How do you explain the concept of "objective reality" when it is through our subjectivity that the phrase has its existence? I can understand subjectivity; I am up to my neck in it. But how can I understand "objectivity" when it means outside of the subjective, seeing how the subjective is all that I have?
The heart of the problem is that, while I can believe that objectivity exists, I cannot explain it -- thus I cannot understand it; I can only point, like a child struck with a feeling he cannot explain, and say "there", and hope you understand what I mean -- that you see the same sky that I do. I can accept that there is a "something" -- "something" here being a symbolic way of pointing my finger in the direction of "beyond" reality as I know it under the auspices of my consciousness -- that is the ground on which our consciousness rests; but, being limited to my consciousness, I cannot define this "something", this "beyond", without having it colored by my subjective experience. Another way of saying it is that I don't think this "beyond" can properly be named; for to be named is thus to be limited to -- within the subjective. I think it is impossible to conclude via reason that an "objective world", as antithetical to a "subjective world", exists. It is intuitive, and necessarily so. A person could perhaps very easily come along and say that there is no "something", no "beyond", that thus all conscious experience is, and nothing more; and there would be no way for us to shoot him down. 'Cept with bullets, and that's sadly illegal.
"An objective world exists" -- to me that seems nonsensical. Existence is a projection of our consciousness, of our establishing the world via signs (which is essentially what consciousness is), and thus is only understood subjectively. Exist -- from exsistere: "to come forth, to be made manifest".
Well?
As a sidenote for you youngsters out there, this debate is going on at the "Existentialism" group on facebook.com -- if you're interested.
The heart of the problem is that, while I can believe that objectivity exists, I cannot explain it -- thus I cannot understand it; I can only point, like a child struck with a feeling he cannot explain, and say "there", and hope you understand what I mean -- that you see the same sky that I do. I can accept that there is a "something" -- "something" here being a symbolic way of pointing my finger in the direction of "beyond" reality as I know it under the auspices of my consciousness -- that is the ground on which our consciousness rests; but, being limited to my consciousness, I cannot define this "something", this "beyond", without having it colored by my subjective experience. Another way of saying it is that I don't think this "beyond" can properly be named; for to be named is thus to be limited to -- within the subjective. I think it is impossible to conclude via reason that an "objective world", as antithetical to a "subjective world", exists. It is intuitive, and necessarily so. A person could perhaps very easily come along and say that there is no "something", no "beyond", that thus all conscious experience is, and nothing more; and there would be no way for us to shoot him down. 'Cept with bullets, and that's sadly illegal.
"An objective world exists" -- to me that seems nonsensical. Existence is a projection of our consciousness, of our establishing the world via signs (which is essentially what consciousness is), and thus is only understood subjectively. Exist -- from exsistere: "to come forth, to be made manifest".
Well?
As a sidenote for you youngsters out there, this debate is going on at the "Existentialism" group on facebook.com -- if you're interested.