Is everything subjective or is there objective things in life ?

[MassimoTheChristian]

It feels as though most things are subjective and emotional.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What do you mean most things?

Is the existence of that big rock in my front yard subjective? The trees? The road in front of my house? My car in my garage?

I would suggest that such things are objectively true/existent. I would also suggest that we learn what sorts of things these are via inter-subjectivity. That is, we become comfortable with the idea of the rock in my front yard because we learn over time that such things are verifiable by beings that have similar experiences to ourselves. Too, these observations yield predictions that produce results both consistent and with predictive power.

The thing is, I think, is that these objective things dominate our experiences. That is a good thing because they actually impact our lives everyday.

These objective things don't feel as impactful as subjective things such as chocolate over vanilla, love, hate, justice, revenge, mercy. But that's a good thing -- who could live life that intensely.

 

[All Becomes New]

Every behavior, thought, emotion, state of mind, or anything else is necessarily either right or wrong. Why? If it is not, then you have to sacrifice objective truth because morality is based on what is true or not true. That is why lying is wrong the vast majority of the time. If someone were to say that lying is not wrong, then lying is permissible in any situation. And if that is the case, then we cannot trust anyone about anything. If we can't trust anyone about anything, then people will cheat and steal to get what they want. If that is accepted, then society will collapse into anarchy. And if anarchy becomes true then everything is might makes right. If you sacrifice objective Truth, then it is not possible to actually know anything because knowledge is based on the idea that there are fundamental truths about reality. If reality is subjective, then everything is just someone's opinion. If everything is just based on opinion, then no one has any incentive to agree with anyone else about anything. If people never agree, then there can never be a consensus. If there is no consensus, then there is nothing to question. If there is nothing to question, then propositions do not exist. If propositions do not exist, then ideas do not exist. If ideas do not exist, then states of mind do not exist. If states of mind do not exist, then emotions do not exist. If emotions, thoughts, and states of mind do not exist, then all that exists is mindless things. If all that exists is mindless things, then there is no one to know anything exists at all.

Functionally speaking, if objective morality does not exist, then nothing exists.

 

[public hermit]

It feels as though most things are subjective and emotional.

It's evident to me that things other than myself exist and that I can experience them. And, I am confident I can find others who would agree that their experience is similar. So I don't think everything is subjective, much less emotional. Still, there's no doubt that most everything I experience is filtered through my senses, understandings, assumptions, memories, intentions, whatever. So there is a sense in which I don't have "direct experience" of the world. Honestly, I'm not even sure what that would mean. All I know is the world filtered through this kind of experience. I can't rule out the possibility that this same world could be experienced in a radically different way (with different faculties, perhaps). But in either case, it seems clear there is a world out there.

 

[MassimoTheChristian]

What do you mean most things?

Is the existence of that big rock in my front yard subjective? The trees? The road in front of my house? My car in my garage?

I would suggest that such things are objectively true/existent. I would also suggest that we learn what sorts of things these are via inter-subjectivity. That is, we become comfortable with the idea of the rock in my front yard because we learn over time that such things are verifiable by beings that have similar experiences to ourselves. Too, these observations yield predictions that produce results both consistent and with predictive power.

The thing is, I think, is that these objective things dominate our experiences. That is a good thing because they actually impact our lives everyday.

These objective things don't feel as impactful as subjective things such as chocolate over vanilla, love, hate, justice, revenge, mercy. But that's a good thing -- who could live life that intensely.

What if someone lives life that intensely ?

Every behavior, thought, emotion, state of mind, or anything else is necessarily either right or wrong. Why? If it is not, then you have to sacrifice objective truth because morality is based on what is true or not true. That is why lying is wrong the vast majority of the time. If someone were to say that lying is not wrong, then lying is permissible in any situation. And if that is the case, then we cannot trust anyone about anything. If we can't trust anyone about anything, then people will cheat and steal to get what they want. If that is accepted, then society will collapse into anarchy. And if anarchy becomes true then everything is might makes right. If you sacrifice objective Truth, then it is not possible to actually know anything because knowledge is based on the idea that there are fundamental truths about reality. If reality is subjective, then everything is just someone's opinion. If everything is just based on opinion, then no one has any incentive to agree with anyone else about anything. If people never agree, then there can never be a consensus. If there is no consensus, then there is nothing to question. If there is nothing to question, then propositions do not exist. If propositions do not exist, then ideas do not exist. If ideas do not exist, then states of mind do not exist. If states of mind do not exist, then emotions do not exist. If emotions, thoughts, and states of mind do not exist, then all that exists is mindless things. If all that exists is mindless things, then there is no one to know anything exists at all.

Functionally speaking, if objective morality does not exist, then nothing exists.

So everything falls apart ? Then how do people believe that truth doesn't exist ?

 

[Bradskii]

That is why lying is wrong the vast majority of the time.

So lying is objectively wrong. Unless it's OK to lie.

Something wrong there I think.

 

[All Becomes New]

So everything falls apart ? Then how do people believe that truth doesn't exist ?

Easy, their paradigm is based on lies. If you are not FOR Truth, then you are FOR lies.

 

[stevevw]

It feels as though most things are subjective and emotional.

Not if you were programmed to feel and believe that in some simulation. Materialists would have us believe that there is no consciousness beyond brain and that its an epiphenomena of the physical processes and that 'matter' or the closed physical world is all there is.

So theorectically we could build a complex enough machine that could have consciousness and mimick humans. That being the case its also theorectical that such such technology could create a virtual world, a simulation where a program can simulate reality.

So we may be living in a simulation where we are programmed to feel and believe stuff. But outside that virtual world is another reality where a programmer exists which may be a different reality or realm. Some people call this God.

 

[MassimoTheChristian]

Not if you were programmed to feel and believe that in some simulation. Materialists would have us believe that there is no consciousness beyond brain and that its an epiphenomena of the physical processes and that 'matter' or the closed physical world is all there is.

So theorectically we could build a complex enough machine that could have consciousness and mimick humans. That being the case its also theorectical that such such technology could create a virtual world, a simulation where a program can simulate reality.

So we may be living in a simulation where we are programmed to feel and believe stuff. But outside that virtual world is another reality where a programmer exists which may be a different reality or realm. Some people call this God.

I don't believe that we are in a simulation.

 

[Larniavc]

Functionally speaking, if objective morality does not exist, then nothing exists.

Not so. Time was slavery was fine.

 

[All Becomes New]

Not so. Time was slavery was fine.

It's whether objective morality exists, not whether people adhere to what is moral. Slavery largely exists today anyways.

 

[Larniavc]

It's whether objective morality exists, not whether people adhere to what is moral.

But the Bible tells us how to treat our slaves. Are you saying that the instructions of the Bible are immoral or moral?

 

[Palmfever]

What do you mean most things?

Is the existence of that big rock in my front yard subjective? The trees? The road in front of my house? My car in my garage?

I would suggest that such things are objectively true/existent. I would also suggest that we learn what sorts of things these are via inter-subjectivity. That is, we become comfortable with the idea of the rock in my front yard because we learn over time that such things are verifiable by beings that have similar experiences to ourselves. Too, these observations yield predictions that produce results both consistent and with predictive power.

The thing is, I think, is that these objective things dominate our experiences. That is a good thing because they actually impact our lives everyday.

These objective things don't feel as impactful as subjective things such as chocolate over vanilla, love, hate, justice, revenge, mercy. But that's a good thing -- who could live life that intensely.

Here is another theory
the origin of the universe - a short exercise See thread #184-185

 

[stevevw]

I don't believe that we are in a simulation.

OK but thats a belief as you cannot fully rule it out. That is why I explained in theory it is a hypothetical reality according to the materialis worldview. Remember that they believe consciousness is the byproduct on physical mechanisms rather than something beyond like God or consciousness itself.

So that naturally leads to humans being able to one day when technology is good enough to create consciousness mechanically. With that a simulation where machines also have conscious and believe in gods and consciousness themselves. Knowing all the time that they are just machines and someone created their consciousness.

I personally don't think its possible to create consciousness in a machine as its something not reducible to a machine. But you can see the logic in the simulation arguement. We see glimpses of this with how people are fixated on their devices and detached from the real world.

Or with virtual reality. Imagine a future like in the movies where machines are not necessarily conscious but that conscious humans are integrated with machines. Where connections to the brain as implanted and we have virtual reality in our vision. In that sense you could imagine how humans could be manipulated into believing all sorts of stuff.

I mean it happens with social media like Tweeter and the like. You can see the alternative realities being promoted using tech to create the fake world while people dress and act as though they have become part of it. Detached from the real world outside their virtual space. This has come as a result of a Postmodernist society where truth is relative and self referential feelings create the reality while the objective world is a socially constructed illusion.

 

[o_mlly]

These objective things don't feel as impactful as subjective things such as chocolate over vanilla, love, hate, justice, revenge, mercy. But that's a good thing -- who could live life that intensely.

Well, living life that un-intensively would be pretty dull, and radically shorten many of the threads in this forum. I agree matters of taste in your list can be dismissed as entirely subjective. However, not so with matters of truth. For example, from your list, justice is objective as an idea.

The word "idea" refers to an object that two or more persons can have access to, can focus on, can think about, can discuss. If we disagree about a decision just handed down by the Supreme Court, we may find ourselves challenging each other's subjective views about the idea of justice, but our arguments would appeal to the objective idea of justice.

 

[MassimoTheChristian]

OK but thats a belief as you cannot fully rule it out. That is why I explained in theory it is a hypothetical reality according to the materialis worldview. Remember that they believe consciousness is the byproduct on physical mechanisms rather than something beyond like God or consciousness itself.

So that naturally leads to humans being able to one day when technology is good enough to create consciousness mechanically. With that a simulation where machines also have conscious and believe in gods and consciousness themselves. Knowing all the time that they are just machines and someone created their consciousness.

I personally don't think its possible to create consciousness in a machine as its something not reducible to a machine. But you can see the logic in the simulation arguement. We see glimpses of this with how people are fixated on their devices and detached from the real world.

Or with virtual reality. Imagine a future like in the movies where machines are not necessarily conscious but that conscious humans are integrated with machines. Where connections to the brain as implanted and we have virtual reality in our vision. In that sense you could imagine how humans could be manipulated into believing all sorts of stuff.

I mean it happens with social media like Tweeter and the like. You can see the alternative realities being promoted using tech to create the fake world while people dress and act as though they have become part of it. Detached from the real world outside their virtual space. This has come as a result of a Postmodernist society where truth is relative and self referential feelings create the reality while the objective world is a socially constructed illusion.

I agree with what you are saying about the disconnect between the internet world and the real world and robots and brain chips in the future.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, living life that un-intensively would be pretty dull, and radically shorten many of the threads in this forum. I agree matters of taste in your list can be dismissed as entirely subjective. However, not so with matters of truth. For example, from your list, justice is objective as an idea.

The word "idea" refers to an object that two or more persons can have access to, can focus on, can think about, can discuss. If we disagree about a decision just handed down by the Supreme Court, we may find ourselves challenging each other's subjective views about the idea of justice, but our arguments would appeal to the objective idea of justice.

For me, if something "exists" only because someone is around to think it, i.e., it exists only in the mind, then it is subjective.

We don't have to debate this quote -- it is fiction, after all -- but I love this bit of writing.

Terry Pratchett, Hogfather (The all-caps person is Death. Susan is his adopted granddaughter.)

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”​

 

[IceJad]

It feels as though most things are subjective and emotional.

You will have to define the subject matter you're referring to. Because depending on the subject matter there are objective and subjective matters.

Example:
Objectively you need air to live.
Subjectively you may find certain people attractive.

 

[Bradskii]

If we disagree about a decision just handed down by the Supreme Court, we may find ourselves challenging each other's subjective views about the idea of justice, but our arguments would appeal to the objective idea of justice.

I agree. There are objective facts. We may differ slightly on the definition of justice but we'd both agree that the concept is an objective fact.

That we'd disagree on aspects of what we consider to be just would then be relative.

It's like a painting is an objective fact but our interpretation of it, our personal appreciation of it will be relative.

 

[o_mlly]

For me, if something "exists" only because someone is around to think it, i.e., it exists only in the mind, then it is subjective.

Sensible objects, eg., the shirt in my closet, exists whether I am thinking about it or not. The shirt is an objective reality.

An object of thought, eg., justice, exists only if someone is thinking about it. In the unlikely event that at a particular time, no one is thinking about the idea of justice then the idea of justice would not exist.

However, unlike the shirt in my closet or the keyboard you are typing on, which does not cease to exist as a perceptible object when no one is perceiving it, objects of thought do cease to exist as intelligible objects when no one at all is thinking about them.

There would be planets and atoms in the physical cosmos with no human beings or other living organisms to perceive them. But there would be no ideas as objects of thought without minds to think about them. Ideas exist objectively, but not with the reality that belongs to physical things.

Similarly, we have a memory of a past football game. Our memories may differ as to details, but the "Hail Mary" pass we both witnessed then, and now share as a memory would be strikingly the same. Our shared memories are ideas, are objects of thought that are objective. However, those memories only exist when we are thinking about them.