Objective things matter more than subjective things, do they not? We claim absolute truths, objective facts, things that are real and applicable and significant to everyone, not just to me, or you, or them. such things must be more real and substantial — and if we do not bow to these absolutes we are somehow lunatical and thus greatly to be pitied.

In so thinking we forget, of course, that if said things are not subjectively real and relevant, they mean nothing but a vague “I guess this should matter to me.” We overlook how, if the truth is never made subjective it never becomes real to the person, never means anything personal, and thus never changes a life or soul. We proudly, loudly recite the Ten Commandments as God’s precious law but conveniently ignore the “thou” at the beginning of each commandment — the demand of the subjective built into an objective law.

We spend so much time debating over this and that to get another’s perspective on the “facts” to match ours, forgetting that they are working with a different set of information altogether.

We forget that reality to a conscious being bows to its individual perception; and that no one perceives anything in exactly the same way.

Why then do we prioritize the objective over the subjective? Why have subjective things and opinions become automatically less legitimate and meaningful and valuable than objective ones?

Without going into a long treatise on the history of philosophical thought behind these questions, I think there’s one simple culprit to blame, at least in part. This misguided default of objective-trumps-subjective comes from a confluence of the subjective being equated with the arbitrary. (And arbitrary things are bad because…they just are, right?)

Pause here.

For something to be arbitrary there must be no system, reasoning, or rhyme behind the statement or choice — you pick a number out of thin air, you decide to call purple blue, you sit on this chair instead of that one just because.

But a subjective viewpoint or opinion is not necessarily arbitrary — even if the reasons are unknown or unclear, even if only that person knows what prompted the idea or choice, even if it seems arbitrary to everyone else.

Know something that cannot exists in the objective and yet is never abitrary?

Taste.

A dear client of mine balances a porcelain statuette of St. George and the Dragon on a green glass mushroom — and that is just the start of her eclectic interior design and decoration. It looks arbitrary and weird on its own, but she has a reason for it, even if it is just that she thinks it goes with the rest of the shelf.

One’s perspective and being is built on several levels — the body, the mind, the soul, the spirit, the subconscious. Many of our more strongly-held opinions and instinctive reactions tap into more than one level, making it difficult to trace just why this nuanced emotion emerges when the musician hits that chord with that particular touch in that moment of a song, or why we’d rather eat ramen and drive a beat-up car than sell our soul to “get ahead,” or why we so adamantly believe in the existence of a God. Taste emerges from all of this — add, subtract, multiply, and divide as disparate situations call for different parts of ourselves and our experiences — and taste is highly subjective, must be subjective, only exists as a subjective phenomenon.

For this reason alone taste is never arbitrary. It comes from something and is directed towards something — stemming from more than a “just because” — even if the reasons and context around said decisions can never apply to another person or be copy/pasted into another experience. It is more valuable because it cannot be replicated, because it is idiosyncratic and irreplaceable, because of its very subjectivity.

Now — if you would forgive the soapboxing for a moment — here is where morality is black-and-white only on paper. “Thou shalt not’s” take on innumerable shades of meaning in action and judgement when humans step into the picture and mess up the pretty picture of perfectly-delineating lines between right and wrong.

Why?

Because for morality to be meaningful, it must be expressed; for an expression of the abstract to exist, a person must live it out; and to live out an idea is to make an idea subjective. And thus the only morality worth adhering to is subjective; truth is subjective; taste and care and belief are subjective; existence is possible only in the subjective.

There is no need to apologize for an opinion honestly held, even if it is subjective. Unless it is arbitrary and useless, of course — then we might have an issue with why one chooses to hold it or even sacrifice for it. But how can something be anything to a person without some aspect of the thing being subjectively meaningful to them?

Subjective ≠ arbitrary.