Please excuse the late post, but I was very sick last night, and I just wasn't ready to get out of bed and do my post. I just mainly wanted to talk about what we discussed in class last time.

In class, we talked a lot about the difference between objective and subjective. One of the biggest questions we came up with was, could anything ever be subjective? I don't want to rule it out right away, but initially, I would say no. Anything we ever hear or read about, is unavoidably somebody else's opinion. By the sheer definition of it being an opinion, then it must be subjective. There is nothing we can see or read that won't also be subjective by this definition. However, in my opinion, this creates an awful lot of unnecessary ambiguity.

If everything is subjective, what reason do we have to believe what we are told? Must we always take every story, every anecdote, with a grain of salt? In my opinion, thats overly paranoid about whatever the "truth" is. I mean, if everything is subjective, there's no clear definition of the "truth," except maybe Cory's definition of the intersection of all opinions (which could still have problems). In my opinion, I think we should just accept certain things as objective and move on. Like in the book, we can clearly tell when Randy Lenz is stalking the Chinese lady, that he is clearly the one following her and clearly crazy. THAT is the objective idea of it all. That is not subjective in the least. We need to accept what is possibly subjective and focus on the things that are undoubtedly subjective to get a clear view of the story. By putting some trust in the characters perception of real world events (or at least items and such), we can understand the stories more fully without having to worry whether or not its the truth.