Subject and Object

Here is a question for exploring subjectivity and objectivity: Is subjectivity prized for its immediate quality while objectivity is prized for its reliability?

Fear and Loathing in Diversity

I. In Diversity

What if "diversity" contained "integrity?" Let us suppose that Nietzsche is right in assuming that truth is the sum of all perspectives, especially since this is the assumption that must be made to argue that diversity is a core value.

If diversity is to say all of us are different, the amateur philosopher might say that all communication becomes haphazard translation or worse, impossible. I say amateur here because language would not break down this way based on someone describing it thus. Nonetheless, let's go further and assume that diversity is the big category and integrity is subsumed. It would look like this:

1. Truth is the sum of all perspectives (even if conflictual).
2. Integrity is only possible if diversity is.
3. Consistency is not necessary.

Now, with diversity at the head of the argument, truth is the container of all perspectives and even if the perspectives conflict, they cannot be eradicated. This seems to acknowledge that every voice can be heard even if the sum total of sound is a cacophony. After all, agreement is not the fundamental issue, but appreciation for difference.

Phase two, integrity as the smaller category is only possible if it is assumed you can be different.

Finally, consistency is not necessary since the starting point is also a diversity within ourselves. We may exhibit conflict in our own view, but we are still a whole human being.

II. Fear and Loathing

Now the differences of the two worldviews can be made explicit, though with fear and loathing. Within the view that perspectives come first, we find ourselves in hell. (And if I use this word again, I intend to capitalize.)

Diversity as a subcategory of integrity has the shape of listening to another argument and taking responsibility for it. Integrity as a subcategory of diversity insists that disagreeing with another person is a political act. The difference is that for the sake of valuing integrity first, one must take the argument on their shoulders, while the disagreement within the diversity perspective entails taking the argument as a question of its first premise: one is already endowed with a voice, an entire human being, and whole.

Consider integrity as the starting point, and it must be assumed that one is sympathetic to the possibility of not being whole. They must be open to the argument of someone who is arguing from the standpoint of diversity as the core value. What is more, the one who takes integrity as the starting point must take responsibility for the integration of another person's questions.

III. Ahem

In brief, if truth is the sum of all perspectives, we are all works in progress. Ironically, it is the integrity position that is willing to accept the limitations.

If integrity is only possible if diversity is, the integrity itself will contain the notion that it is already whole and will remain (ironically) in the position of viewing all disagreements as political acts. What ensues is talking past the other.

If consistency is not necessary, one is certainly not assuming that one needs to be made whole. If consistency is necessary, one recognizes the need to be made whole. There is, ironically, a need to be responsible for what all that is said to be whole.

In conclusion, the two models set a choice before us: what are our core values? I find the thought of beginning in diversity (clearing my throat) to amount to a contract made in Hell.

Diversity Pro and Con

Diversity is the antonym of integrity. When we refer to integrity as inward, unifying, and consistent, diversity is outward, proliferating, and problematic.

The solution to the problem is that diversity is included in integrity, not the other way around. If we place diversity within integrity, we arrive at Kant's three maxims of thought:

1. To think for one's self
2. To think from the standpoint of others
3. Always to think consistently.

Taken as a whole, I would call this the Kantian view of integrity. Kant's formulation of integrity begins with thinking for one's self. He calls it the maxim of unprejudiced thought since reason is never passive. The passivity towards one's own thinking is subjugation to prejudice. In a nutshell, one must take responsibility for their own thinking.

The second maxim of thought is the diversity clause. Kant calls this the maxim of enlarged thought. Without an appreciation for difference in thought there is no growth and our thinking goes uninformed. Thought would be impoverished and perhaps, we would be up against a logically private language.

The third maxim is fairly self-explanatory, but I take it as a clue that Kant wanted to take all three maxims together. If all three maxims are held together with consistency, they must form a consistent whole.

In conclusion, integrity contains the notion of diversity, not the other way around. The maxim of enlarged thought (or thinking from the standpoint of others) must work with the other two maxims. The diversity of opinions can only be taken in with thinking for one's self and consistency. Diversity is only valuable when it can be taken up by someone who is willing to take responsibility for it (or at least to the extent that they are willing to be responsible for it) and in a way that does not compromise the person's consistency.