A Philosophy of Language Inquiry into the Semantic Shift of "Subjective" and "Objective"

I. Adolescent Confusion and the Necessity of Definition

Such confusion often originates in adolescence, the moment when intuition first collides with dogma. I still recall the irrefutable demeanor of my high school politics instructor standing at the lectern, proclaiming that Materialism is the absolute truth, while Idealism is a thorough fallacy. At that time, facing this philosophical verdict established by administrative fiat, I had no room for intellectual resistance. But now, things are different. Any exploration of knowledge must first undergo the scrutiny of "definition." If one cannot master the genealogy and true meaning of vocabulary, thinking becomes akin to building a tower on quicksand. We frequently hear the terms "subjective" and "objective" in this society. They are used so frequently that few pause to inquire: what do these two words actually imply? To answer this, we must first examine the soil in which they survive—our linguistic environment.

II. The Inflation of Language and the Impoverishment of Thought

We must confront a disquieting fact: Chinese, as a tool for thinking, is undergoing a process analogous to currency devaluation. It is gradually reducing its vocabulary, lowering its complexity, and stripping away the precision of description, devolving into an Orwellian "Newspeak." Whenever I converse with the younger generation, this sense of rupture is particularly acute. This is not merely a generation gap; it is a collapse of cognitive dimensions. Our language is degenerating into a system of conditioned reflex signals, where logic is being superseded by the catharsis of emotion.

Examining this pathological linguistic phenomenon, we must establish a pathological classification. This is by no means simple entertainment, but evidence of intellectual regression:

First is the invasion of logic by pure numerical combinations, such as "520" (I love you) or "666" (awesome). Here, numbers lose their logical significance in mathematics; human nuances and precise evaluations are compressed into arithmetic codes devoid of intrinsic logic.

Second is the prevalence of acronyms born of fear and indolence. Those pervasive strings like "XSWL," "NMSL," or even "JC" (Police) and "LZ" (Original Poster). These exist not merely for convenience, but to linger in the crevices of censorship. Clear concepts are forced to wear masks; the public nature of language yields to the instinct for survival.

Furthermore, we witness a regression to totemic symbols predating ideograms, where complex psychological activities are degraded into singular graphics like "orz" or "^_^".

In the most chaotic hybrid structures, rigorous linguistic logic is arbitrarily spliced: we see grotesque hybrids of Chinese and English (e.g., "C-position," "V-chat"), patchwork combinations of numbers and English (e.g., "3Q," "4U"), the invasion of grammar by symbols and text (e.g., "@You," "#Topic"), and the mechanical accumulation of symbols and numbers (e.g., "+1," "3"). Even superlatives like "Three Good" become "3 Good," "Boss" becomes "1 Brother," and concepts like "money" and "and" are stripped away by special symbols like "¥" and "&".

The evolution of the Chinese language during the Republican era could never have presented such pathology. From the perspective of morphological theory, these nine categories represent a systemic loss of descriptive power and freedom. Chinese itself is a rigorous system composed of basic radicals and strokes, but this new vocabulary possesses no logic of Chinese word formation. The boundaries of language are the boundaries of thought. If people gradually lose the vocabulary to describe things, they will eventually lose the ability to think about them. Imagine explaining "Democracy" to a child ten years from now: if he has not learned English, and the Chinese language has lost the personified imagination of the late Qing translation "Mr. De" (Mr. Democracy), leaving only a string of cold numbers or emojis, how will he comprehend this concept? The power of amputating language far exceeds any physical confinement.

III. Morphological Anatomy: The Deliberately Obscured Subject

On such barren linguistic soil, if we dissect the core concepts of "subjective" (zhǔ guān) and "objective" (kè guān), the absurdity becomes even more glaring. Even though most can recite the standard bureaucratic definition—"Objective means facts that do not shift according to human will"—this is often, in itself, a distortion of fact.

Let us return to the morphological construction of the vocabulary itself. "Subjective" is composed of "Subject" (Zhǔ) and "View/Observation" (Guān); "Objective" is composed of "Object" (Kè) and "View/Observation" (Guān). The core of both words lies in this character "View" (Guān). This reveals an unshakable logical premise: any "viewpoint" or "perspective" necessarily presupposes the existence of an observer.

To illustrate this, let us posit a simple scenario: someone asks you, "What is your view on this keyboard?" To answer this, the logical chain is indispensable: first, there must be a "Subject" (S) acting as the respondent; second, the action of "Observation" (V) must take place; and finally, there must be a keyboard as the "Object" (O). If the Object (O) is excluded from language, evaluation loses its target, and the world becomes a vacuous "good"; if the action of Observation (V) is excluded, man loses his sensory faculties and becomes wood or stone. But the most sinister act is the attempt to exclude the Subject (S) from language.

In the modern context, "Objective" attempts to manufacture an illusion: that there exists an observation without an observer, a judgment independent of man. If "this keyboard is ugly, I dislike it" implies an impact on "me," then as long as "I" am abstracted away, people cannot make any value judgments. Once an element is missing, the morphology itself collapses. Therefore, an "Objective" without a Subject does not exist in logic.

IV. Phonological Suggestion: Slavery in Tones

Language is not merely symbols; it is psychological warfare through sound. From the perspective of Phonology, we can hear the power structure hidden behind tones.

Let us look back at the Newspeak term "LZ" mentioned earlier. We see only the English letters L and Z, but we can never associate them phonetically with the original Chinese tones of "Lou Zhu" (Original Poster). Phonetically, the meaning has been thoroughly amputated. However, for the surviving Chinese characters, tones possess physical acoustic characteristics of emotion.

We observe that "Kè" (Guest/Object), as the falling tone (fourth tone), is a sharp descent from high to low. In Chinese, a vast number of words carrying threatening, destructive, or negative connotations use this tone, such as resistance (fǎn kàng), opposition (fǎn duì), rage (nù), hate (hèn), extermination (miè), and rebellion (nì). This is no coincidence; humans possess an innate ability to identify emotions from changes in sound frequency. The falling tone conveys a sense of intensity, decisiveness, and even danger; it implies that the "Object" possesses an irresistible, coercive force.

Conversely, "Zhǔ" (Host/Subject), as the rising tone (third tone), carries an upward inflection, akin to the movement of nodding or shaking one's head. It implies that the "Subject" possesses the right to agree, refuse, or even dissent—this is the very embodiment of agency. However, under the discipline of the modern context, a hierarchy of sound is subconsciously implanted in people's minds: the hesitation and upward inflection of the "Subject" are viewed as unreliable, while the sharp descent and rigidity of the "Object" are viewed as truth. This microscopic power structure in phonology establishes a relationship of superiority and inferiority psychologically before the user even speaks.

V. The Collapse of Syntax and Logic: Self-Contradictory Pseudo-Concepts

When we turn our gaze to the actual application of Syntax and logic, this conceptual chaos reaches its zenith.

The expressions we grow accustomed to in daily life often cannot withstand the most basic logical scrutiny. Take, for instance, the common evaluation: "This is very subjective" vs. "This is very objective." From a syntactic analysis, this is "Subject + Adverb + Adjectival Predicate." But inherent in this structure is an absurd logic: it strips away the Subject. It forces people to accept a premise: that a statement is correct only when it appears not to have been spoken by a human. The endgame of this logic is that we no longer need to think; we only need to mechanically reply "+1" or click "like."

Even more paradoxical is the instruction to others: "Look at the problem objectively." Syntactically, this is "Verb + Adverbial + Object." This constitutes a logical deadlock. Directing another to be "objective" is, in itself, an intensely "subjective" act. It is one person using their subjective will to demand that another abandon their subjective will to submit to a so-called standard.

This double standard is laid bare in the contrast between the terms "Seeking Truth from Facts" (Shí Shì Qiú Shì) and "Objective Facts" (Kè Guān Shì Shí). The former, "Seeking Truth from Facts," at least acknowledges the process of "Seeking"—a praxeological exploration by the Subject, admitting that truth requires human discovery. The latter, "Objective Facts," attempts to completely deny the participation of the Subject, as if facts can manifest independently of the observer. This is not merely a confusion of concepts; it is a negation of human cognitive action.

In the construction of terminology, the so-called "Objective Law" is essentially an oxymoron. If it is a physical law, such as universal gravitation, it requires no "objective" modifier. Adding this adjective precisely exposes the subjective intent of the speaker to deify their own viewpoint. Since cognition cannot be separated from "Observation," all laws are the results of human observation, which shakes the absolutism of the "Objective." Similarly, "Objective Existence" is a pseudo-proposition. If something truly exists objectively, it needs no human confirmation; once confirmation is required, subjective factors have already been introduced. Without that "First Observer," who is to declare its existence? As for that famous fig leaf—"Dialectical Unity"—it is the grand synthesis of logical chaos. When facing unexplainable contradictions, this term is thrown out, effectively avoiding any real analysis of the problem. In logic, it does not exist; in reality, it is nonsense.

VI. The History and Endgame of Semantic Evolution

From the history of Semantics, we can clearly see how concepts have been tampered with. "Subjective" originally referred to the "Subject's observation," and "Objective" referred to the "Object's existence." This pair of concepts originated in Western philosophy and was introduced to China via Japanese translation in the late Qing and early Republican eras. However, around the May Fourth Movement, and especially with the introduction of a certain collectivist philosophy, a fatal value inversion occurred. "Subjective" came to be understood as bias, one-sidedness, and emotionalism, while "Objective" was interpreted as fairness, fact, and truth.

There is a profound intent behind this. While we must admit that the great prophet Marx provided no real value in science, he was quite skilled in altering vocabulary to control thought. After World War II, this confusion deepened. "Subjectivism" became a negative label. The most laughable term is "Subjective Initiative" (or Subjective Agency).

In a framework that emphasizes historical inevitability and objective laws, if everything is determined, what need is there for human agency? We are astonished to find that the "Subject" has been theoretically extinguished; it is no wonder that under his theory, man is no longer man. If one must obey objective laws, then "Agency" is no longer a free choice, but forced execution. This is the thorough deprivation of liberty.

The same hypocrisy is evident in the demand to "maintain an objective and neutral attitude." This statement itself is a massive subjective judgment. Everyone observes based on their unique knowledge and position—some use their eyes, some use their hands. If "neutrality" is required, it demands having no position. Since there is no position, upon what is the so-called "Objective" based? This is as absurd as requiring everyone to carry the exact same amount of bacteria on their hands to touch an object to reach a conclusion.

Finally, on the level of Pragmatics, this semantic distortion has led to severe consequences. The rigor of academic discussion has vanished, daily language has been simplified, and what remains is only administrative bureaucracy. Whoever holds the power to define "Objective" holds the truth. This word is used to suppress dissent and negate individual perception.

We are discussing not merely two words; we are witnessing a cleansing directed against the "Individual" as a cognitive subject. The "Objective" in the modern Chinese context has completely detached from the original philosophical relationship, becoming an excuse for power. It is like someone who has done wrong blaming the "objective environment," while mocking anyone who dares to make an independent judgment as being "too subjective."

According to this trend, the person as a "Subject" will sooner or later disappear from language and thought. People will not only cease to believe they have subjective consciousness, but the very concept of "Human" will become superfluous. By then, everything will be terrifyingly "Objective"—no thinking, no judgment, no choice, only a dead void waiting to be smeared at will. After all, under such logic, if a human can cease to be human, is there anything that is impossible?