Everyone has an opinion. And everyone is entitled to have one. (Even though it would be nice if everyone would be able to also decide not to have an opinion about everything, and to leave their opinion at the door.)
But it does become a problem when an opinion is considered to be objective. Yes, in a way I'm talking about the problem of identifying facts and the post-truth age we live in. But there are many different aspects to this problem. So let's focus on one for now: what does 'being objective' really mean?
Objectivity
Being objective, is normally understood as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." (Thanks, dictionary.com.) From this definition it follows there are two different worlds - one that is related and dependent on your own feelings, interpretations and ideas. And the other one that is outside of those, independent of all those. An unbiased point of view would then be expressing an opinion solely based that world that is independent of your own feelings.
Philosophically speaking, this is very difficult to understand. Anything one says or does, is connected to the fully person doing the saying. Your body, your being, is the accumulation of everything you have experienced, everything you are already. There is no such a thing as an idea that exists outside of being already connected to you thinking it. As Heidegger puts it nicely, a human is a being-in-the-world. We cannot think something outside this already-being-connected.
This might sound only true for idealists, but is just as true for others, like phenomenologists and speculative realists.
But... what about facts? What about truth?
This doesn't mean that truth is off the table. Or that we can simply dismiss facts. We should however be aware that even facts, even scientific facts, are based on presumptions about how things work. Not everything is a given, many things we have decided they work in this specific manner. Which is not to say that it is an illusion, or that it is false. It simply means that it is based upon our understanding of things, and not some objective reality out there that is waiting for us to discover it.
For a long time we did think that this was the case. That reality was waiting to be discovered, and if we only worked hard enough, we would understand and know everything. With the rise of modernity, we have realised that the way we order reality, makes for the way we understand things. And this has consequences. This allows for fundamental truths we never even knew we even held for true, can be smashed to pieces by people who dare to rethink it, and to rely on other fundamental outlooks of what reality is.
This doesn't lead to a relativistic world, which some post-truth advocates want us to believe. It doesn't mean that everything is allowed as long as it is a belief and as long someone decides it is worth believing. No. Precisely because we create our own world to a large extend, we are also responsible for it. We cannot hide behind the idea of 'this is my truth, so it's not my problem". If your truth is hurting other people, this is very much your problem, no matter how you may label your actions. This is precisely why it is so important to keep thinking, questioning your own assumptions - but also to take a stand if it is necessary.
Neither does this lead to nihilism, as some readers of Nietzsche might contend. I suggest to read Nietzsche again, dear friends. Giving up is not Nietzsche's answer, at all. But let's keep this discussion for another time.
Nobody is unbiased
The consequence of all this is that the division that 'objectivity' tries to lay out, is an illusion. It is not something set in stone. It is something that may work for you, but it doesn't work for me. A truth, a fact, is valuable because I subscribe to specific ideas about science and the scientific method. That makes it true not because it is objective, but because it fits my world view. A world view I'm willing to take a hit for, a world view I think has brought humankind many great things, but which also has its limitations and I'm looking forward to the day that some kid genius will show how stupid we've all been all these years and will introduce a worldview that works even better. That will solve the problems of quantum entanglement once and for all.
What I'm say, is that nobody is unbiased. And that's okay. We should simply be aware of our own entanglement with the world and the worldviews we surround ourselves with. So that we refrain from claiming something we are not. We have something to offer because we are not unbiased. We are a human being because we are not objective.
But why does this matter? An example from the writing process
Having people read or see some of your creative work, and asking them to comment on it, can be a scary thing. What will they say? Will they comment based on their friendship with you - and do their words say more about what they cherish in your relationship, or will the look at the work and give their honest view?
What I hear people often say, is that they will strive to give objective feedback. But what does that even mean? Can you give an opinion that is not always based on something? When you choose to look at something and not something else, doesn't that already show your interest, who you are, what you want in life? Every choice for one thing, is a denial of the opposite - at least in a world that is dualistic.
It is impossible to be unbiased. Let's start to own up to that. And be careful in sharing opinions, facts, truth.
Disclaimer: This post on what it means to be unbiased is a reflection of my present understanding. It in no way is to be considered as a limit on my future views. Philosophy as I aim to practise it, is to strive to break one's understanding of the world and incorporate the new void into your future self, who is always nothing but present in the present.
