We have only to speak of an object to think that we are being objective. But because we chose it in the first place, the object reveals more about us than we do about it. . . . In point of fact, scientific objectivity is pos- sible only if one has broken first with the immediate object, if one has refused to yield to the seduction of the initial choice, if one has checked and contradicted the thoughts which arise from one’s first observation. Any objective examination, when duly verified, refutes the results of the first contact with the object. To start with, everything must be called into question: sensation, common sense, usage however constant, even etymology, for words, which are made for singing and enchanting, rarely make contact with thought. Far from marvelling at the object, objective thought must treat it ironically.

—GASTON BACHELARD, THE PSYCHOANALYSIS OF FIRE

A new way of thinking—which is always a new way of measuring and presupposes the presence of a new standard, a new sensation-scale—feels itself to be in contradiction with old ways of thinking and constantly says, while resisting them, “that is false.” Examined more closely such a “that is false” really only means “I do not feel anything of myself in that,” “it’s of no interest to me,” “I do not comprehend how you are not able to feel as I do.”

—FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, UNPUBLISHED FRAGMENTS (SPRING 1885–SPRING 1886)