Subjectivity, Objectivity, and One True Wayism in RPGs

[Mercurius]

This is a followup from a conversation in this thread (which was, for some inexplicable reason, closed). The relevant conversation is quoted below.

Howandwhy99, I would say that what you are talking about is not "objectivity," but "inter-subjectivity." As Raven Crowking points out, the very act of perception is inherently subjective, which is always representative of the object but not the object itself (although some may argue that it is the "internal domain" of the object). But the point is, subjectivity is never an exact match of the object (and even if it could be, it would still be a subjective perspective; i.e. my perspective on a banana is not the banana itself).

This is where organized religions and other "isms" can be accused of "One True Wayism" because they inflate and confuse their inter-subjective belief systems with objective reality. Some of the more subtly philosophical belief systems are aware of this and recognize that their perspective is just that, a perspective on a reality that is forever beyond our full comprehension or definition. I would say that Buddhism, or certain streams within Buddhism, is a great example of this; although Buddhists are just as able to confuse their belief structures with reality as anyone else.

How does this relate to Edition Wars and RPG discourse in general? We can all recognize that we have our own personal opinion which is inherently subjective and not to be confused with "objective reality" (Or at least I hope we can!). But it is a bit trickier differentiating various inter-subjective agreements which are themselves contextual and not inherently, or objectively "true." Any community or relationship, no matter how large or small, has a shared inter-subjective domain of agreements, whether implied or explicitly stated (or usually both). It doesn't make them less meaningful; actually, it points out that meaning largely arises through inter-subjectivity, that the meaning is in and from the people involved.

We can look at morality and such: are there moral laws built into the very fabric of reality as absolute, Platonic truths? We have no way to really prove that, but we can say that we all have subjective moral standards and inter-subjective moral agreements or ethics, which are no more or less meaningful by not necessarily being "objective."

But I think the point in this context is that we have to be able to question these inter-subjective beliefs, not only because they are many and varied and often conflicting, but because they--like our own subjective viewpoints--are subject to change and evolution. What we see as "wrong" now may not be so in 20 or 200 years; in the 1950s it wasn't "wrong" (to most people) to call African Americans "negroes"; now, in the intersubjective domain, it is. For many Americans, homosexuality is "wrong" and, unfortunately, it is mainly those Americans that are not able to differentiate between their own (inter-subjective) belief structures and objective reality. This is not to pick on the "Religious Right", but to point out just how problematic it can become when we are "fused" to our own perspective as absolute truth; that is, when we cannot be self-critical.

Engaging in civil discussion or debate on "hot", although relatively tame in the larger scheme of things, topics like editions of D&D is an opportunity to not only be self-critical, but to open to different perspectives and (hopefully!) evolve one's own. It is pretty useless to bash heads over editions of a game, but where it gets interesting is when different views are presented and we try to enter into the viewpoint of another, to really "try it on" and see how it may relate with our subjectivity, and even how it may change our own opinion. I personally like hearing different views on editions of D&D because it helps me not only better understand the different iteration of the game, but expand my own RPG sensibilities and even evolve the way I experience the game.

To put it another way, if two spouses always agreed on everything, nothing would ever change; things would be fine, but there'd be no evolution, not movement towards something greater. If they always fought, they'd be miserable and/or separate; but if they are to discuss differences and be open to the other, they potential is there for not only individual growth but a dynamic relationship of complementary polarities.

Too true. But, not to get metaphysical on yo' ass, what is "objective meaning?" That's partially the point, I think. There is a kind of irony to the whole "One True Wayism" perspective in that it is both pointing out that all viewpoints are subjective, but also implying an underlying objective, "true" approach to interpersonal relations that we all shalt follow, akin to what Jurgen Habermas called the "performative contradiction." (talk about jargon...Jargon Habermas? ).

Or, as the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy would say, "All dharmas are empty, including that one." Saying "There is no one true way" is itself a subtle kind of One True Wayism. This is not to say that we should all become nihilists and believe in naahthing; but that we should (imho) hold the most inclusive, truthful worldview that we can imagine, with the understanding that it can never be "complete," and thereby remain open to forever evolving our worldview.

Did I go too far?

Encyclopediacally-speaking? Objectivity is the subjectively-perceived, communal view attempted to be communicated between collectively-identifying, recursively-processing, self and other-reproducing, multi-cellular "things". In other words, it's a merely a group of people who share a common belief rather than just one person spouting an opinion, which would be subjective belief instead.

Current post-philosophical arguments are attempting to move away from dogmatisms like fundamentalist belief systems toward more pragmatic belief behaviors. However, they all too often slip into relativism, which is just as much a dogma (or dharma, as you point out). Whether pragmatism is a performative contradiction I leave to you, Habermas (the old schnauzer), and and any philosopher still working in epistemology.

Howandwhy99 is sitting in a chair. Umbran walks up with an apple, and holds it over Howandwhy99's head. When Umbran lets go of the apple, it falls and lightly bonks off said head.

This is objectivity. No amount of communal viewing or common belief changes how the apple falls. Objectivity is not common belief - it is what happens irrespective of what we believe.

I would agree, with the caveat that, since our only mode of experience is perforce subjective, there is no means by which we can determine exactly what happens irrespective of what we believe. All we have is a model (map) of our subjective experiences thus far, used to predict future occurances. We have no proof that our model (map) is correct. Indeed, it is almost a certainty that events will occur which will force us to revise it.

Even if our model was 100% correct, we would have no way of determining that. All we could say is that observation corresponds to the model so far.

I would agree, with the caveat that this is not relativistic rocket science, so that absolute exactness is not required - waiting for such is equivalent to nihilism. The computer you are typing on was created with lack of exact knowledge of how electrons behave, but it was sure good enough, right?

Also, don't conflate accuracy and precision. Precision is how exact your measurements are - to how many decimal places can you measure. Accuracy is correctness. That the apple falls is not subjective, and is accurate. Exactly how fast it falls we might quibble about, and may be subjective to how each of us measures, or our particular frame of reference, so it might be subjective.

Anyone who does not agree with the fact that the apple falls is moving away from Earth so fast that we cannot effectively communicate with him or her anyway, so they may be ignored

And, all of this is neither here nor there - Edition Wars are primarily based on none of that, but instead upon whether my bonking Howandwhy99 on the head with an apple is the height of comedy, or an indication that I have a vicious personal vendetta against him to be mercilessly pelting him with fruit.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would love to see this become a long and fruitful discussion, and I hope that the board rules do not prevent it from becoming so. This is an area in which I am keenly interested.

Suffice it to say, "That the apple falls" is both objective and accurate, within a certain framework which is (itself) subjective. Science gives us the best possible predictive methods by doing as much as is possible to limit subjectivity, but subjectivity cannot be eliminated from any observation, or from any observational statement.


RC

 

[kenmarable]

I would love to see this become a long and fruitful discussion, and I hope that the board rules do not prevent it from becoming so. This is an area in which I am keenly interested.

Suffice it to say, "That the apple falls" is both objective and accurate, within a certain framework which is (itself) subjective. Science gives us the best possible predictive methods by doing as much as is possible to limit subjectivity, but subjectivity cannot be eliminated from any observation, or from any observational statement.


RC

Ah... should I break out Wittgenstein's language games or just go all out with Pragmatism (not pragmatism in a general small 'p' sense, but capital 'P' official philosophical theory)? Yes, I'll warn you that I am working on my Ph.D. in philosophy.

I'm with you, which is in broad strokes much of the Pragmatist viewpoint. The OP mentioned Platonic absolute Truth which, in some form or another, has shaped thousands of years of thought and philosophical debate. There is a Truth out there that we can get at through rationality. You can have Knowledge (justified True beliefs) based upon this Truth.

Pragmatism says that's all a bunch of hogwash. Whether or not there is some objective Truth out there or Reality to be discovered is senseless. Everything we believe and everything we perceive is based upon prior assumptions. Now, any one of those background assumptions can be changed. But to do so, you need to rely on other assumptions or experiences to make that change.

So any belief can be altered. You just can't alter them ALL, at least not at once. Overtime, you can re-shape and alter them all so that you have an entirely different set of beliefs, but you need to get there one step at a time.

Now obviously some beliefs work far better than others. Dropped objects will fall fits with nearly every experience I've ever had and explains them very well. So it is true in that it's the best fit that we've got. However, trying to make the leap from "true" to "Truth" is where a Pragmatist thinks you start talking gibberish.

And much of the inspiration for this came from science. Some scientists may think they are discovering the Truth of Reality, but when you really dig into what science is and what it does, it epitomizes this view. It is just a vast collection of hypotheses that are tested and refined in an extremely systematic way. But every scientific "fact" is "true as we know so far" and are all open to refinement (and in some cases even refutation) based on future experiments. Not to mention each individual science operates on a set of assumptions and point of view. So the truths of biology don't disprove the truths of chemistry or physics. Each has it's own domain of discourse and investigation, and the truths hold within those domains.


Now, as for RPGs... uh... well... um... Plato wrote the first campaign setting! In the Republic (I think), he said there should be a society where all children are tested for mental and physical aptitude. Then the best of them become wards of the city-state to be trained in physical/combat and philosophical arts to become an elite philosopher-warrior caste as adults. The best among them would rise to the ranks of philosopher-kings and jointly rule the City-state. Sounds like an interesting basis for a setting to me!

 

[Celebrim]

This is where organized religions and other "isms" can be accused of "One True Wayism" because they inflate and confuse their inter-subjective belief systems with objective reality.

Are you suggesting that this is absolutely and objectively true?

How does this relate to Edition Wars and RPG discourse in general? We can all recognize that we have our own personal opinion which is inherently subjective and not to be confused with "objective reality" (Or at least I hope we can!). But it is a bit trickier differentiating various inter-subjective agreements which are themselves contextual and not inherently, or objectively "true."

Including when the contextual inter-subjective agreement is that something is only contexual and subjectively true, or that meaning largely arrise through inter-subjectivity. But, by the standards of this agreement, this agreement itself is only inter-subjectively agreed upon. It can't claim without contridiction that what someone else believes is only inter-subjectively agreed upon, but that its own agreement and belief system is somehow different and objectively true.

The best you can really do in this situation is claim that some area of belief is one that many reasonable people disagree about. You can't claim from that that since many reasonable people disagree, that none of them are right. And further more, you should be especially suspect of claiming that though many people disagree, only you are right.

Not to pick on anyone, you understand, but it seems to me that the lack of self-criticism is not monopolized by anyone.

 

[Piratecat]

If a thread is closed, please don't start a new thread on the same topic. If you have a question about moderation, email or PM the moderator responsible.

Feel free to drop me a note. I'm happy to discuss it.

Klunk.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm reopening this thread. A few folks asked politely why it had been closed, and the answer was "because I screwed up because I thought it was only a direct continuation of a different thread that had been closed." We have a long-standing rule about that, but checking it now that clearly wasn't the case. Heck, the thing that really ticked me off in the previous thread doesn't look so bad with hindsight, either.

Carry on, and have fun with the discussion.

 

[BryonD]

I would love to see this become a long and fruitful discussion, and I hope that the board rules do not prevent it from becoming so. This is an area in which I am keenly interested.

Suffice it to say, "That the apple falls" is both objective and accurate, within a certain framework which is (itself) subjective. Science gives us the best possible predictive methods by doing as much as is possible to limit subjectivity, but subjectivity cannot be eliminated from any observation, or from any observational statement.


RC

But the accuracy of the prediction by pure physics, subject to Heisenberg Uncertainty, is to a scale that is thousands (or more) orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of an electron.

The degree of subjectivity in the apple falling is literally vastly beyond any inconceivably small element of reality. To call it meaningless is to greatly overstate its importance.

 

[Mercurius]

Thanks, Piratecat, and kudos to you.

 

[Snoweel]

Not to pick on anyone, you understand, but it seems to me that the lack of self-criticism is not monopolized by anyone.

This.

While it's all well and good to claim

not to pick on the "Religious Right"

the (post-)modern obsession with the philosophical flaws of that particular group has directly led to a degradation in honesty, objectivity and ethical courage amongst the rest of us.

I suggest that criticism of others (even though we're careful "not to pick on" them) directly leads to a diminished level of self-criticism.

Of course, this is just my subjective opinion.

 

[Umbran]

So, the first part of this post is going to be largely academic. I'll get into why when I get to the second part of the post...

I reject the whole "we cannot know objective truth" posit. It is trivial to counter, as it is itself paradoxical. Consider:

Statement A: "Humans cannot know objective truth."

If A is always true, then it is itself an objective truth. Then by A, we cannot know A to be true!

*poof!*

Those who say that since all our observations are subjective, we can never know objective truth either have a predetermined idea of what counts as "objective truth"*, or they have failed to understand the very basic point of modern empirical science.

In science, we take lots of measurements. Each of them has some error, some subjectivity. But we take a lot of them, many different ways. They don't all have the exact same subjectivity. The end result is that the errors and subjectivities tend to average out, leaving us with something suspiciously like truth. It is a crucible, in which all those errors, over time and effort, get burned away.

Now, as I said, by and large, this is irrelevant. I brought it up only so I could knock it down.

Yes, for some specific measure, we could, if we really wanted to, test one edition against another. We could investigate, and find some good definition of what combats are equivalent in 3e and 4e. We could then run them, and time them, and see which one is faster.

We could, but we won't. Doing this properly takes time and manpower - effectively, it takes money. Nobody is going to put in the effort to do it right and definitively, because it is a lot of work for a very small amount of information that doesn't matter all that much. So - we will always be working with anecdotal evidence.

But if we did do the experiment, some wiseacre would say, "But I like slow and complicated combat!" and all those who had put all the work into determining which was "superior" would beat their heads against the wall, because they had forgotten the singular fact that while we can see which edition is greater or lesser in some measure, "superior" is a matter of taste.

And, in the original meaning - there is no accounting (no mathematics) for taste.



*Specifically - objective truth does not need to be accurate to an infinite number of decimal points, and objective truth can, in fact, come with qualifiers. Mr. Heisenberg has cleanly demonstrated that.