Objective reality?

[Phil4987]

You think it exists? Why? If so, are we, some of us experiencing it?

 

[Genre]

It matters not, whether people think it exists. There is even less evidence for the existence of objective reality than there is for the existence of divinity.

 

[infinityofhearts]

i don't think there is ever a problem with pursuing understanding and knowledge. however wisdom with how we walk with them is extremely important.

Jesus was raised in Egypt, probably under the 3 Maggi(3 Egyptia Crypt Keeping Kings) for quite a long time, im sure he was surrounded by much knowldege and belief.

now when you say objective reality, what are you reffering too? im interested

 

[quatona]

You think it exists?

I don´t know and, frankly, I don´t really care.

If so, are we, some of us experiencing it?

By definition of the term "objective", no. "Experiencing the objective" is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Received]

If objectivity exists, it can't be defined; to define implies subjectivity -- the painting of subjectivity: the application of language; and where something is named -- "objectivity" included -- you are already trapped in subjectivity. But, oddly, people still seem to have a sense of an objective reality even if this term is a misnomer. Which points, I think, to the axiomatic nature of "it", "something", which is otherwise incorrectly labeled "objectivity". If you really think about it, "objectivity" and "God" are equally elusive, analogous to one another.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

Objective reality may exist, however when the mind encounters this objective reality it is viewed through a subjective lens, so one may never experience the objective relity

 

[NeverClever]

You think it exists?

Yes.

Why?

Reality doesn't end at perception.

If so, are we, some of us experiencing it?

All of us are experinceing some of it.

 

[Received]

It might be analogous to a person walking up to you with a glass of water saying, "there's hydrogen in there somewhere," and you haven't the slightest inkling what hydrogen or chemistry is. In the same way, water is a synthesis between hydrogen and oxygen atoms; reality is a synthesis between subjectivity and objectivity. Because we, in being "wes", only know reality -- in the same way that a chemically illiterate person would only know water -- the word "objectivity" can only make sense intuitively, axiomatically, and this is counter to how words typically function: they typically function as referents for things in the world. But objectivity is not in the world; it is a constituent in what allows us to have a world.

'Tis tricky.

 

[Received]

If this is true -- and I think the general idea is --, "objectivity" is very much like the term "God".

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't think that the terms "objective" and "subjective" are proper adjectives for the word "reality". They seem to modify one's perception of reality. Metaphysically, I will refer only to "reality", which is understood to mean "that which exists".

Yes, there is a reality, which we experience subjectively and from a particular vantagepoint. We are neither cut off from reality, nor do we have a synoptic view on reality. We are existing human beings perceiving an existing universe through existing senses. I don't think our senses "lie" to us about reality, though since they operate in certain limited ways they give us only certain limited information about reality. We may, of course, misinterpret what we sense (e.g. being fooled by an optical illusion), and we might be mistaken when we are sensing things properly (such as when one hallucinates when one is very ill), but as long as senses are operating, they are providing information about reality. It's up to us to figure out how to intepret this information properly, and how to make the best use of it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ferran]

I choose to operate under the assumption that I exist, and that the universe exists.

Why?

The alternative is to just give up, die, and stop existing. Some things you've just got to make a common sense assumption on.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I choose to operate under the assumption that I exist, and that the universe exists.

Why?

The alternative is to just give up, die, and stop existing. Some things you've just got to make a common sense assumption on.

Yes, it seems to me that the most certain thing is that we are human beings living a human life, and given the lack of evidenced alternatives, this is the way to go. What other choice is there, really, except for what is very likely a pointless and self-destructive nihilism?

True story: When I was 18 and philosophizing with a bunch of friends on the local university computer system, and we were airily asking each other "How do we know that what we experience is really real?", someone posted that he thought our questions were very interesting, but he couldn't answer right now because he had to go to the bathroom really, really bad!

While my initial reaction was: "hey, he's missing the point! That doesn't prove anything!" I have to admit that this was actually a profound reply. The immediacy and urgency of our life experiences, which we do not choose, but impose themselves on us day in and day out, are really strong evidence in favor of the view that we are human beings living a human life.

Do they prove this? Perhaps not. But until someone offers me the red pill and causes me to wake up outside of the Matrix, this seems the most rational view to take.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

So, I have to be the guy who screws up the party and asks:

What to make of the Kantian thing-in-itself?

 

[Received]

BTW, Eudaimonist's last two replies were awesome.

 

[Phil4987]

If objectivity exists, it can't be defined; to define implies subjectivity -- the painting of subjectivity: the application of language; and where something is named -- "objectivity" included -- you are already trapped in subjectivity. But, oddly, people still seem to have a sense of an objective reality even if this term is a misnomer. Which points, I think, to the axiomatic nature of "it", "something", which is otherwise incorrectly labeled "objectivity". If you really think about it, "objectivity" and "God" are equally elusive, analogous to one another.

I'm so confused. I should start from th ebeginning; how do you establish that our perceptions our subjective? Is it simply because they differ from person to person?

By definition of the term "objective", no. "Experiencing the objective" is a contradiction in terms.

Can you please elaborate?

I enjoyed reading everyones replies, but there are a lot oft hing I am not comprehending so I will sit on the sidelines. Thanks.

 

[us38]

You think it exists?

Probably.

Why?

Why not?

If so, are we, some of us experiencing it?

Maybe. We'd never know if we were, though.

 

[Received]

I'm so confused. I should start from th ebeginning; how do you establish that our perceptions our subjective? Is it simply because they differ from person to person?

Basically, subjectivity is wherever consciousness is (though technically, subjectivity is not consciousness); which means (conscious) perception entails subjectivity.

 

[granpa]

if subjectivity is defined as 'seeing whatever you look for' then what will we see if we honestly look for the objective truth?

 

[quatona]

I'm so confused. I should start from th ebeginning; how do you establish that our perceptions our subjective?

That´s simply the very definition of subjective: perceived, experienced by a subject (observer), filtered through the perception and experience of a subject (observer).

Is it simply because they differ from person to person?

Not really. Even if we´d perceive the same way (which, of course, we could never tell), our perception would still be the hallmark of subjectivity.

Can you please elaborate?

Sure. Maybe the above has already given you an idea.
Objective is *what is* if not being perceived by a subject. It is inaccesible to us, and it would be completely irrelevant, of absolute no interest to us, because we couldn´t even relate to it. It would be meaningless.

But chances are you were thinking of something different when saying "objective" (these abstract terms come with a couple of different meanings, after all), in which case my response will not help you at all. How about you giving us your idea, the definition of "objective" you have based your question upon?

 

[Received]

Objective is *what is* if not being perceived by a subject.

The uber-problem of phenomenology is, of course, that "what" and "is" are both signifiers themselves, thus are also within subjectivity, therefore as constituents in a definition of objectivity they fail. You can't define objectivity. You experience it -- or "it".