Objectivity rendered contrary to human survival by dictionary.com? Yes

[tygorton]

Below is a post appearing on my blog, which I was compelled to share here for obvious reasons:

The Misappropriation of Words 2.0

The word of the day: Qua

Over the past months, I have been engaging in extensive philosophical study, primarily of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.

The word “qua” is used quite often, and while I possessed a basic understanding of the word’s use, I felt I needed that understanding to be more concrete in my mind in order to fully grasp those concepts in which it was leveraged.

I was astonished to discover how the word is being applied on dictionary.com in a specific example.

First, the definition of qua as it appears on the website:

qua   [kwey, kwah]

adverb

as; as being; in the character or capacity of: The work of art qua art can be judged by aesthetic criteria only.

Even within the above definition, the notion that “art qua art can be judged by aesthetic criteria only” is a concept that I wholly disagree with and resent, but this misappropriation pales in comparison to what the site presents further down the page.

Below is one of three usage examples appearing on the website:

“Pure objectivity not only is unattainable by humans qua humans but, also, countervails mankind's ultimate coping success.”

Pardon me?

This single sentence, in essence, states as an offhanded fact that human beings are incapable of being objective. Further, it states that even an attempt by human beings to be “purely objective” makes coping in the world impossible!

This is an arbitrary example sentence used for the purpose of giving people a deeper understanding of how the world “qua” might be used to articulate an idea. By what purpose does a website like dictionary.com offer up an example sentence that works to undercut an entire philosophy?!

At moments like these it becomes tragically clear just how far human beings have allowed themselves to be degraded. The purpose of dictionary.com is to provide definitions of words and offer an understanding of how those words can and should be used. It is not a philosophical website. By what justification can such a website make such broad philosophical statements that work to corrode human being’s view of their own capability?

The idea that a human being cannot live objectively is not only false, it is repugnant on every level. If not objectively, how then is a human to live? By mysticism? By emotional whim? By whatever means their surrounding culture or current leaders decree? Without objectivity, science would not exist. Without the ability to be objective, there could be no law written or upheld by any court in the world. Without pure objectivity, there can be no absolutes either in ethics or physics or any facet of man’s perception of reality.

It is this notion that humans are incapable of living objectively that has placed our world in its current economic, moral and political crisis. Apparently, it is a notion so accepted by the majority that a non-philosophical website like dictionary.com can post such an offensive example sentence without fear of repercussion from its users.

This is one user who will never be back to that website, and, no matter how futile the gesture may be, dictionary.com will be receiving a letter outlining my disgust at their casual attack on my own ability to use objective reason as my guiding philosophy.

[softwareNerd]

... one of three usage examples appearing on [dictionary.com] “Pure objectivity not only is unattainable by humans qua humans but, also, countervails mankind's ultimate coping success.”

Pardon me?

This single sentence, in essence, states as an offhanded fact that human beings are incapable of being objective. Further, it states that even an attempt by human beings to be “purely objective” makes coping in the world impossible!

Also, I don't see how that example demonstrates the meaning of the word "qua". So, even apart from your irritation at the philosophy being smuggled in, the example is poor.

Their example on art is slightly better, but it also falls short. I'd change it to something like: "This artwork qua art is beautiful, but as a decoration for this room, it is simply too small." or "This sculpture is ugly, but qua paperweight I could use it"

[tygorton]

It certainly is not an elegant example of the word's use, which makes the sentence seem all the more forced and reveals a subversive agenda. The internet is so ripe with anti-objectivist propoganda that it has become an aggravation to engage it, even when seeking a simple definition to a word.