Reality?

[Sojourner<><]

Forget trying to define it.

How do we find certainty within it?

Is certainty, once found, always subjective or objective or either?

Any takers?

 

[The Nihilist]

Ok, the fact of the matter is don't worry about it. No, there is no absolute truth to be found. You don't have to believe anything, and you shouldn't worry about it. Reality is what we conventionally think is the case, and epistemology is our way of dealing with that. Don't confuse it by throwing around words like objectivity and subjectivity; this is a false dichotomy. If you don't believe me, try explaining the difference without refering to a god. Explain what objectivity is if no one has it and no one can have it.
If I have done what I came here to do, this is going to be a short thread.

 

[Wr4ith]

There's the matter of solipsism. Basicly it's impossible to KNOW for sure that the perceived world is real or not.

 

[The Nihilist]

If you really believed that were an issue you wouldn't have made a post about it.

 

[Wr4ith]

If you really believed that were an issue you wouldn't have made a post about it.

Oh, why not? I gotta keep myself busy you know.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Ok, the fact of the matter is don't worry about it. No, there is no absolute truth to be found. You don't have to believe anything, and you shouldn't worry about it. Reality is what we conventionally think is the case, and epistemology is our way of dealing with that. Don't confuse it by throwing around words like objectivity and subjectivity; this is a false dichotomy. If you don't believe me, try explaining the difference without refering to a god. Explain what objectivity is if no one has it and no one can have it.
If I have done what I came here to do, this is going to be a short thread.

I'm sure that I dissagree with you, but I'm having a hard time following what you are trying to say. So this might be a short thread for other reasons.

What are you getting at?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Forget trying to define it.

How do we find certainty within it?

Is certainty, once found, always subjective or objective or either?

Any takers?

Why forget trying to define it?

We find certainty by starting with declaration of concepts then comparing them with what we observe. After that picture of probable certainty builds to a point, it begins to entrap some concepts as 100% certain despite earlier mere probabilities. In the long run (a very long run) you end up with absolute certainty of many things and most things are merely a matter of observing more.

The entrapment and the declarations are what most people don't understand and thus end up thinking that it is all just about observations and possible flaw. Realize that these ideas came into society merely as a means of creating chaos and uncertainty.

 

[Multi-Elis]

In cinema, when studying the subject of documentories, we think of "objectivity" as being outside a point of view, and "subjectivity" as a point of view. And the minute you place a camera somewhere, you are getting a point of view, at the very least, an optical point of view. So reality is what "is" and there is no way to see it objectively, because no matter what you do, you are stuck with a point of view. Even if you were to do a film and use editing to get many points of view, you are still stuck with points of view, which can be modified by the editing -- even if the editing were random, your brain searches connections.

So what does it mean to find certainty in it? certainty in your/a point of view?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

So what does it mean to find certainty in it? Certainty in your/a point of view?

When talking about reality, your POV is ALL that concerns you. There is no other POV that matters at all except as merely a small piece of your POV of someone else's POV.

You begin certainty by defining or declaring what matters to you;

1) There is me, ALL that is not me, and the bit that is between being part me and part not me. - 100% certain fact.

This is by declaration not observation. It doesn't matter at all whether everything is a dream or whether you might not exist. Existence is what has affect. If something has no affect at all, then by declaration and observation, it does not exist.

2) There are those things that support my existence, those things that detract from my existence, and those between that do some of both. - 100% certain fact.

3) There are those things that I can perceive right now, those things that I cannot perceive right now, and some that I can only partly perceive right now. - 100% certain fact.

4) My perception might not be accurate thus which things belong in which category is uncertain just yet. - 100% certain fact.

On and on and on... Certainty is a certainty when you think logically enough.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Ok, the fact of the matter is don't worry about it. No, there is no absolute truth to be found. You don't have to believe anything, and you shouldn't worry about it. Reality is what we conventionally think is the case, and epistemology is our way of dealing with that. Don't confuse it by throwing around words like objectivity and subjectivity; this is a false dichotomy. If you don't believe me, try explaining the difference without refering to a god. Explain what objectivity is if no one has it and no one can have it.
If I have done what I came here to do, this is going to be a short thread.

I see objectivity as a necessary step in the pursuit of certainty.

 

[Sojourner<><]

In cinema, when studying the subject of documentories, we think of "objectivity" as being outside a point of view, and "subjectivity" as a point of view. And the minute you place a camera somewhere, you are getting a point of view, at the very least, an optical point of view. So reality is what "is" and there is no way to see it objectively, because no matter what you do, you are stuck with a point of view. Even if you were to do a film and use editing to get many points of view, you are still stuck with points of view, which can be modified by the editing -- even if the editing were random, your brain searches connections.

So what does it mean to find certainty in it? certainty in your/a point of view?

Everybody needs certianty otherwise we'd all be lost. I'm talking about the kind of certainty that the average person needs to survive, not necessarily certainty at a scientific or philisophical level.

I'm convinced that the best one can do to achieve objectivity in one's own point of view is to try to fairly consider other points of view without as much bias as possible. But my question is concerning the nature of certainty... once found, is it objective or subjective?

 

[Sojourner<><]

There's the matter of solipsism. Basicly it's impossible to KNOW for sure that the perceived world is real or not.

Not if we consider certainty to be a subset of reality, whether it is real or not.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Not if we consider certainty to be a subset of reality, whether it is real or not.

Perhaps we should consider what we are doing when we assume that assumption is required with such certainty.

 

[Marz Blak]

Why forget trying to define it?

We find certainty by starting with declaration of concepts then comparing them with what we observe. After that picture of probable certainty builds to a point, it begins to entrap some concepts as 100% certain despite earlier mere probabilities. In the long run (a very long run) you end up with absolute certainty of many things and most things are merely a matter of observing more.

How does this account of a means to acquire epistemic certainty overcome the problem of fallibilism: the idea that as there is no way to externally verify one's observations, there is thus no way to come to a point of epistemic certainty on *any* question?

It seems to me that *any* epistemology is subject to fallibilism, and thus the jump from probabalistic assurance to metaphysical certainty is one that cannot be made in any case.

The entrapment and the declarations are what most people don't understand and thus end up thinking that it is all just about observations and possible flaw. Realize that these ideas came into society merely as a means of creating chaos and uncertainty.

'Realize,' or assert without warrant?

Next you're going to say it's the Devil's work, right?

 

[Multi-Elis]

Everybody needs certianty otherwise we'd all be lost. I'm talking about the kind of certainty that the average person needs to survive, not necessarily certainty at a scientific or philisophical level.

Expand please.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

How does this account of a means to acquire epistemic certainty overcome the problem of fallibilism: the idea that as there is no way to externally verify one's observations, there is thus no way to come to a point of epistemic certainty on *any* question?

It seems to me that *any* epistemology is subject to fallibilism, and thus the jump from probabalistic assurance to metaphysical certainty is one that cannot be made in any case.



'Realize,' or assert without warrant?

Next you're going to say it's the Devil's work, right?

Start reading at post #610 on the "Challenge to all atheists" thread in GA so I don't have to repost and re-agrue.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Everybody needs certianty otherwise we'd all be lost. I'm talking about the kind of certainty that the average person needs to survive, not necessarily certainty at a scientific or philisophical level.

Expand please.

The more uncertainty in one's mind, the fewer decisions can be held to. By not holding to a decision, nothing gets accomplished. Extreme depression to utter dead by perishing is the result of too much indecision from uncertainty.

"The man who stands for nothing, falls for anything."

 

[Sojourner<><]

The more uncertainty in one's mind, the fewer decisions can be held to. By not holding to a decision, nothing gets accomplished. Extreme depression to utter dead by perishing is the result of too much indecision from uncertainty.

"The man who stands for nothing, falls for anything."

I like this connection between certainty and decision making... I'll come back to this....

 

[Sojourner<><]

"The man who stands for nothing, falls for anything."

nice quote, did you come up with that yourself?

 

[The Nihilist]

Ok, enough of this nonsense. Don't worry about what reality means. Let it be enough that the world is consistent in the way that it appears, and whether or not it is the real world, it's the one in which you live. Certainty doesn't even come into the equation. Are you certain that you're hungry? Are you certain you're drunk? Are you certain you're suffocating? It doesn't matter one damn bit whether these things are real or not, because they're certainly real enough that you have to deal with them.
But seriously, don't make me barf by invoking objectivity. It doesn't really mean anything. It's a pretend word, because there's no such thing as the objective. It's a useful fiction that we use to describe our generally consistent personal sense perceptions. Once you get over that, you'll forget that there's such a thing as subjective, because everything is really, truly subjective. If it weren't, there would be a real objection to solipsism, and not just the kind of flip one I gave in the fourth post on this thread.