The world is not objective

[Dedbeet]

Despite how far we go into thinking about whether the world is objective or not, one fact always remains:

"The world" really consists of our own memories.

Look around for a moment and tell me if there's anything here but the current situation, plus memories of the past (and projections of them into the future). Does anything else exist "for you"? Has it ever? If not, does it matter how far we philosophize into deciding whether the world is objective or not?

There are 6.7 billion people on the planet, and every last one perceives things subjectively. Where's the evidence for an objective world? Objectivity itself is a subjectively-created and perceived idea .

 

[inJest]

"The world" really consists of our own memories.

Look around for a moment and tell me if there's anything here but the current situation, plus memories of the past (and projections of them into the future).

I'd disagree. The concept that there is no existence beyond the first person subjectivity would lead to the concept of one perceiver. to be able to accept that others have independant perceptions, shows that there is not only one point of view. with objectivity "absent" every point of view holds exactly the same amount of legitimacy. the concept of "mental illness" is obliterated.

to show objectivity, in a small scale, two individuals are driving down the freeway. person A and person B both look at their speedometers and see their speed is 60 miles per hour. both, look over at the other car and see that they are going the same speed. both perspectives agree that they are going 60 miles per hour, and both perspectives agree that they are traveling at the same speed. an objective state has been reached.

both perspectives agree upon something that is verifiable from a third perspective, such as someone who saw the cars going the same speed.

so, while this doesn't stand up to criticism on its own about subjectivity vs. objectivity, it can show an aspect, a ghost, of objectivity. consensus reality is what we can call objective at the very least. we can all agree about that

Does anything else exist "for you"? Has it ever? If not, does it matter how far we philosophize into deciding whether the world is objective or not?

i prefer to live my life as if it's not a dream. if it was a dream, at least i lived it.

 

[L2R]

The universe does not revolve around us, just our understanding of it.

 

[kytnism]

^ i like that.

...kytnism...

 

[namelesss]

consensus reality is what we can call objective at the very least. we can all agree about that

No we cannot.
Herd mentality/consensus does not equate with 'objectivity'.
There is no evidence of any such thing as 'objectivity'.
It is a fantasy that has been an infected thorn in the side ('beliefs') of science, up until the recent critical update by QM.

 

[Shakti]

^Subjectivity could be argued to be as big of a lie.

At least 'objective facts' are easier to agree upon.

 

[namelesss]

^Subjectivity could be argued to be as big of a lie.

Of course, ultimately, 'subject' and 'object' are 'mirages' due to the inherent limitations of Perspective.
But there must be an 'object' for there to be objectivity, and there is none.
At least the only 'evidence' (no matter how mercurial) that exists is 'subject'. Of course, without 'object' the notion of 'subject' becomes moot.

At least 'objective facts' are easier to agree upon.

'Easier' for the lazy?
There are no such things as "objective facts", unless you redefine 'objective fact' as any consensual belief held by the herd. In which case, a 'flat earth' is an 'objective fact', or Jesus' alleged walking on water (Xtian consensus).
Laziness (seeking ease) is no path into understanding!

 

[Shakti]

Of course, ultimately, 'subject' and 'object' are 'mirages' due to the inherent limitations of Perspective.

Of course.

But there must be an 'object' for there to be objectivity, and there is none.

Of course there is object. Its called form. If you don't want to deal with the world of form and deny its existence, go become an ascetic.

At least the only 'evidence' (no matter how mercurial) that exists is 'subject'. Of course, without 'object' the notion of 'subject' becomes moot.

Here you're making subject an object. And you still deny objects? There is no more evidence for subject than there is for object. You know that. They are one and the same thing.

'Easier' for the lazy?

Easier for anyone. It's much easier for the brilliant and the dull to agree that there is a tree over there, or a bird is singing, than it is to agree to the subtleties of being awake, and having your own perspective.

You know this griping about 'herd mentality' is so ironically common place.

If you want to deny all relative facts, you're going to be stuck with your nihilistic narcissism for a long time.

Laziness (seeking ease) is no path into understanding!

Enlightenment is done without effort. How is that for ease?

 

[ebola?]

When we encounter the universe that includes the observer as an element therein, we see that it is a bit wrong-headed (not quite nonsensical) to argue that something is objective or subjective and move from there. Instead, we need reckon their interaction as logically primary, and move on from there, transcending the subjective and objective (as things rather than processes) ,yet retaining the two, and drawing from them imminent dynamics.

 

[BurnOneDown]

^Wow, great insight.

I consider something to be objective if it is in a state that is unaltered by the mind. This perhaps implies that nothing can exist objectively because anything that exists has to be recognized by an observer. Things that we experience, understand, and communicate are products of our consciousness and, thus, are considered to be subjective. While I acknowledge this, I do not consider objectivity's value as a concept to be in determining things to be 'purely objective'. I consider its value to be in determining a thing to be more or less objective or as significantly objective or not.

That being said, I do believe there has to be something that is purely objective even if it cannot not be known or observed in any manner. After all, we recognize a universe that preceded life, humanity, and perception. Furthermore, we understand that life emerged as part of and in dependence on this preceding existence. This existence was not manifested by a mind yet we know it exist because it enabled life. It was only because life evolved the neural capacity characteristic of the self-aware mind that we know existence to be subjective. Yet the producer of subjective reality remains dependent on an objective reality. So I have to acknowledge an existence that was objective though, at the same time, is entirely unknowable, unobservable, and not understandable. And also I realize that the mind remains rooted in that objective existence through its dependence on it. So I have to acknowledge an objective existence continues to be even though it cannot be known to me.

I have to admit - that last paragraph has very little practical value. As I had initially stated, the value of the concepts lies in determining the objective/subjective significance of something in relevance to your needs. However, subjective/objective are really the same exact thing. Nothing can be known to be objective without a subjective observer. Nothing can be known as subjective without an objective reality. Thus, subjective/objective fail to accurately describe anything. Things are neither and both at the same time. And that really doesn't help you truly understand anything.

Therefore, the world cannot be accurately described as subjective or objective.

 

[L2R]

objectivity relied completely on comparative observation.

like baldrick's definition of a dog: "not a cat"

 

[satricion]

^^
Hehe, nice reference. There are some philosophers who would agree with Baldrick! I mean, if a thing has no essential essence, then what it is must be constituted by it's relationships with other things, ie, it's difference. So rather, there is no essential dog, but rather lots of things a dog is not, chief amongst them, conventionally speaking, would be a cat. Of course that is not really relevant to this thread.

Anyway ebola? is right. Werd!

 

[satricion]

^Wow, great insight.

I consider something to be objective if it is in a state that is unaltered by the mind. This perhaps implies that nothing can exist objectively because anything that exists has to be recognized by an observer. Things that we experience, understand, and communicate are products of our consciousness and, thus, are considered to be subjective. While I acknowledge this, I do not consider objectivity's value as a concept to be in determining things to be 'purely objective'. I consider its value to be in determining a thing to be more or less objective or as significantly objective or not.

That being said, I do believe there has to be something that is purely objective even if it cannot not be known or observed in any manner. After all, we recognize a universe that preceded life, humanity, and perception. Furthermore, we understand that life emerged as part of and in dependence on this preceding existence. This existence was not manifested by a mind yet we know it exist because it enabled life. It was only because life evolved the neural capacity characteristic of the self-aware mind that we know existence to be subjective. Yet the producer of subjective reality remains dependent on an objective reality. So I have to acknowledge an existence that was objective though, at the same time, is entirely unknowable, unobservable, and not understandable. And also I realize that the mind remains rooted in that objective existence through its dependence on it. So I have to acknowledge an objective existence continues to be even though it cannot be known to me.

I have to admit - that last paragraph has very little practical value. As I had initially stated, the value of the concepts lies in determining the objective/subjective significance of something in relevance to your needs. However, subjective/objective are really the same exact thing. Nothing can be known to be objective without a subjective observer. Nothing can be known as subjective without an objective reality. Thus, subjective/objective fail to accurately describe anything. Things are neither and both at the same time. And that really doesn't help you truly understand anything.

Therefore, the world cannot be accurately described as subjective or objective.

Indeed: Realist ontology, relativist epistemology. And a good day to you sir!

 

[namelesss]

But there must be an 'object' for there to be objectivity, and there is none.

Of course there is object. Its called form.

Are you referring to Plato's fantasy BS of 'forms'?

If you don't want to deal with the world of form and deny its existence, go become an ascetic.

Thank you for your rational and logical well thought out refutation in your reply.
You feel free to define and 'prove' the independent existence of your "world of form" and then I will refute it.

Quote:At least the only 'evidence' (no matter how mercurial) that exists is 'subject'. Of course, without 'object' the notion of 'subject' becomes moot.

Here you're making subject an object. And you still deny objects? There is no more evidence for subject than there is for object. You know that. They are one and the same thing.

Depends on Perspective. Subject and object (look em up) are not the same thing. If they were, they would be meaningless and moot.
They are relics of Perspective, nothing more.

Quote:'Easier' for the lazy?

Easier for anyone. It's much easier for the brilliant and the dull to agree that there is a tree over there, or a bird is singing, than it is to agree to the subtleties of being awake, and having your own perspective.

'Ease' is trivial in pursuit of truth/reality. To even mention it is rather pathetic.

You know this griping about 'herd mentality' is so ironically common place.

Just because you are a member of that herd doesn't mean that you are 'evil' or 'wrong' or 'bad', just boring and clueless.
It just is what it is.

If you want to deny all relative facts, you're going to be stuck with your nihilistic narcissism for a long time.

If they can be 'denied/refuted' they are not 'facts'!
There is nothing nihilistic or narcisistic in what I say. You would have seen that if you were capable of understanding, without your need for immediate kneejerk reactions of wanting to argue everything that I say. Ego problems?
You speak, and yet say nothing.

Laziness (seeking ease) is no path into understanding!

Enlightenment is done without effort. How is that for ease?

Your flippant and trite (and incorrect) comment holds no weight at all.
I said UNDERSTANDING which you glissanded right past (because you cannot refute?) and commented on 'enlightenment' (which you, for some reason, feel competent enough to comment). Your straw-man argument fails.

Every 'enlightened' person has put in the effort and payed their dues.
You exhibit a lack of understanding and certainly a lack of such experience.
How would you know anyway? From whence comes your expertise in 'enlightenment' that I should accord you any veracity?
Do you claim 'enlightenment'?

You know, every time that you respond to something that I offer, it is to argue (not logically or scientificaly, but from ego and emotion) and make trite and trivial comments and ad homs.
It has been unpleasant conversing with you, Shakti, and I think that I am finished.
Welcome to my ignore list.
Good day!

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Dude, I didn't see any ad homs in Shakti's last post. Disagree with him all you want, but let's not throw any baseless accusations around.

I think you guys need to take this private if you have anything more to say to each other.

 

[inJest]

Of course, ultimately, 'subject' and 'object' are 'mirages' due to the inherent limitations of Perspective.

this philosophy is known in vedanta as advaita, or non-duality. which is always projected as an objective viewpoint. it exists independant of subject or object.

if the world exists without our perception of it, it is objective. if it doesn't, then we're all floating around in little soapbubbles of our own perception.

 

[Shakti]

Well, you're apparently going to ignore me but I write this anyway...

You say I argue from ego and emotion, but I really believe you're misreading me. I have calmly considered everything I've written to you. Perhaps the emotion is yours. Argument for me is a mode of discourse which can most quickly bring unification of perspectives. This is only if both parties are willing to move. In all of our discourse, you've rarely tried to understand my perspective or be willing to change your own. Perhaps you think your conceptions are vastly superior to mine. Well if that is so you should easily be able to understand mine, and then speak to me in a constructive manner. You have done little more than get huffy whenever I honestly and with good intention criticize a concept of yours, and for all intents and purposes you've said little more than 'you don't know shit, fuck off.' Fortunately, it hasn't worked.

Frankly, I'm going to ignore most of your post because it seemed very off point to me. So, I'll get straight to the meat.

Form is very simple. It is the logical pair to Emptiness. Where there is something rather than nothing, that is form. Go ahead and refute my statement now. But remember, you can doubt anything, you can doubt the sun, your very existence, that the sky is blue, but if you're going to do this, you cannot doubt the doubter. There is Form.

Depends on Perspective. Subject and object (look em up) are not the same thing. If they were, they would be meaningless and moot.
They are relics of Perspective, nothing more.

Subject and Object are one. I also recognize their distinction, I don't have to look em up. You are correct in saying their existence is a matter of perspective. In fact their duality is the foundation of individuated perspectives. In order to transcend samsara, this duality must be resolved. They are in fact, but two halves of the same whole, continually defining and shaping each other. In other words, they are one and the same thing.

It's interesting that you imply that perspective is dead. Could I ask, how did you write your post? Or am I reading something that was not there?

If they can be 'denied/refuted' they are not 'facts'!

I refute that.

There is nothing nihilistic... in what I say

Really?

There are no such things as "objective facts", unless you redefine 'objective fact' as any consensual belief held by the herd.

Sounds fairly nihilistic to me.

The narcissism is a little like a silent fart. Rarely do you hear people say, 'I love me and mine to the exclusion of others,' but it has a way of stinkin up the place.

Your flippant and trite (and incorrect) comment holds no weight at all.
I said UNDERSTANDING which you glissanded right past (because you cannot refute?) and commented on 'enlightenment' (which you, for some reason, feel competent enough to comment). Your straw-man argument fails.

I gave an exception to your statement, that is all. It was you that failed to understand. My point was that if you could operate with absolute ease (which you actually do, whether you know it or not), that would be a great understanding. Honestly seeking that is sure to be an effective path to understanding as well. And what straw-man did I create?

Do you claim 'enlightenment'?

That would be a silly thing to claim.

Look, I'm trying to share something with you, but you're never gonna get it if you keep pushing it away. Perhaps my posts seem trivial to you, perhaps I'm just 'part of the herd' to you, perhaps I'm boring, clueless, illogical, unscientific, flippant, pathetic, with ego problems, a lack of understanding, a certain lack of experience, and immediate kneejerk reactions. Or perhaps I'm not impressed by the attacks of just another fragile lonely narcissist on the internet that can't deal with being questioned about what he writes.

 

[satricion]

The great thing about the internet is that if you are in a discussion with someone whom you think is an idiot, it is very easy (much easier than in face to face interaction) to simply remove yourself from the discussion by not answering that person and not viewing the thread in question any further. That way you can just select those online interactions which you think will be rewarding, and avoid those which you think are not worth pursuing (for whatever reason, including thinking that the others involved are idiots).

However, if you don't do this, and instead insist on getting all worked up and calling the person with whom you disagree an idiot, you inevitably wind up looking like an idiot yourself, partially because of the impossibility of avoiding looking like an idiot when you are ranting on the internet, and partially because the futility of your reaction will be plain for anyone who isn't party to the argument in question. This is especially so when you end posts with something like "and now you are on my ignore list", since this is the same as saying "I have had the last word, and I have prevented you from having the last word by making it impossible for me to find out whether I have, in fact, had the last word."

Now, let's all chill out and get back to illustrating basic themes in contemporary philosophy through the use of quotes from Blackadder.

 

[ebola?]

if the world exists without our perception of it, it is objective. if it doesn't, then we're all floating around in little soapbubbles of our own perception.

The way in which you cast your operational definition of the subjective and the objective you neglect to think of subjects acting; cast otherwise, you assume an object unaffected by the subject...we don't know how that works outside the realm of perception.

I'll get at more later. . .(stoned...may be bs that I'm spouting).

 

[yougene]

Alot of projections flying around in here.

Any experience that is reproducible by a group of people has an objective existence.

Knowledge of these objective experiences is a whole other issue.
We each interpret the objective world through our own linguistic and cognitive structures. Yet at the same time, the objectivity that we can see is also molded by our linguistic and other cognitive structures.