Lisa Bloksgaard Markussen
TOK
23/8 2008
Wordcount: 1.757
Question 8
To understand something you need to rely on your own experience and
culture. Does this mean it is impossible to have objective knowledge?
It is as indicated by the title presumed that in order to reach an understanding of for example a
subject, a concept or a every-day life situation you must rely on your own experience and culture.
Therefore the basis of all our actions is derived from our experience and culture. But since our
ability to understand something is limited by our own experience and culture does that mean it is
impossible to have objective knowledge?
The subjects used to investigate this claim are set against a spectrum of objectivitysubjectivity. They include mathematics, science including biology and physics, language, history
and religion. Each are investigated for their extent of objectivity.
If we assume that all our understanding of something be it subjects, concepts or live-situations then
in the purest meaning of the word objectivity it is not possible to have objective knowledge or to act
objectively. There is always some factor, which will make any decision and/or action subjective
since our actions are based on what we have either consciously or subconsciously learned. Perhaps
what is necessary to do is to review the terms objective and subjective in this case. If everything and
everyone is subjective and none are objective than that robs the word of its meaning. The word
objective then applies to nothing. The question of objectivism cannot be dealt with in black and
white without compromise. It might not be possible to be a hundred percent objective, however
there are degrees of objectivity. It is important to be generous with the term objective.
Having said that by looking at the degrees of objectivity I have constructed a spectrum of what I
believe to be the most and least objective within the area of subjects I have considered.
Spectrum of objectivity:
1
Lisa Bloksgaard Markussen
TOK
23/8 2008
Wordcount: 1.757
The subject that I consider to be the most objective is mathematics. I believe that mathematics is a
theory-based concept that has been created to use much like a tool in order to explain different
things in the world. In many ways it is a language except it is or has become a universal language.
The foundation of all mathematics is the logical-axioms, which are the indisputable statements that
have been agreed upon throughout the world. All other mathematical theories are derived from
these axioms and therefore mathematics is a very objective concept since our understanding of it is
based on the same commonly agreed-upon knowledge or learning experiences.
However some might argue though that mathematics is an entirely man-made concept
and is all theory-based and is therefore very subjective since it has no real hold in real life. It is all
theory. If total objectivity is considered to be the absence of human influence than mathematics is
not objective knowledge.
Mathematics and sciences such as biology and physics are often considered to be closer linked than
for example mathematics and history. I believe this derives from the approach towards the two
subjects. It is imprecise to categorize sciences such as biology, chemistry and physics under the
single name of science, since the differences within the subject are massive. However they do share
some common traits one being the approach toward new knowledge. All, including mathematics,
are based on the ability to prove that the claims made are true; evidence being the key word. The
scientific community can be a very demanding one and any new discovery will be scrutinized, but
this is what makes science in most people eyes so reliable, because it has been questioned from
every considerable angle. In biology for example the evidence can be found in nature.
However much like in mathematics biology and other sciences are a man-made
concept in order to understand the world surrounding us. An example could be gravity in physics.
There is a force pulling things down causing them to fall, which we know based on our direct
experience and observations of falling objects, however the concept and properties of gravity is
mans way of explaining the phenomenon. It is our understanding of the phenomenon, not the
phenomenon itself.
This human aspect within sciences is what makes it less objective. The outcome and
peoples’ acceptance of new discoveries are what is subjective since it is highly influenced by things
such as culture, religion and politics. A famous example where culture/religion/politics have
influenced scientific progress is the question of stem-cell research and whether it should be carried
out. Science is not a separate entity cut off from human influence and judgment. Therefore the
subjects within science are relatively objective in themselves however their effect on and uses in the
2
Lisa Bloksgaard Markussen
TOK
23/8 2008
Wordcount: 1.757
real world is not. Isn’t my earlier statement that science is in the eyes of most people considered to
be one of the most objective subjects in the world proof that I my understanding of it is strongly
influenced by my western culture, since I am more inclined to believe in science than in a thing
such as religion?
Even in language there is subjectivity. Languages from different cultures have varying
meanings to the same words unlike in mathematics where there is only one meaning. That is one of
the challenges with translations. Even though the word is the same there might be a difference the
meaning and the history of the word. The cultural background is different. Take a word such as
power, which can mean many things for different peoples and cultures. To some power is
something good. Their understanding of power could be the ability to make a difference in society.
To others power is something terrifying which corrupts. Even put in context the word means
different things. By saying black power, most think of overcoming oppression and slavery.
However if the sentence is white power, the meaning changes completely to thoughts of the KKK
and skinheads. It is not the words in themselves that adds the meaning but the culture and history of
the speaker/writer/reader, making words very subjective.
The subject of history is very interesting in this argument. The real question as to
whether history is objective lies in the account of history and not history itself. I believe that history
is not objective, since we’ve already established that peoples “understanding of something” is
based on their experience and culture. This understanding of for example a real-life situation leads
to action and since history is the account of previous actions, then history itself cannot be objective.
However the real question is whether the historians who have written the history have been
objective. In reality history is not a very old subject, and most of the accounts that history has been
based on, have not had the goal to be objective, but instead to promote the actions of the rulers at
the time or even as a source of entertainment. There is a saying that “History is written by the
victors1”, as a mean to familiarize the conquered with the new rule. Therefore old accounts of
history are anything but objective.
That does not mean that the history from the last decade and present day is any more
objective than before. Since history has become a subject in schools it is even effectively used as a
way to promote people and countries actions, because it is now taught as facts. In varying degrees
historical “facts” are presented in a way, that makes the country in which it is taught appear to its
greatest advantage, and no one objects to this form of presenting since it is commonly accepted and
1
Commonly attributed to Winston Churchill
3
Lisa Bloksgaard Markussen
TOK
23/8 2008
Wordcount: 1.757
unquestioned. An example of my own experience with this is the teachings of World War 2 in
Denmark. Even though Denmark helped support Germany and its allies it is commonly believed in
Denmark, that we were occupied by Germany. However large parts of Denmark were actually proHitler in the early years of the war, though that is not something taught in schools, and even though
the “alliance” is never directly denied it is always referred to as cooperation and not alliance. The
real challenge for historians is to separate the propaganda from the real facts.
This leads to the end of the spectrum. In my opinion religion is probably the least
objective thing in the world. In many cases the difference between culture and religion is almost
indistinguishable. It is very important to draw a strong line between the two concepts of religion
and faith. Faith is the belief in something whereas religion is the rules of how to express this faith.
Faith in itself is absolutely subjective and is based on nothing but a person’s own personal
experience and culture. Religion and culture is not that different from each other since they are both
based within a group of people whom have decided on a set of rules and conducts of behavior,
which everyone follows. In my opinion these rules, either clearly stated or subconsciously accepted,
are what religion and culture is. The difference however lies in the written account. In religion the
rules are set in stone (sometimes literally) and are claimed to be universal and unchangeable.
Culture on the other hand changes with society and is not universal, but confined within a certain
area/people of varying extent. Culture changes all the time whereas religion doesn’t.
Therefore since the basis of religion is faith, and the implications it has on the world
are also very subjective and unlike mathematics it is not based on evidence it is therefore in my
opinion the most subjective subject on the spectrum. This is of course from my very western
cultural and experience-vise perspective.
The subjects investigated show a difference in objectivity that has an effect on our understanding of
the different subjects. It is true that our understanding of the different subjects are based on our
experience and culture, but it is how limited these experiences and cultural beliefs are that
determine the degree of objectivity. In mathematics where the experiences are universal to us the
subject is highly objective whereas history and religion is much more confined to a smaller range of
experience and culture. Therefore those subjects are more subjective.
I don’t believe there is such a thing as true objective knowledge, since the differences
in experiences and culture will always have an effect on our understandings but there are degrees of
subjectivity and then it is up to the individual to make their decisions on what to believe in based on
their own experience and culture.
4