Idealism - The Most Practical Thing Around

[Daktoria]

Idealists get dismissed all the time for having their heads stuck in the clouds with their imaginations running wild and refusing to acknowledge the down to Earth problems at hand.

Shall we wonder for a moment though where the solutions for problems come from in the first place. Is it from dwelling in the past and banging our ahead against a wall that's been banged against plenty of times before, or is it from taking a new perspective to realize that something different needs to be done to streamline inefficiencies by considering different dimensions?

Yes, sometimes we need to reform and correct mistakes from oversight, but when we've already double and triple checked our work and the answer still doesn't shine before our eyes no matter how hard we squint, what else are we supposed to do.

In any case, consider the matter of only consequentially reacting to empirical evidence that we (gasp) HOLD FAITH in the authorities that uncover and announce it. Dare we question how such faith should be confirmed through the "wisdom" of the masses and the ancients who preceded them? After all, why does it matter if a million people believe in an idea or only one person does? There must be some characteristic which convinces people to believe in something, no?

For those who are sensible, we call this characteristic, "reason" and while it isn't transcendental in itself, it is a catalytic component of the evolutionary process by which individuals can explore and discover the world.

Going back to that authority that "convincing" authorities reveal, how do we ever know that we aren't having the wool pulled over our eyes and taken for a ride? Why is it that when a mere herd of sheep surrounds an authority just because it feels good that we should believe in that herd for not falling for a trap. I mean come on, is there no better trap for a manipulator than to ride the momentum of the naive who only react upon feel good emotion?

And for a moment, let's say that this authority happened to be a public servant such as a bureaucrat or a governing department or a "not for profit" consumer advocacy group, think tank, lobbyist organization, etc. What then? Are we just supposed to let them slide because they happened to make us feel good and built up a reputation reinforced by gossip queens, coffee klatches, and other sorts of political ravens?

Popularity and fame are not intrinsic confirmations of validity no matter how much we want them to be, and the only way around the compulsion to fall for their majesty is through idealism. Idealism provides vision, skepticism, models, goals, dreams, and every other possible method for honestly questioning the integrity of propositions without needing to directly challenge psychological motives. As such, idealism is not primarily concerned about guilt or blame or even ethical dignity, but rather it is primarily concerned about consistency and efficiency and integrity and all those other wonderful traits which are symptoms and externalities of character.

Hence why both manipulators as well as sheep cannot stand idealists. They realize that idealists steer straight for the bottom line and aren't confused by the fogs of gray which surround the thin red line between black and white, and once idealists succeed in their quests for truth, immaturity is immediately exposed for the illusions that it hides behind.

Is this really unexpected though? Part of the motive to pursue creative destruction is the understanding that a secure economic niche will be rewarded, and pursuers understand that the stability of such niches stands on a platform the size of an edge of a knife which only widens as more and more community members give niches the benefit of the doubt for their usefulness, efficiency being not only the prime benchmark in defining "use" but also the motive for why individuals engage in preparation to avoid future drudgery. Nobody likes to work, but we do it anyway to secure our livelihoods. However, one man's supplier is another man's customer, and once we realize certain middlemen are obsolete, we expect them to either bend or break.

Such is the reason nobody likes change as well. Not only does change mean that one's own niche is presently endangered, but it also means future uncertainty due to shifting relationships as well. When the rules change, strategies go along with them, and when rules change in a way we can't predict, we don't know if our strategies are going to work anymore.

Connected to politics proper, this is the difference between civil rights and political freedom, and unfortunately, it is the idealist's struggle to breakthrough the hierarchy of niches which is used to excuse the noble lie. For we see, idealists are too fragile to directly endure challenges by non-idealists for very long unless idealists are fortunate enough to strike upon ideals which bear fruit that can be invested in both further exploration as well as self-defense.

Further unfortunately, two "commonsensical" proverbs are often used to encourage the idealist's struggle:


If the idealist is so smart and perfect, then he shouldn't have trouble striking it rich. As such, non-idealists should be recognized for the "wisdom" they wield in challenging idealists to be honest and successful.
The idealist shouldn't be so stingy that he refuses to give a little back to the community. Heck, if he's really an idealist, he should understand what it is to be merciful and forgiving when the naive steal from and hurt him since they don't know what they're doing.

From these two aggravations, idealists are often attracted to the noble lie in order to give non-idealists their just deserts only in a fashion that they don't see what's coming, and once in a while, one of the non-idealists mutates through partial evolution derived from partial disillusionment. Such is the foundation of the traditionally perceived class struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, Plebeians and Patricians, power-elite and masses, etc. This especially takes place when one of the mutated focuses upon a lucky non-idealist or corrupted idealist who has become a member of the supposed conspiring elite class, so the mutated projects his perception unto a world system model that he can feel comfortable within his incomplete theorizing process.

Eventually, the mutated and the remaining honest idealists will approach each other with the corrupt idealists and non-idealists doing their own thing until either: 1) the mutated and honest idealists come to an understanding and cooperate, or 2) they feel incommensurable and contest each other.

In the first case, cooperation will expand if either the rest of the population bears good character and acknowledges the goodwill of current cooperators, or if the cooperators "win" the hierarchical game constructed by non-cooperators. In the second case, cooperation will expand only if the idealists can "win" both the contest as well as the hierarchical game.

This division of case-scenarios can go and on for quite some levels, but ultimately, cooperation comes down to showing non-cooperators that hierarchy is an illusion since it only estranges people from each other through false senses of majestic authority which twist maturity's actual definition.

However, as long as non-cooperators subscribe to physical and empirical consequentialism instead, they will never appreciate pure senses of justice due to obsessions with competition and subordination pursued for the sake of only doing what results in feeling good.

As such, not only does every individual need to understand that idealism is the only possible route to completely appreciating morality, but idealists also need to realize that there is no macroscopic political answer to expanding cooperation. Instead, they must focus upon individual character even if this does not mean believing in heroics. Actually, idealists should realize that heroics are unnecessary (and possibly even inefficient) since idealists must realize that they are citizens only of themselves and not of the world (which is OK among cooperators who should recognize themselves as living with a community of societies instead of just one society). Without citizenship in a larger world, heroism cannot take place although camaraderie and leadership can.

[Michael]

Interesting post.

If you are making the argument that the life of an idealist is a challenging one, then I agree completely.

If you are arguing that the life of an idealist is an unfairly difficult one, then I shall disagree. Life is difficult for idealists for good reason. Idealists, if let to run the show, tend to turn our world into flaming war zones. The historical record is replete with examples of the destructive ruin of ideological passion. Thus, rational thinking people tend to be rightly suspicious and cautious when dealing with idealists.

* * *

Here are a couple of elements that I found particularly troublesome in your essay... (being the non-idealist that I am) :D

Eventually, the mutated and the remaining honest idealists will approach each other with the corrupt idealists and non-idealists doing their own thing until either: 1) the mutated and honest idealists come to an understanding and cooperate, or 2) they feel incommensurable and contest each other.

I think there's a false dichotomy here since I don't agree with the stark polarity of 'idealists' and 'non-idealists' and suspect that one can reverse the terms pretty easily depending on perspective. Often as not, our society is dominated by the sounds of voices of the idealists on both sides of any issue since they tend to yell the loudest (since they are the most passionate by definition).

For example, pro-capitalist, pro-corporate, pro-growth, pro-development people may easily be classified as "idealists". Likewise with the environmental activists who preach about the need to address our environmental problems - they are "idealists" too (ideal of a self-sustaining economy or reverence for the planet). Likewise with the religious or social conservatives - they are "idealists" in their ideal of proper social/moral behavior for society. Likewise with the progressives with their pro-gay rights, pro-human rights, anti-poverty agenda - they are "idealists" too.

All of these types are always the most passionate 'idealists' and they almost always contradict each other.

Which one are the "honest idealists" here?

I don't think one can characterize the class of "honest idealists" as strictly those of entrepreneurs. That would be selectively arbitrary. ;)

Btw, your dichotomy also completely ignores "dishonest idealists" - which is highly significant since I believe they are the majority in all cases since this category essentially includes "deluded idealists" as well (and that's always a large category in my assessment).

Actually, now that I think about it, "oblivious" is probably the largest category - they are the people who just live their lives without actually thinking about theoretical justifications of justice and just care about dealing with life's immediate concerns.

Popularity and fame are not intrinsic confirmations of validity no matter how much we want them to be, and the only way around the compulsion to fall for their majesty is through idealism. Idealism provides vision, skepticism, models, goals, dreams, and every other possible method for honestly questioning the integrity of propositions without needing to directly challenge psychological motives. As such, idealism is not primarily concerned about guilt or blame or even ethical dignity, but rather it is primarily concerned about consistency and efficiency and integrity and all those other wonderful traits which are symptoms and externalities of character.
Methinks you are looking at "idealism" through a rose colored lens.

I must say that there is NOTHING even remotely skeptical about idealists. They are skeptical of everything except their ideal which defines (in fact requires) their rejection of everything else. Rejecting everything on the basis of one's own ideal is not skepticism at all - it is close-mindedness.

And I must also point out that idealism does not favor efficiency. Consistency and integrity are certainly 'traits' of idealism, but efficiency most certainly is not. Efficiency requires that one ignore idealistic principles and focus entirely on empirical measures of effectiveness alone.

I will agree that popularity and fame are not intrinsic confirmations of validity. But I will assert that idealism is not the only or preferred solution to that problem. Indeed, I'd say that idealism is the problem itself, since it does not admit of any compromise, and/or negotiated adjustment and/or concern for any other viewpoint (or any failure or shortfall of its own).

Most importantly, idealism essentially fails for being too dependent upon subjective ego for its validity. Subjective ego is not a functionally efficient basis for moral justification or pursuasion of others.

Hence why both manipulators as well as sheep cannot stand idealists. They realize that idealists steer straight for the bottom line and aren't confused by the fogs of gray which surround the thin red line between black and white, and once idealists succeed in their quests for truth, immaturity is immediately exposed for the illusions that it hides behind.
Idealists may steer straight for the bottom line - but that line is their own device that isn't really seen by anyone else because it is so entirely subjective.

Thus when the idealist speaks of black and white, and makes claims about discovering 'truth' or points at illusions of falseness, all the non-idealists just shake their heads or roll their eyes. That which is plainly obvious to the idealist is invisible to pretty much everyone else.

As such, not only does every individual need to understand that idealism is the only possible route to completely appreciating morality, but idealists also need to realize that there is no macroscopic political answer to expanding cooperation. Instead, they must focus upon individual character even if this does not mean believing in heroics. Actually, idealists should realize that heroics are unnecessary (and possibly even inefficient) since idealists must realize that they are citizens only of themselves and not of the world (which is OK among cooperators who should recognize themselves as living with a community of societies instead of just one society). Without citizenship in a larger world, heroism cannot take place although camaraderie and leadership can.

Idealism certainly is connected with morality. Unfortunately, they both run smack into the brick wall of 'objective vs subjective'. Once morality goes over to subjectivity, it becomes relativism.

Good point about heroics. I consider heroics to be suspicious. ;)

[Daktoria]

I'm going to respond out of order for clarity's sake, hope you don't mind. :-)

Idealism certainly is connected with morality. Unfortunately, they both run smack into the brick wall of 'objective vs subjective'. Once morality goes over to subjectivity, it becomes relativism.

Good point about heroics. I consider heroics to be suspicious. :D

I probably should have talked about this (among other things I'll note in this response) in the OP, but anyway, I don't see why the set of "idealists" can't be made up of subjectivists and objectivists (forget Rand here).

"Idealists" is quoted here because I don't believe we can know for certain if we are (honest) idealists or not since it's impossible to distinguish mutation (and/or corruption) from an internal perspective. Even via a priori synthetic tautological or axiomatic evaluation, our internal perspectives prevent us from beholding the benchmarks, dexterity, and tools required to intuit properness via deduction alone. What we can do though is test for consistency through induction and experiment to see if we've struck upon truth or not.

Basically, at some level, we will always have to surrender to randomness in order to discover what we want, yet as we discover more and more, we can afford to surrender less and less in order to behave more efficiently over shorter periods of time.

Still, pure idealism does contain a definite value regarding subjectivity and objectivity which I believe is most closely portrayed by Berlin's pluralism since it recognizes how multiple value systems are functional despite how they might be incommensurable. However, this should only be interpreted with regards to existence but not essence since it would be delusional to claim that physical reality does not absolutely exist, yet absurd to claim that intentions do not guide reality's course (since without intentions, philosophy as well as cognition in general are both meaningless and nonexistent).

Interesting post.

If you are making the argument that the life of an idealist is a challenging one, then I agree completely.

If you are arguing that the life of an idealist is an unfairly difficult one, then I shall disagree. Life is difficult for idealists for good reason. Idealists, if let to run the show, tend to turn our world into flaming war zones. The historical record is replete with examples of the destructive ruin of ideological passion. Thus, rational thinking people tend to be rightly suspicious and cautious when dealing with idealists.

* * *

Here are a couple of elements that I found particularly troublesome in your essay... (being the non-idealist that I am) ;)What I'm beginning to argue is that despite how life is not fair...Hence why both manipulators as well as sheep cannot stand idealists. They realize that idealists steer straight for the bottom line and aren't confused by the fogs of gray which surround the thin red line between black and white, and once idealists succeed in their quests for truth, immaturity is immediately exposed for the illusions that it hides behind.

Is this really unexpected though? Part of the motive to pursue creative destruction is the understanding that a secure economic niche will be rewarded, and pursuers understand that the stability of such niches stands on a platform the size of an edge of a knife which only widens as more and more community members give niches the benefit of the doubt for their usefulness, efficiency being not only the prime benchmark in defining "use" but also the motive for why individuals engage in preparation to avoid future drudgery. Nobody likes to work, but we do it anyway to secure our livelihoods. However, one man's supplier is another man's customer, and once we realize certain middlemen are obsolete, we expect them to either bend or break.

Such is the reason nobody likes change as well. Not only does change mean that one's own niche is presently endangered, but it also means future uncertainty due to shifting relationships as well.When the rules change, strategies go along with them, and when rules change in a way we can't predict, we don't know if our strategies are going to work anymore.
...idealists (and non-idealists alike) must remain optimistic and cooperative (regardless of how altruistic or hedonistic our goals and desires might be):...idealists are often attracted to the noble lie in order to give non-idealists their just deserts only in a fashion that they don't see what's coming, and once in a while, one of the non-idealists mutates through partial evolution derived from partial disillusionment. Such is the foundation of the traditionally perceived class struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, Plebeians and Patricians, power-elite and masses, etc. This especially takes place when one of the mutated focuses upon a lucky non-idealist or corrupted idealist who has become a member of the supposed conspiring elite class, so the mutated projects his perception unto a world system model that he can feel comfortable within his incomplete theorizing process....

...As such, not only does every individual need to understand that idealism is the only possible route to completely appreciating morality, but idealists also need to realize that there is no macroscopic political answer to expanding cooperation. Instead, they must focus upon individual character even if this does not mean believing in heroics.
Idealists may steer straight for the bottom line - but that line is their own device that isn't really seen by anyone else because it is so entirely subjective.

Thus when the idealist speaks of black and white, and makes claims about discovering 'truth' or points at illusions of falseness, all the non-idealists just shake their heads or roll their eyes. That which is plainly obvious to the idealist is invisible to pretty much everyone else.This sounds more like a matter of charisma and language than intelligence or vision since the idealist’s perspective can be subjective and his communication is subject to interpretation, but his points are either absolutely sound or unsound. Such can be proven by how even if the pure idealist has no justification for a true belief, the belief is still true. Likewise, if the anti- “pure idealist” has a justification for a false belief, the belief is still false. Regardless of reality’s portrayal, it still exists.

Mind that pure, mature, and respected idealism should not be trapped by a stubborn public anyway, but this is a different issue with its own problems. Is the public justified in being stubborn? Will the idealist ever know if he is mature enough in advance to deal with stubbornness? Is it justified to expect the idealist to be mature all the time when maturation inherently, by definition, takes time (in particular when considering the nature of original position)?

As a psychological and linguistic aside, different people with different learning, adaptation, and communication styles might find it impossible to resolve differences, but that doesn’t mean the ideologies they bear are impossible to rationally resolve even if such resolution has to be done “violently” by the realization that one set of values are hypocritical and need to be discarded. The exception here is when different ideologies blindly pass each other by or only partially acknowledge each other as a result of working along different dimensions, but the only reason an ideology wouldn’t address every value dimension imaginable is because a limited subjective perspective generated a limited model.

I'll address the matter of subjectivity =/= relativism in the other thread. A while ago (I think it was a bit over a year), I came across an appendix in the SEP which explained this simply, and I'm having some trouble finding it again. :-\

I think there's a false dichotomy here since I don't agree with the stark polarity of 'idealists' and 'non-idealists' and suspect that one can reverse the terms pretty easily depending on perspective. Often as not, our society is dominated by the sounds of voices of the idealists on both sides of any issue since they tend to yell the loudest (since they are the most passionate by definition).

For example, pro-capitalist, pro-corporate, pro-growth, pro-development people may easily be classified as "idealists". Likewise with the environmental activists who preach about the need to address our environmental problems - they are "idealists" too (ideal of a self-sustaining economy or reverence for the planet). Likewise with the religious or social conservatives - they are "idealists" in their ideal of proper social/moral behavior for society. Likewise with the progressives with their pro-gay rights, pro-human rights, anti-poverty agenda - they are "idealists" too.

All of these types are always the most passionate 'idealists' and they almost always contradict each other.

Which one are the "honest idealists" here?

I don't think one can characterize the class of "honest idealists" as strictly those of entrepreneurs. That would be selectively arbitrary. ;)

Btw, your dichotomy also completely ignores "dishonest idealists" - which is highly significant since I believe they are the majority in all cases since this category essentially includes "deluded idealists" as well (and that's always a large category in my assessment).

Actually, now that I think about it, "oblivious" is probably the largest category - they are the people who just live their lives without actually thinking about theoretical justifications of justice and just care about dealing with life's immediate concerns.Yes, I agree that we can't define who the honest idealists are because it's beyond our understanding as internal components of the world. All that we can do instead is optimistically gamble from previous lucky experiments and rationally build on top of them.

Regarding the experiment though, dishonest idealists were not considered because corruption, by definition, is an obstacle to construction (no matter how altruistically or hedonistically we want to define "construction"). Similarly, deluded idealists were not considered because we don't know what delusion is until after the fact of discovery, and anyone who isn't aware of previous discoveries is (macroscopically) comparatively unlucky to those who are.

In general though, these two groups (as well as the oblivious) sit on the sidelines or ignore the affair altogether until its forseeable consequences become so apparently grandiose that it would be impractical (literally) to bypass their proceedings. When they do pay attention though, they attempt to derail the proceedings by tempting the participants more and more according to marginal utility (which may be offered and/or accepted for however many countless [finite or infinite, who cares] motives).

Also, it's interesting that you brought up entrepreneurship here, my opinion depends on the scale and definition we're ascribing to. As you know, I believe that everyone bears entrepreneurship at some level and form or another, but if we recognize entrepreneurs by the traditional economic definition, then yes, I'll agree that there are others besides entrepreneurs who can be idealists (especially since many entrepreneurs are non-idealists anyway and the set needs to be filled by someone).

Methinks you are looking at "idealism" through a rose colored lens.

I must say that there is NOTHING even remotely skeptical about idealists. They are skeptical of everything except their ideal which defines (in fact requires) their rejection of everything else. Rejecting everything on the basis of one's own ideal is not skepticism at all - it is close-mindedness.

And I must also point out that idealism does not favor efficiency. Consistency and integrity are certainly 'traits' of idealism, but efficiency most certainly is not. Efficiency requires that one ignore idealistic principles and focus entirely on empirical measures of effectiveness alone.

I will agree that popularity and fame are not intrinsic confirmations of validity. But I will assert that idealism is not the only or preferred solution to that problem. Indeed, I'd say that idealism is the problem itself, since it does not admit of any compromise, and/or negotiated adjustment and/or concern for any other viewpoint (or any failure or shortfall of its own).

Most importantly, idealism essentially fails for being too dependent upon subjective ego for its validity. Subjective ego is not a functionally efficient basis for moral justification or pursuasion of others.If you were critiquing idealism over how "actions speak louder than words" despite a desire for efficiency, then I would understand where your premises for your criteria are here, but you're claiming that idealists don't pursue efficiency, so I'm confused. Material and economic efficiency aren't the only forms of efficiency around, but ideological and belief efficiency as well such that hypocrisy results in an intention becoming sidetracked through self-distraction. Ergo, since idealists want to refine and test their models, efficiency is vital for any idealist's success.

By the way, I'm not proposing that consistency and integrity are anticipated in order to necessarily detect the fellowship of fellow idealists. Rather I'm saying that they're anticipated in order to detect the execution of consistent models on the whole such that when an idealist (or "mutant") is asked to evaluate certain circumstances, he can make sure that the system at hand is not being sabotaged through malpractice and demand more information with due cause if that's the case.

About skepticism and compromise, I don't find it absurd for idealists to challenge every model they come across against their own ideals. Heck, that's what everyone does really. We have perspectives and opinions, and we demand that other perspectives opinions maintain consistency with our own in order to accept them. Nonetheless, pluralist tolerance still has a purpose once higher dimensions are realized in order to avoid compromise. For example, once we realize that resources can only be used to provide security and discovery within finite limits of confidence, we then realize that flexibility and precision matter for the sake of maximizing the chance of hitting our intended target. From here, we realize that flexibility and precision are not actual compromises, but just other methods for engaging in classic rational decision making.

Still, compromise is bad when we engage in it just for the sake of appeasing limited attention spans that want to behave compulsively. If we compromise because it seems like the most likely method of achieving success after investigating all possible methods (in equilibrium between thoroughness and affordability), then it's OK, but if we compromise just from a general heuristic that happens to feel good, then it's not OK since we're excusing laziness.

Of course sometimes relying upon a heuristic out of feelings could be the proper equilibrium, but if we always focus on the margin, then we're never going to improve, improvement being the purpose for optimism in the first place, that we're always hoping for a better tomorrow and it would be practically hypocritical to self-distract ourselves out of ideological hypocrisy.

Still, if I'm going to allow the usage of heuristics for your critique, I then cannot excuse your critique of subjectivity being unacceptable due to the unreliability of ego since heuristics are used in the first place for egotistical appeasement. The transcendental imagination (as termed by Kant) is a complex concept deserving of its own thread though.

[Michael]

Please define "idealist" as you are using the term here.

From reading your reply and re-reading the OP, I see a clear distinction in terminology here. We are not discussing the same topic or term of idealism.

[Daktoria]

Call me a biased Kantian if you want, idealism is the idea that we cannot know reality in itself but can only recognize its appearances and understand them through a priori models.

This is one of the reasons subjectivity =/= relativism. If you (as a relativist) disagree with this based upon empirical grounds, then you would then be an objective relativist. :-\

[Daktoria]

I probably should have talked about this (among other things I'll note in this response) in the OP, but anyway, I don't see why the set of "idealists" can't be made up of subjectivists and objectivists (forget Rand here).

OK, just to help make sense of what I'm saying here, yes, idealists can believe in objectivity, but idealism is contingent upon the facility of subjectivity.

Still, although followers of objectivity are wrong, they cannot be proven wrong by practical reason since it would be absurd to claim that reality doesn't definitely exist and/or that humans aren't allowed to use our senses to derive phenomenal conclusions.

[Michael]

Call me a biased Kantian if you want, idealism is the idea that we cannot know reality in itself but can only recognize its appearances and understand them through a priori models.
That does clarify things a bit (not entirely though).

Btw, that's what I like to call 'Kantian dancing' which is an entirely respectable enterprise with strong intellectual roots. I just don't march to that drummer. ;)

To me, the concept of idealism is that it is something that cannot be empirically observed (such as an 'a priori' postulation). If it could be directly observed, it would be materialist and not idealist in nature.

As such, the problem with all idealism is the non-falsifiable issue. And if it isn't falsifiable, it can't be considered scientific. Thus all subsequent claims of empiricism are suspect.

This is one of the reasons subjectivity =/= relativism. If you (as a relativist) disagree with this based upon empirical grounds, then you would then be an objective relativist. :-\
First of all, I'd say that subjectivity is not identical to relativism. They are only mutually compatible, dependent, and/or closely related ideas.

Secondly, I'll assert that all subjectivity is relative and all relativity is subjective. But the two concepts are separate ideas that can and do stand alone without the other.

As for "objective", I have radical objections to that usage of that term. If humans are defined as subjective by definition, then 'objective' requires a non-human perspective. Non-human perspectives are not available to humans. Ergo, objectivity is categorically impossible for human beings. This is precisely the issue I'm referring to when I mention the term 'epistemology'.

One has to be precisely clear if one is discussing philosophic terms. I suspect 90% of the disagreements people have in discussions are about the definitions of terms. :)

[Daktoria]

Well in order to see if objectivity is falsifiable, you would need a non-sentient perspective in order to satisfy followers of subjectivity, but followers of objectivity would claim that subjectivity's followers are absurd since there's no such thing as a non-sentient perspective since perspective requires sentience in the first place.

That's what ideologies are really all about though, axiomatic faith and beliefs, not knowledge. At some level or another, every "fact" can be subject to reductio ad absurdum where might makes right determines empowered "facts" versus neglected "facts", so the only way you're going to be able to resolve what's justified is by establishing foundations upon reliabilist grounds backed by the nature of thought itself. Does thought have certain introspective aspects? Sure, but these are noumenal reflections, not phenomenal exhibits, and they can only be used for structuring our mental processes, not explaining the physical world even though natural sciences such as neurology, genetics, endocrinology, etc. can. For example, I might know that serotonin encourages happiness, but what is happiness and why does it matter? Those are questions that can only be answered through noumenal reflection.