents)
OK - so even if it is objectively true that God exists, if it is not accepted as an objectively true premise by one of the parties, it counts as a subjective statement?
No. If one party rejects the existence of God, then the the other party would be held as having an objectively false premise, not a subjective one.
It’s like Bertram Russell trying to prove that 1 1=2. He spent 300 pages of mathematical calculations to prove it. But all his calculations were based on the accepted premise that 1 1=2 so that in the end all his work did say was, in short:
Assuming that 1 1=2, we can conclude that 1 1=2.
BTW you are tagged for the 100 movies meme.
The plus sign ” ” didn’t show up in the equations sorry.
hope it shows up here.
If one of the parties rejects the existence of God, pray for them.
Hope for invincible ignorance.