You are, despite all the pretensions, the most aggressively naive commentator I've encountered here on Medium. How do you read these "objective" charts without reference to *your* life experiences? And the people who collect these data are just that - people. Situated within particular cultural settings and power relations, and subject to all sorts of limitations.
When faced with a Native American map drawn on bison hide, c. 1770, now stored in the British Museum, and the most recent NOAA climate map, which is more "objectively" useful? Surely that depends on when you exist, what your culturally acquired spatial notions are, what you wish to learn about, etc. I shouldn't be taken aback to have to say this (yet I am a little) but: context matters.
And to be even more on point: your interpretation of the racially-skewed US prison population statistics and mine would surely be different. You suggest educators could teach a populace into having *the* correct reading of these objective numbers, but that sounds - when you really think into it - more like indoctrination.
So, your claim to having accessed Objective Reality through your subjective reasoning remains unconvincing - now and when I previously made that point, which you appear to have misunderstood upon first reading.
---
And, again, my point with the classic worker-master contradiction was to highlight the basic liberal error: the belief that all conflicts have a point of compromise. Your response there does little to address the simple fact that there exist very serious incompatibilities - between groups, personal interests, among values themselves - and that they are not so buried as you seem to believe. (I think a lack of reading some very basic illiberal texts here is again making you a tad too idealistic.)
"And they can reason still further, perhaps, and discover that they both actually have the same personal aim because the employer's reason to maximize business profits is to have a comfortable/extravagant life themselves."
Throughout this section is all sorts of culturally *and* ideological-specific assumptions. Thinking that you've at least temporarily solved the conflict that has forced opponents of liberalism to construct trade unions, social safety nets and full-blown worker states, what do you then say about the person situated outside the factory pumping toxic fumes into the atmosphere, and think *both* worker and manager to be quite mad? Before you pedantically run through this, just know my point is simple: compromise is not always possible, and the liberal faith in it is often naive, and always, eventually, socially damaging.
---
The one critical theorist you're willing to discuss - Horkheimer - directly addresses the concepts of objective and subjective rationality in that short book of his, The Eclipse of Reason. You can read that and dispel yourself of many of the erroneous assumptions about his positions. I won't waste my time going into them here. Because I remember you now - didn't you leave me an unreadable thesis on Christmas Eve, of all days? It seems you didn't follow up on the readings you said you would, so I'm not sure why I should defend positions no one involved in this actually holds.
I do hope you don't miss any other important calendar dates when responding to this.
