Subjectivity is somewhat on the other end of the scale. As with subjectivity, many ideas and elements integrate subjectivity into part of their respective areas of knowledge. The best example of subjective thinking can be considered as religion. Religion has nothing to do with quantity or any sort of empirical analysis. As mentioned before, science relies on objective thinking, which means that it relies on replicable, measurable branches. Subjectivity is more towards the individual itself. It incorporates aesthetic, cultural, etc… tendencies. Basically, subjectivity can be said to be thinking qualitatively. Taking the example of the scientist studying the bird, the main question the scientist comes across is “Should I kill it?” The scientist, in order to know the anatomy, has to dissect the bird. He has to study the physio-chemical dimension in order to know. But in the laboratory, the scientist’s feelings cannot be isolated and thrown away. The scientist’s “gut feeling” is great enough that can take him away from his objective, he is able to do so. That is subjective thinking; based on the quality not the quantity.
Objectivity, as mentioned before, has to do with quantitative thinking. Science uses this quantitative thinking in relation to all its questions. One must consider and notice that all scientific questions have to do with empirical and quantitative analysis. For example, if a man passes a woman whom he loves, science would describe that feeling as a rush of blood to the cheeks, an increase in output of hormones, etc… But can we describe love quantitatively? This is one of the many limits of objectivity. When we talk about science, we refer to the empirical nature of science. Empirical means variables that can be controlled. Can the amount of love that one feels be controlled as science says it can? This really cannot be controlled as love lies in the qualitative dimension. In order to be objective, we need to measure. And love is something that certainly cannot be measured. If we relate this to a greater extent, in terms of life, we cannot measure life. Life is not a quantity that can be experimentally deducted. At the level of life, you cannot control all the variables. In the scientific method you can, maybe, control heartbeat and pulse but never life as a whole. In itself, this is a great limitation.
Subjectivity by itself is not enough in the knowing process. Objectivity is required if we are to truly know. A “characteristic” of objectivity is the fact that it arises from subjectivity itself. Subjective thinking has been the basis for the knowing process for thousands of years and only in the modern age has objectivity arisen. Religion in the past is hardly different from religion today with subtle differences in people’s faiths. Faith today is the only thing that is different in religion from the past. Religion emphasizes the question of what is most true. Basically, in order to know God, you cannot study holy scriptures and manuscripts. The real way to know God is to experience what and who God is. It does not involve endless of hours of studying, but of devotion. Through true devotion to God, one can truly know Him.
We know the problematic nature of subjectivity and objectivity. Subjectivity is the basis for objectivity so it is only natural that objectivity is not everything. In the modern world, people see science as the only form of knowledge because it can explain our universe, our world and us. But the limitation of science is that it can only explain these things at the physio-chemical level. What about the mind? Can science explain love in more than terms of biology? We know that it cannot and that is one of the main limitations of objectivity. To truly know, we must be objective and at the same time experience and embrace the knowing process. Experience in itself will teach us things that are dormant.
