Friend
uses the word objectively all the time.
One
of the first times I noticed it, we were having a conversation
based on how he was using the word repeatedly. The end of our
discussion came when he attempted to clarify what he meant when
he said it: His contention is that by definition it means fact.
But
it doesn’t.
It
doesn’t mean fact.
It
means to observe, view, perceive and/or interpret something without
influences or biases. Remove the personal and observe what is.
Objectively
and fact. One is qualifying conditions. Objectively is an adverb,
describing how something was done. The other is the reality. Fact
is a noun, the person or place or thing stripped and shown as
it is.
Normally
I’m not one to worry too much about sticking to specifics and
narrow windows of application. Rules of grammar? Happily breaking
them, sometimes without even being aware I’m doing it. And if
people want to use words as a catchphrase of sorts, go for it.
I spent a lot of time using words like “bonus” as a reaction,
to a level where it became a reflex response, especially during
my years in school. Most of the time, there was no bonus involved
in any way.
But
this objectively thing just struck me as off. Brings me to a stop
every time I hear it, and shakes me around a bit.
Maybe
it is a catchphrase of sorts. A habit. Maybe… just maybe… the
use is clean enough in a way that if he were to say objectively
it rises to a standard where an objective look at the objective
observation passes as a factual review. Still… it remains…
Objectively,
the Denis Villenueve movies, Dune and Dune: Part
Two, are examples of cinematic excellence. Objectively they
are visually stunning. Objectively, Villenueve has delivered one
of the best interpretations of the source material ever attempted
for a movie or television. Objectively, the cast is outstanding.
Objectively, another movie or telling of this story would be challenged
to be made any better.
Factually,
Dune and Dune: Part Two are borderline unwatchable.
Factually, they are long, drawn out and boring, with not much
at all going on. Factually, the story is almost impossible to
follow. Arguably, potentially factually, several pharmaceutical
companies are sending staff to watch the movies in an attempt
to create a new drug as effective at causing sleep.
I’m
joking about the pharmaceutical companies. They aren’t sending
staff to watch it as a research project. (They already know they
can’t replicate what those films can do.)
But
the real reality is that most folks will say that this is my opinion.
I’m not trying to be cute and crazy and funny here though. I think
this actually proves my point.
I
absolutely acknowledge that both films are great. Perhaps even
outstanding. They are well-crafted in every way and on every level
that a film crew works on a project. That’s the objective review.
But
I cannot say, and will not say, that both films are great is a
fact. I don’t believe they are. I would tell people not to watch
them. Won’t recommend them. I’m not looking for information on
Villenueve working on a third film, nor am I going to invest any
of my time in wondering about someone to take over and explore
more of Frank Hebert’s universe.
Objectively
may provide a review of reality, but it does not equate to fact.
Not by any measure that is created to allow for an interchangeable
definition. And that’s just the truth.