We are now witnessing a parallel emergence of what might be called a “neurobiological determinism.” This is an objectivist perspective that is defining human beings as an objective and stable biological reality. From this static and objectivist perspective, we begin with the assumption that our identity and our decisions are “wired in” to our neurological structures and basically pre-set at birth. The nature of our relationship with other people is pretty much determined at birth. We are either Extraverts or Introverts. It might be a matter of Eysenck’s arousal levels or Jung’s sense that there is a psychological “fate” that makes us who we are. None of this really matters. We are who we are and there is not much we can do about it–except perhaps believe that some benevolent “overlord” has made us perfect (perhaps even in “their image”).
In contemporary times we find that static objectivism resides in the central principles of determinism and progress. “Being” is a given that is determined at birth–perhaps with some potential for improvement. There is a static objectivism that defines truth and virtue as well as the nature and quality of interpersonal relationships. Ultimately, there is nothing to improve or change! It should be noted that the static neurobiological perspective has served us well for several centuries. It has enabled us to make great advances in medical and cultural science. However, this perspective has also created many problems with which we now live. From this objectivist perspective, the human body, including the brain, was (and is) perceived as an advanced machine that can be altered and repaired. Unfortunately (even tragically) we have done great damage to many human bodies (and souls) in the midst of this de-humanized “repair” work and on behalf of this objectivism determinism.
Dynamic Objectivism
While many of the critiques of static objectivism are societal products of late 20th and early 21st Century thought, there is a much earlier source: the voice of Socrates as heard through the writing of Plato. Socrates (Plato) offered a dynamic objectivism through an allegory of the cave. Let’s briefly visit this cave. It is filled with people who have lived all of their lives chained to a wall in the cave. These people watch shadows projected on the wall in front of them. These shadows are being projected on the wall from things passing in front of a fire that remains lit behind them. The cave dwellers believe the shadows are reality—including the shadows that represent our interpersonal relations (with other cave dwellers).
Are we all living in a cave? Do we never gain a clear view of reality, but instead view only the shadows that are projected on the walls of our cave? Do we live with an image of reality and relationships (shadows on the wall of the cave) rather than with reality itself and the reality of interpersonal relationships? Plato concluded that we have no basis for knowing whether we are seeing the shadow or seeing reality, given that we have always lived in the cave. Plato thus speaks to us from many centuries past about the potential fallacy to be found in a static objectivist perspective regarding the world—since we can never know whether we are living in the cave or living in the world of reality outside the cave.
Turning back to Plato’s allegory, we live with an expanded cast of characters in the cave. There are a variety of relationships in which we engage. First, there is something or someone standing near the fire in the cave. Part of the fire’s glow is blocked, thus limiting the shadow-images cast on the wall. The blocking feature can be a cultural or personal narrative that we absorb during our daily personal and collective lives.
