If there is objective reality people sure don't seem interested in it

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Postmodern theorists posit that truth is contextual, that there is no objective reality, and that people create their own reality.

Well, I must say that if there is objective reality the overwhelming majority of people do not seem interested in it.

I don't think that I would be going out on a limb by saying that nothing is obvious. If we accept the premise that nothing is obvious then reason dictates that effort is required if one wants to become familiar with objective reality.

Furthermore, if one wants to become familiar with objective reality then he/she must be honest.

Human psychology being what it is, by the time a person is able to have a concept of objective reality and make a conscious effort to become familiar with it his/her mind has been filled--through socialization, experience, etc.--with knowledge, beliefs, feelings and other raw material that may or may not coincide with objective reality. Therefore, not only do people have to contend with the fact that nothing is obvious, they also have to contend with all of the baggage that they carry around.

But things like biases, prejudices, distorted perceptions, etc. don't matter if people have no intention of becoming familiar with objective reality anyway.

Maybe it is our nature. Maybe we are hard-wired through evolution to maintain or seek familiarity only with what we need to keep our genetic heritage alive. Or maybe, as some postmodernists seem to be saying, it is a conspiracy by those who wish to attain or maintain power over others.

I just know that it is becoming increasingly clear to me that if one is honest about human knowledge and makes the effort required to overcome its shortcomings then he/she will be beaten to a bloody pulp by his/her fellow humans. Even the supposedly objective, hungry-for-the-truth scientific community is hostile to anybody--inside science or outside science--who does not go along with the prevailing dogma. Scientists and their defenders like to point out that, nonetheless, science is self-correcting. Over the long term science may be self-correcting, but an attitude of "You have a point" or "I'll keep that in mind" does not seem to be part of the enterprise. Even science, in all of its objective, self-correcting glory, stifles people's efforts to become familiar with objective reality.

I wish that somebody had told me sooner that people have agendas and that becoming familiar with objective truth and objective reality is one of the last things on people's minds and one of the last things in people's hearts.

Apparently, for a man to believe that others are as enthusiastic as he is about becoming familiar with objective reality is the height of naivete.

How often does one hear, "You have a point", "I never thought of it that way", "I'll keep that in mind", etc.? Most of what passes as intelligent, truth-seeking, reality-seeking discourse amounts to "I have my bucket full of knowlege, beliefs, perceptions and feelings and if I am in a generous mood I'll let one of my brain cells be lubricated with a drop of yours".

If there is objective reality I do not think that one can become familiar with much of it on his own. But in the cloud of dust of clashing personalities, stubbornness, variations in communication skills, variations in cognitive abilities, etc. of other people there is not much else to be found. What is considered to be truth and reality, it seems, is often more about who can most impose his/her version on others, not about what every person could arrive at through the same processes. If the pen is mightier than the sword then what is considered to be truth and reality often depend on who can be the most effective bully with a pen. That is the way things seem, anyway.

Where are all of the people who are genuinely interested in this objective reality that is assumed by most to exist?

Maybe this thread seems better-suited for the Philosophy forum or some other forum. But it is behavior that I have observed in this forum that led me to create it.

 

[Gabe7]

Clashing people and personalities are part of reality. Starvation and famine are also part of reality. You need to take both into account when you decide how to proceed.

 

[MacFall]

I blame the school system for failing to teach children how to think rationally at a young age, and crushing their natural curiosity as they get older.

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

There is no such thing as a completely rational, objective person. This is an absolute truth.

 

[MacFall]

^True enough. Just as there is no such thing as a completely honest person, or a completely diligent person, or a completely loving person. They are ideals to strive for, even though none of us will ever achieve them in this world. Just so long as nobody thinks they have achieved perfect rationality and objectivity (*cough*Randians*cough*).

 

[SullivanZ]

There is no such thing as true, "objective" reality. Even if there was - what would it be? Moreover, how would YOU be sure YOU know it? You can't. No. Only God (presuming He is not biased - which He IS) could even presume to be "objective." We all see the world through our OWN eyes and no one else's. What we think and believe to be true, can often turn out to be a fantastic lie.

 

[MacFall]

God is not biased. He is omniscient.

 

[benf]

Anybody else see an irony in somebody who doesn't believe America's problem is a moral one calling attention to the issue of people not being aware of the reality of their existence?

 

[Fremdin]

I blame the school system for failing to teach children how to think rationally at a young age, and crushing their natural curiosity as they get older.

Actually rational thought and reasoning is taught in schools and is a core standard in both math and science.

 

[explodingboy]

Actually rational thought and reasoning is taught in schools and is a core standard in both math and science.

I'd side with Mac on this one, yes they are taught.. but not well enough.

It's really something that requires a bit of insperation, schooling tends to just teach you a right and wrong, and less about how to question.

 

[Fremdin]

I'd side with Mac on this one, yes they are taught.. but not well enough.

It's really something that requires a bit of insperation, schooling tends to just teach you a right and wrong, and less about how to question.

Actually in the past 10 years math curriculum has become almost exclusively about problem solving instead of right and wrong answers. Methods are stressed more heavily than algorithms and facts these days and when I say core standards I mean the learning goals on which the curriculum is based. Just look at the NCTM standards they are becoming more and more about reasoning and sense making than anything else. They are having students learn why rather than what. Science is being taught the same way.

 

[MacFall]

Maybe that's true in the schools where you work, but I've seen no evidence of it. In fact when I was in high school, logic and rhetoric were taken completely out of the curriculum and teachers were forbidden to "waste time" on it. A few teachers started a debate club just so they could still teach it even in a limited way. Even when we had our class debates (required for senior English), it was exclusively about collecting and presenting statistics.

Maybe things have changed somewhat since then - but not in the schools I have been involved with, and not to the students I have taught.

 

[Qyöt27]

Experience is subjective, and 'objectivity' is not something that can be definitively proclaimed unless one is outside of the system. Otherwise, it's simply what works by the consensus of all the amassed experiences. Those experiences are based on methods that may or may not be intended as being 'as objective as possible', but 'as possible' is still not actually objective - it's just maybe less relative than somebody else's view. Or so one would think.

Can overlapping knowledge and personal experience help to illuminate what is 'objective'? Perhaps, but it's a funny thing that the more you learn, the more you start to realize how little you actually do know.

As for what individuals relating to one another and their environment are subject to, most are simply content to leave it up to 'out of sight, out of mind'. Not necessarily that they don't think there is objectivity to be had, but that humans are intrinsically selfish and usually care more for the things that affect them directly. This means they're often just concerned with validating their pre-existing views and disregarding anything else, unless they have an explicit interest in a topic and seek to develop their skills in that category. But not everyone is interested in being a polymath or Renaissance Man that seeks to develop a multitude of disciplines within themselves.

 

[Fremdin]

Maybe that's true in the schools where you work, but I've seen no evidence of it. In fact when I was in high school, logic and rhetoric were taken completely out of the curriculum and teachers were forbidden to "waste time" on it. A few teachers started a debate club just so they could still teach it even in a limited way. Even when we had our class debates (required for senior English), it was exclusively about collecting and presenting statistics.

Maybe things have changed somewhat since then - but not in the schools I have been involved with, and not to the students I have taught.

With all due respect you have been out of high school for almost 10 years and curriculum is always changing, especially in a post-NCLB world. Also, if you are working and teaching in schools then you should already know the standards and learning goals that I am talking about because they are proposed by national teacher's organizations and are part of most states curriculum standards. Logical thinking and reasoning is present as a standard in almost all subject matters taught in elementary, middle and high schools.