FOR READERS' EDIFICATION

Post-modernist subjectivity is arrived at from the post-modernist critique of the dominance of objectivity in public affairs, which concludes that objectivity (unjustly) denies the value of subjectivity and that subjective truth is no less true than objective truth.

Following from those assertions, the argument goes that subjective truth is more valuable, because more essential, to individual experience, and because individual experience is the only reality one can absolutely know, subjective truth is in actual fact true knowledge.

Therefore, objective facts, round which knowledge society once held and organized community, have neither claim to truth except by power's fiat, nor utility for understanding the world that is purely subjective. In this world all subjective truths are equally true, not merely equally valid, and this fact is the only communal truth that must be agreed.

Any other basis for society - common values, shared opinions, friendship, kinship - is unnecessary and becomes relevant only through a preponderance of political power - that is, the weight of numbers or coercive force.

In My View post-modernism uses language unscrupulously to breakdown distinctions and hierarchies which do not accord with believing in the all-around primacy of individuality (not to be confused with the individual) and despising public values and the public sphere. The post-modernist inversion of subjectivity and objectivity is where the argumentation was hammered out theoretically. So it is good to discuss this. Thank you @dwinblood. A suggestion for a future post: It would be worthwhile to examine the words themselves, "subjectivity" and "objectivity," and correct the post-modernist deconstruction by clearly defining the terms "subjective truth" and "objective truth" and distinguishing between factual knowledge and subjective verity, since power-modernism elides these in order to repudiate the superiority and existence, let alone possibility, of objective truth.