If that which is observed is too often untrue because of subjectivity, then why is it that so many commonalities can be observed? Let me begin again: If that which is observed, bears striking resemblance of variables across the board in a way that virtually everyone (save a small minority) can interact as a relatively functioning society, then it must also be true that those resemblances exist. This seems to be deductively true.
But what is the nature of these commonalities?
In my experience they have seemed very hard to know too often. Then again, I can’t ignore the preponderance of times that I do know very well what to do and what principle to apply in a non-contradictory manner, at least within my own system of thought and corresponding ‘keyhole’ of reality. But what if a keyhole is more like a series of doors in a hotel, and many of them are open, many. Many are closed. One is going down hallways in life trying to remember what doors are closed, because really most of the ones they pass by, happen to be or they have found the keys to. There is no skeleton key it seems. Yet this is the conclusion that I see observing, as the tool that wipes an abstract, conceptual awareness out of life.
I pity people as much as I oppose them, very often. Philosophy, qua philosophy–is the skeleton key. Or keys. The tragedy is that this is the very thing people think of as what is tearing down their lives. I hear this everywhere. “You can’t trust what you see,” “You base too much on your system of thought,” “Philosophy is not gonna help, it’s all about the bottom line.”
It applies to politics too… “Obama has finally killed Osama Bin Laden!” Never mind the fact that there was no trial, no jury, and he went straight to execution despite a scarcity of evidence against him. In our culture thinking, culture itself and philosophy are all abandoning ship. In comes the third or second-world United States.
I must say that philosophy as a skeleton key is really more like keys. Many ‘skeleton’ keys. When I have an experience that is what I call ‘objective’ vs. subjective, I always have a few correlating events.
1. I -feel- awake in a way I can’t often identify that nearly matches the sensation felt when coming clean about a lie I’ve told in the past.
2. The social interaction I’m having either tends gets better or worse with instantly more rapidity than it would without said subject being relayed to said person.
3. The instances in which the relayed principle brings about a positive interaction tends to be seen as a success of communication rather than philosophy that both are in agreement on. (I am half the time pretending to be in agreement in order to better be able to isolate behavior under different conditions.) I should note that change of my own tonality or delivery is not clear how people will react though very much seems to be hinged upon the principle itself, understood by both parties or all involved. The interaction also tends to incorporate a common vocabulary that mediates virtually all future conflicts under said principle, and at the very least, alleviates all conflict quite significantly.
4. The negative instances are far more inconsistent, but tend to respond with frustration and anger and often (on both sides) rage and disownership. Disownership of my own persona entirely on their side and tonality and delivery on mine. The most interesting feature of the negative results is that change of my own tonality/delivery is nearly 100% of how ‘they’ will react. (I’m re-realizing this AS I’m writing this). This may be an important feature in my total observations as well.