WWW Posted May 10, 2014 Author Posted May 10, 2014 Since when does Ethics, morality, and UPB encompass all knowledge?
Lians Posted May 10, 2014 Posted May 10, 2014 Since when does Ethics, morality, and UPB encompass all knowledge? Ethics, morality and UPB are fundamentally subjective ideologies by their very nature, because they are derived solely from the human experience. The implication here is very clear: An idea or a system of ideas is subjective if it's derived solely from the human experience. All ideas are derived solely from the human experience. Therefore all ideas are subjective. Knowledge is a subset of all ideas (ideas that are true). Therefore all knowledge is subjective. Unless you believe in platonic forms or some kind of spiritual realm, you might want to revise your statements.
cynicist Posted May 10, 2014 Posted May 10, 2014 Cynicist If we kept reiterating that which we already know, we would inevitably be trapped in an endless cycle of ignorance for eternity. That my friend is a world I would rather not be a part of. What better place to discuss abstract concepts than on a Philosophy forum? If you aren't interested in the topic, please feel free to not respond.Philosophy- The study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc. Absolutely, new ideas are welcome. However, ideas about things that are self-contradictory by definition cannot exist in reality, and therefore have no place on a board devoted to discussing the truth. Since that's what this board is for, I'm suggesting that discussion of those ideas move to a site more suited to them. Maybe a Hindu or Buddhist forum? Unless you believe in platonic forms or some kind of spiritual realm, you might want to revise your statements. That is what he believes, at least that's what he expressed to me in another thread. Again that's fine, I have no problem with that, but if that's the case then this board is not meant for you.
Lians Posted May 10, 2014 Posted May 10, 2014 Absolutely, new ideas are welcome. However, ideas about things that are self-contradictory by definition cannot exist in reality, and therefore have no place on a board devoted to discussing the truth. Since that's what this board is for, I'm suggesting that discussion of those ideas move to a site more suited to them. Maybe a Hindu or Buddhist forum? That is what he believes, at least that's what he expressed to me in another thread. Again that's fine, I have no problem with that, but if that's the case then this board is not meant for you. Thanks for the heads up. To quote the board guidelines: Freedomain Radio is a rational and empirical philosophy show. Reasoning from first principles, in accordance with empirical evidence, is the central methodology of our approach to truth.
WWW Posted May 10, 2014 Author Posted May 10, 2014 That which exists outside of the human perspective is objective. A statement made about the existence of reality outside of our perception is objective. As soon as you fabricate abstract concepts, ideas, theories, etc. pertaining to the nature of existence outside of the human perspective, it becomes subjective by definition. Does that make sense? Also, please re-read the welcoming description of the Philosophy forum on the Freedomain Radio Message Board for further clarification as to the discussion that is encouraged.
cynicist Posted May 10, 2014 Posted May 10, 2014 That which exists outside of the human perspective is objective. A statement made about the existence of reality outside of our perception is objective. As soon as you fabricate abstract concepts, ideas, theories, etc. pertaining to the nature of existence outside of the human perspective, it becomes subjective by definition. Does that make sense? It makes sense, as in I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't make sense in that it is incorrect. Ideas about existence are not automatically subjective, that's the whole point of logic and empiricism, to distinguish these things. The way that I know, for example, that there is no such thing as 'subjective morality', is that morality is defined as objective principles. So anyone putting forward an idea of 'subjective morality' is suggesting something self-contradictory. Also, please re-read the welcoming description of the Philosophy forum on the Freedomain Radio Message Board for further clarification as to the discussion that is encouraged. Sure, let's read that: What is Reality? What are self and other? What is objective and subjective? How do you know what you think you know? What is the best way to communicate that? Talk about it here. I don't see anything about discussing impossible ideas in there.
WWW Posted May 10, 2014 Author Posted May 10, 2014 These "objective principles" are as close to objectivity as humanly possible, but can never be truly objective because it is impossible to completely express objective truth or the fundamental nature of reality within the human perspective.
cynicist Posted May 10, 2014 Posted May 10, 2014 These "objective principles" are as close to objectivity as humanly possible, but can never be truly objective because it is impossible to completely express objective truth or the fundamental nature of reality within the human perspective. That's the same thing as saying that no truth is possible, that everything is subjective. You are free to believe that if you wish, but again, that's not what this forum or community is about.
Jot Posted May 10, 2014 Posted May 10, 2014 That's the same thing as saying that no truth is possible, that everything is subjective. You are free to believe that if you wish, but again, that's not what this forum or community is about. I don't want to jump to conclusions but I would bet that Walker's mom is into new age stuff.
JohnH. Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 These "objective principles" are as close to objectivity as humanly possible, but can never be truly objective because it is impossible to completely express objective truth or the fundamental nature of reality within the human perspective. Is this an objective or subjective truth claim? Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
dsayers Posted May 16, 2014 Posted May 16, 2014 Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. "Do you have a job, sir? Are you employed? Do you go to a job interview dressed like that? On a weekday?"
WWW Posted May 16, 2014 Author Posted May 16, 2014 JohnH,True wisdom is the comprehension of our inherent, limited capacity for knowledge or objective truth; the acknowledgement of our insignificance. Your thoughts and ideas fundamentally contain the same proportion of subjectivity as mine and everyone else's. My presumption is that you can grasp the generality that I am attempting to portray, without me having to elaborate on how intelligence tends to correlate with the capability for varying degrees of consciousness to obtain objectivity. Thank you for your comment, I hope that makes more sense.
Marblemarrow Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 JohnH,True wisdom is the comprehension of our inherent, limited capacity for knowledge or objective truth; the acknowledgement of our insignificance. Your thoughts and ideas fundamentally contain the same proportion of subjectivity as mine and everyone else's. My presumption is that you can grasp the generality that I am attempting to portray, without me having to elaborate on how intelligence tends to correlate with the capability for varying degrees of consciousness to obtain objectivity. Thank you for your comment, I hope that makes more sense. It is true that there are concepts that can not be proven or disproven with our current knowledge. For example, there's no information from which you can logically derive that people around you are not merely illusions that don't have any self-awareness. However, in order to establish such a statement like: "Everything is inherently subjective", you assume objective/absolute knowledge. In addition, assuming that everything is inherently subjective, arguing here is futile because there would be no method (like logic or empiricism) that is objectively preferable to guessing in regard to finding out the truth.
Mike Larson Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Objective: existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world Subjective: relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind So to say that all human knowledge is subjective is really a tautology given that knowledge (or our understanding of reality) is strictly a result of the experience of our minds. We can only speak of human knowledge being more or less accurate in terms of reflecting objective reality. I think that there is a lot of frustration around the fact that the concept of "subjectivity" is often conflated with error. But I don't think that is the case. My subjective interpretation of the chair that I am sitting on might conform 98% with objective reality. To say that my knowledge is subjective is not to say that it is necessarily wrong, but it is to say that it is subject to the possibility of error, given the fallibility of the human mind. The temptation, then, is for someone to respond with something like... "so are you making an objective claim that all claims are subjective"? ...as if I am somehow making a self-detonating argument. My answer to that is "No, I am not making an objective claim. I am making a subjective claim (the only thing that is, by definition, possible for me to make). But that does not mean my claim is false. It just means that it is subject to the possibility of error... which is why we need logic and empiricism to evaluate the claim." The point of debating is NOT to distinguish between objective and subjective arguments (that part is really easy... every argument is subjective), but rather it is to distinguish between more accurate and less accurate arguments in terms of how well they conform to empirical reality or absolute truth. None of this denies the reality of existence or of absolute truth, it is just a recognition that we can never be 100% certain about anything that we claim even though we may be 100% accurate.
WWW Posted May 22, 2014 Author Posted May 22, 2014 Marblemarrow, What yourself, as well as many others are suggesting is that knowledge is either 100% objective (not dependent on the mind for existence) or 100% subjective (dependent on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence), which is a misleading dichotomy. Rather there are varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity. Visualize a spectrum that contains 0% objectivity at one end and 100% objectivity at the other. 0% objectivity equates to subjectivity whereas 100% objectivity equals absolute truth as it exists independent of our perception of reality. As human beings, we have a limited perception of reality, therefore we can never accommodate the capacity for absolute objective truth (with the exponential growth of technology, this arguably has potential to change), and can never be 100% objective. 30% objective? 50% objective? 99% objective? Maybe. Mike Larson, Very well put, thank you for your comment.
cynicist Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 My answer to that is "No, I am not making an objective claim. I am making a subjective claim (the only thing that is, by definition, possible for me to make). But that does not mean my claim is false. It just means that it is subject to the possibility of error... which is why we need logic and empiricism to evaluate the claim." The point of debating is NOT to distinguish between objective and subjective arguments (that part is really easy... every argument is subjective), but rather it is to distinguish between more accurate and less accurate arguments in terms of how well they conform to empirical reality or absolute truth. None of this denies the reality of existence or of absolute truth, it is just a recognition that we can never be 100% certain about anything that we claim even though we may be 100% accurate. I want to submit a correction here by adding that objective claims are possible. (any claim asserting something to be true is an objective claim for example) An assertion is not automatically proven (not true or false) but if you say something like, "Human beings are capable of error" and this ends up being objectively true, then it would be contradictory to say that it was a subjective claim. In contrast, something like, "Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream" cannot ever be objectively proven because the claim itself is subjective. (In fact if you say that objective claims are impossible to make, you are in effect saying that truth is impossible since truth is an objective claim about the relationship between your understanding of reality and reality itself) My mind always feels a bit warped during these conversations (especially when it comes to language being objective/subjective, ugh) so let me know if I'm in error here or if I misunderstood anything. None of this denies the reality of existence or of absolute truth, it is just a recognition that we can never be 100% certain about anything that we claim even though we may be 100% accurate. This is actually a contradiction. How can something be absolutely true if we are unable to be 100% certain about it? I'm not being nit picky, I understand that absolute truth is rare and hard and that we are often wrong about what we think is true, but this is incorrect.
Mike Larson Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 I want to submit a correction here by adding that objective claims are possible. (any claim asserting something to be true is an objective claim for example) An assertion is not automatically proven (not true or false) but if you say something like, "Human beings are capable of error" and this ends up being objectively true, then it would be contradictory to say that it was a subjective claim. In contrast, something like, "Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream" cannot ever be objectively proven because the claim itself is subjective. (In fact if you say that objective claims are impossible to make, you are in effect saying that truth is impossible since truth is an objective claim about the relationship between your understanding of reality and reality itself) My mind always feels a bit warped during these conversations (especially when it comes to language being objective/subjective, ugh) so let me know if I'm in error here or if I misunderstood anything. This is actually a contradiction. How can something be absolutely true if we are unable to be 100% certain about it? I'm not being nit picky, I understand that absolute truth is rare and hard and that we are often wrong about what we think is true, but this is incorrect. I can definitely empathize with you when you say that your mind feels a bit warped during these conversations. I had to reread my own post like 10 times just to makes sure it made sense in my own mind. To say that an objective claim is possible for a human being to make is to say that it is possible to make a claim that is not affected by the way a person experiences things in his own mind, which I believe is a contradiction. If what I'm saying does not makes sense to you then it probably means we are working with different definitions of the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity (which is really what I think is going on here). Again, to say that a claim is subjective is not to say that it is false. It is just a recognition that the human mind is subject to the possibility of error, and that all statements made by human beings are nothing more than an expression of the minds interpretation of existence. I see no contradiction in a person saying something that is absolutely true (insofar as it accurately represents existence) and at the same time being less than 100% certain that what he is saying is, in fact, the absolute truth. What does it even mean to be 100% certain about something? Does it mean that you officially close your mind to any further refinement of that thing that you claim to know? It just occurred to me that maybe we need to make a distinction between categories of claims (which may be what you are doing, but I am just missing it entirely). For instance, is it illogical to make the claim that 1 + 1 = 2 with 100% certainty? I'm not sure. It seems reasonable to me. But is 1 + 1 = 2 just a tautology? Is it like me defining a forest as 10 trees and then saying that, according to my definition, a forest is 10 trees. This is a true statement. And I'm 100% certain of it. But who cares? Maybe I should revise my argument to say that all claims made by human beings are subjective (meaning that they are derived from the human mind which is fallible), and that we can not be 100% certain about any non-tautological claim. I dare anyone to argue with that!
Marblemarrow Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 Marblemarrow, What yourself, as well as many others are suggesting is that knowledge is either 100% objective (not dependent on the mind for existence) or 100% subjective (dependent on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence), which is a misleading dichotomy. Rather there are varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity. Visualize a spectrum that contains 0% objectivity at one end and 100% objectivity at the other. 0% objectivity equates to subjectivity whereas 100% objectivity equals absolute truth as it exists independent of our perception of reality. As human beings, we have a limited perception of reality, therefore we can never accommodate the capacity for absolute objective truth (with the exponential growth of technology, this arguably has potential to change), and can never be 100% objective. 30% objective? 50% objective? 99% objective? Maybe. Mike Larson, Very well put, thank you for your comment. Alright. I have a hard time imagining something that is 50% objective. Objective; true/false for everyone, subjective; true/false for some, right? Chocolate tastes good can't be 50% objective, because it's not demonstrably true for everyone, so it's 100% subjective and 0% objective. Now given that, the statement "chocolate tastes good is 100% subjective" is 100% objective within my assumptions and perceptive limitations. If we found out some wacky transcendental dimension that would upgrade our maths, maths would still be objectively true as a system outside the influence of that dimension.Truth is dependant on the existence of the mind so I wouldn't agree that absolute truth is something independent of our perceptions, I'd say it's just a concept that is demonstrably true for everyone i.e objective truth.
cynicist Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 To say that an objective claim is possible for a human being to make is to say that it is possible to make a claim that is not affected by the way a person experiences things in his own mind, which I believe is a contradiction. If what I'm saying does not makes sense to you then it probably means we are working with different definitions of the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity (which is really what I think is going on here). Yeah I think I understand what is going on here. When I say objective claim I mean any claim about external reality. It sounds like you are mixing up objective with accurate. Someone can make a claim and, due to some cognitive bias, be incorrect about his assertion, but what makes the claim objective is the content it is describing, not its truth value. I see no contradiction in a person saying something that is absolutely true (insofar as it accurately represents existence) and at the same time being less than 100% certain that what he is saying is, in fact, the absolute truth. What does it even mean to be 100% certain about something? Does it mean that you officially close your mind to any further refinement of that thing that you claim to know? Certainty is the lack of doubt, which in the area of knowledge correlates to the truth. They mean the same thing. You can be certain and still incorrect. (although certainty does make correction more difficult) But is 1 + 1 = 2 just a tautology? Is it like me defining a forest as 10 trees and then saying that, according to my definition, a forest is 10 trees. This is a true statement. And I'm 100% certain of it. But who cares? The tree example is tautological, because you are saying the same thing in a different way. The math example is different.
dsayers Posted May 22, 2014 Posted May 22, 2014 What yourself, as well as many others are suggesting is that knowledge is either 100% objective (not dependent on the mind for existence) or 100% subjective (dependent on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence), which is a misleading dichotomy. Rather there are varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity. The two terms are antonyms. It's like saying the polarity of a magnet can be somewhat positive and somewhat negative and that anybody that views it as one or the other is being rigid and subscribing to a false dichotomy. You are wrong.
WWW Posted May 23, 2014 Author Posted May 23, 2014 dsayers, I didn't say it was a false dichotomy, I said it was a misleading dichotomy. Hypothetically, let's say a man was born with a pair of sunglasses permanently attached to his face that allowed him to see every color except for red. Let's keep this simple and say that there are a total of 7 colors, but he can only perceive six of them. Based on this hypothetical condition, what percentage of colors can this man perceive, and what percentage of colors can he not perceive? He can perceive approximately 86% of all of the colors (objective truth) leaving 14% unobservable or perceivable (his level of subjectivity as it pertains to the objective nature of colors contained within this hypothetical scenario). The problem is that we don't know what percentage of our perception is subjective and what percentage is objective (accurately portrays absolute truth), but we can comprehend or understand the limitations of our perspective of reality. Not the best example, but hopefully you can better understand what I am saying.
Mike Larson Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 Yeah I think I understand what is going on here. When I say objective claim I mean any claim about external reality. It sounds like you are mixing up objective with accurate. Someone can make a claim and, due to some cognitive bias, be incorrect about his assertion, but what makes the claim objective is the content it is describing, not its truth value. I agree that I am, to some degree, confusing objectivity with accuracy. What I also think is happening is that you are focusing on whether or not an assertion deals with objective existence or subjective experience (as its content), in which case, yes, I concur that an assertion can be about either or some combination of the two. But what I'm focusing on is the assertion, itself. And what I'm saying is that because an assertion is a verbal expression of a person's interpretation of existence, it is necessarily subjective in nature (although the content may still be about objective reality). Does this make any sense? And does it even matter? I actually find myself becoming more confused the more I think about it... and that tells me that perhaps I'm missing an important piece of the puzzle.
Marblemarrow Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 ... but what makes the claim objective is the content it is describing, not its truth value... Nobody can make a claim about the outside-of-perception reality because every claim is a product of an interpretation/projection of that external reality by its roots. In that sense every claim is subjective because there's no such a thing as a claim about the external reality. Therefore I think you can go about universality only from the bottom up, work your way to create a system that is demonstrably true from everyone's perspective. If there's any zit of inaccuracy in 1+1=2, it stops being universally true. Moreover 0.9 + 0.9 = 2 is as untrue as 0.99 + 0.99 = 2 within the confines of math so there's no gradient of truth. I'd say objectivity is only determined by its universal truth value; anything less than that is merely a subjective assertion as an attempt at objectivity. We assume a lot of things to be objective yet only a very few truly are. Science is merely a model of the universe and every paradigm in it is prone to change when its ability to predict universe's next move is demonstrably improved by changing one or maybe every part of its clockwork. Things like maths can be build from simple rules that are universally demonstrably true making them easier to be defined as objective, if we go by my definitions.
cynicist Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 I agree that I am, to some degree, confusing objectivity with accuracy. What I also think is happening is that you are focusing on whether or not an assertion deals with objective existence or subjective experience (as its content), in which case, yes, I concur that an assertion can be about either or some combination of the two. But what I'm focusing on is the assertion, itself. And what I'm saying is that because an assertion is a verbal expression of a person's interpretation of existence, it is necessarily subjective in nature (although the content may still be about objective reality). Does this make any sense? And does it even matter? I actually find myself becoming more confused the more I think about it... and that tells me that perhaps I'm missing an important piece of the puzzle. Yeah I think I know what you are saying, maybe this will help. What we perceive through our senses is objective, but our interpretation of what we are perceiving is not and is subject to error. Like when we mistake a horizon for the earth being flat or a straw in a glass of water as being broken into two pieces. And you are right, we are talking about two separate things. (the assertion itself vs its content) That clears it up for me. Nobody can make a claim about the outside-of-perception reality because every claim is a product of an interpretation/projection of that external reality by its roots. In that sense every claim is subjective because there's no such a thing as a claim about the external reality. Therefore I think you can go about universality only from the bottom up, work your way to create a system that is demonstrably true from everyone's perspective. What reality is there besides what we perceive?
Marblemarrow Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 What reality is there besides what we perceive? "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined", granted this is a definition from Wikipedia but that's what I thought what you meant by "external reality". Everything we perceive by that definition is not "reality". Sorry if I misunderstood you.
cynicist Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined", granted this is a definition from Wikipedia but that's what I thought what you meant by "external reality". Everything we perceive by that definition is not "reality". Sorry if I misunderstood you. How do you know the state of things as they actually exist?
Marblemarrow Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 How do you know the state of things as they actually exist? Nobody can make a claim about the outside-of-perception reality because every claim is a product of an interpretation/projection of that external reality by its roots... So I already answered that in a post you quoted just prior to my last post. We can only know things as they are projected. Knowing reality as it is is unintelligible since knowledge is an interpretation of it to begin with. This is why I don't agree that objective claims are claims about external reality. Please read the whole post before criticizing my POV, I vented most of it in the post I just quoted a bit above.
cynicist Posted May 23, 2014 Posted May 23, 2014 So I already answered that in a post you quoted just prior to my last post. We can only know things as they are projected. Knowing reality as it is is unintelligible since knowledge is an interpretation of it to begin with. This is why I don't agree that objective claims are claims about external reality. Please read the whole post before criticizing my POV, I vented most of it in the post I just quoted a bit above. I actually didn't criticize your 'POV' in any of my posts. Your post didn't make sense to me so I was seeking clarification, but now that I understand what you mean I feel comfortable stating that you are wrong.
Marblemarrow Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 I actually didn't criticize your 'POV' in any of my posts. Your post didn't make sense to me so I was seeking clarification, but now that I understand what you mean I feel comfortable stating that you are wrong. Well, I can reiterate my point: There's no such thing as a claim about reality itself, since reality is unknowable (definition being: "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined"). You said that objective claims are claims about reality and that objectivity of a claim is not defined by its truth value. I disagreed. Point one: I think objective claims are made about the projection of reality. Point two: I think objectivity of a claim is defined by its universal truth value - if we don't know that a claim is universally valid i.e. true, then we can't say it's objective. I hope that clarifies my point. You're going to a conclusion about me being wrong without an actual argument here. That's not valuable in a debate since I can say the same about you but I won't. I'm willing to change my POV if it's invalid but I can't be convinced by your mere certainty. Maybe you don't even want to engage in a debate with me which is just fine, but putting up an assertion like that doesn't prove anything and is useless for this topic.
cynicist Posted May 24, 2014 Posted May 24, 2014 You're going to a conclusion about me being wrong without an actual argument here. I already made my point twice so it would seem repetitive to do it again, but I'll give it one more shot. There's no such thing as a claim about reality itself, since reality is unknowable Point one: I think objective claims are made about the projection of reality. Point two: I think objectivity of a claim is defined by its universal truth value - if we don't know that a claim is universally valid i.e. true, then we can't say it's objective. If reality is unknowable, and all we can do is make claims about how we perceive reality to be within our own minds, then there is no such thing as objective reality or truth since any claim we make would be about our subjective interpretation of reality and not the actual thing. Therefore I think you can go about universality only from the bottom up, work your way to create a system that is demonstrably true from everyone's perspective. You are talking about an objective standard (truth) which is defined as being in accordance with reality, and then saying it is derived from something subjective like perspective. This is contradictory and makes no sense.
Marblemarrow Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 If reality is unknowable, and all we can do is make claims about how we perceive reality to be within our own minds, then there is no such thing as objective reality or truth since any claim we make would be about our subjective interpretation of reality and not the actual thing. I think we have some heavy collision with the definitions here. I went with the definition of reality as it was stated in Wikipedia ("Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined") which implies that a) we can still make true claims like "I'm self-aware" even though b) reality is unknowable since it can't be imagined etc. What do you define reality as? (Might be pointless to go about this debate if we can't agree on the terms) You are talking about an objective standard (truth) which is defined as being in accordance with reality, and then saying it is derived from something subjective like perspective. This is contradictory and makes no sense. Again, the definitions. I'll go with Wikipedia again: "A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject", again a claim like "I'm self-aware" is true and you could universalize it like "at least 1 person is self-aware" (an objective, true claim based on perceptual information) and this is not contradictory with the definition of reality as stated above. Now actually I'll go back to repair my statement in that the universal demonstrability of a statement is not the "only" way for universality to work when obviously personal experiences are not necessarily reproducible (like in a solipsistic situation) or demonstrable even though the existence of the experience itself may well be true from my perspective - - then of course universalized knowing that it is true for at least 1 person and so on. My bad. I mean obviously there's disagreement with the definitions but are there any definitions of reality and reality-related concepts that have a consensus among philosophers to begin with? If so, I would definitely switch to them ASAP.
cynicist Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 I'm using the same definitions that you are in this case. So can you tell me where I am in error?
Marblemarrow Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 I'm using the same definitions that you are in this case. So can you tell me where I am in error? ..When I say objective claim I mean any claim about external reality... but what makes the claim objective is the content it is describing, not its truth value... "Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings". So according to the definition objectivity of a claim is actually determined by its universal truth value. Also that definition doesn't implicate that an objective claim is about external reality per se. Sure you could say it's in "relation" to reality when our perceptions and the whole concept of truth to begin with are effects of the mind that you can ultimately link up to being an effect of the underlying "reality", but technically any claim we make is about a projection or an interpretation of reality. If reality is unknowable, and all we can do is make claims about how we perceive reality to be within our own minds, then there is no such thing as objective reality or truth since any claim we make would be about our subjective interpretation of reality and not the actual thing. Just because we can't perceive the underlying reality that our mind and perceptions are an effect of doesn't mean that such thing doesn't exist. We can still categorize things as being true, like the claim about self-awareness, even though our perceptions don't inform about the reality itself (it being defined as the imperceptible underlying cause for our perceptions). Edit: I think Descartes put it well; "I think, therefore I am", in demonstrating how an universally valid claim i.e. an objectively true claim can be derived from mere experience.
Recommended Posts