My brother had a long drawn out conversation about this because I use language subjectively and he uses it in an objective manner and I brought up my thought that all literature that has a thematic element has a trace of Good vs Evil. He disagreed because Good and Evil (he was mainly against Evil) are clearly defined by morals. I found us a middle ground by explaining that while he is right about the definition, the context I used it in gave it a definition of for or against the story. Which, when viewed against the morals of a story, good is what the protagonist is working towards and evil is the obstacles that the protagonist must work around; for or against the story so to speak.


This got me thinking of how to define language to show which of us is the "most correct" even though it's coming from my point of view, giving it a certain element of bias. Thus I came up with questions after creating a set starting point and answering them to find an answer suitable to the conversation:

Language is the communication of an idea.
Language is defined through two terms: Objective and Subjective.
Objective is clearly defined and has a singular meaning in a singular context.
Subjective is when something has multiple meanings in a singular context.

Can objective meaning be found using the subjective?
No, the objectivity is lost when subjective elements build the foundation for its meaning.

Can objective meaning be used to define the subjective?
It shouldn't, the subjective built from the objective would not actually be subjective, but objective with an amount of contextual bias.

Can objective meaning be found using objective meaning?
Only if none of the objectives are built from the subjective, preserving the objectivity of the statement.

Can subjective meaning be found through the subjective?
Yes, although this merely compounds the subjectivity.

From these questions and answers I formulated a conclusion to explain language:
Therefor, nothing can ever be more than the simplest of subjective terms unless reality (as a clearly defined objective object, for without it the context of this conversation is all in itself subjective with more than a lot of contextual bias) provides the base for the objective and then only the simplest of either is the commonality of language; otherwise, the contextual application of words built upon other contexts create a compounded application, eventually leading to a statement with an infinite amount of meanings undoing the purpose of language: to communicate an idea.

When applied to the original question of who is more correct, a new question was formulated:
Which is more simple: An absolute based on subjective context or a subjective based on subjective context?
The only reason I find myself being more correct in the application of Good vs Evil is that objectivity based on subjectivity is less simple and than compounded subjectivity and that an objective normally cannot be created from a subjective.


Wow, I almost feel smart. I wonder what my old English teacher would've said? Oh well, the rant about my brother's and my conversation is now over. Thanks for baring with me for so long!