NationStates Jolt Archive

Is reality objective or subjective? Is there a "real" reality that is perceived my most of us and whoever doesn't perceive it insane? Or is reality simply determined by a collective opinion, which may or may not be hallucination?

(This is not the "Is morality objective or subjective?" thread, which can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469767 )

Ive often said "Perception is reality".

Meaning "real" is entirely subjective to the one experiencing it.
You and I may know that the crazy guy down the street isnt actually god, but if he thinks he is, in his mind...he is.

This is getting philosophical to the point of being irrelevant.

Suffice to say that I believe we are blobs of biological matter who happened to have evolved to fit the requirements that exist in our current environment.

Meaning "real" is entirely subjective to the one experiencing it.



So, subjectivity is objective?

So, subjectivity is objective?


*blink blink*

I didnt think of it that way, but yes, I suppose it is.

*blink blink*

I didnt think of it that way, but yes, I suppose it is.

So, there is a part of reality that is objective and experienced by all?

So, there is a part of reality that is objective and experienced by all?

Possibly.

But there really isnt a way to tell wether this over-all part of reality that is being experienced by all isnt a completely subjective perception of one mind.


Have fun with that one.

Possibly.

But there really isnt a way to tell wether this over-all part of reality that is being experienced by all isnt a completely subjective perception of one mind.


Of course the more direct way out of this trap is to shout 'bollocks, it's not, take your hollow sophistry and shove it' whenever anyone suggests that subjectivity is objective.

Of course the more direct way out of this trap is to shout 'bollocks, it's not, take your hollow sophistry and shove it' whenever anyone suggests that subjectivity is objective.

I much prefer to wax philisophical horseshit back at them, with a clear understanding (albiet a silentone) that I have little idea of what Im talking about.

To use a popular American Phrase:

"If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

I also prefer to yell "Sod off, you bloody tosser (or wanker)!"
But as Im an American, it just isnt the same.

For me, reality is something that does not exist until I've had a minimum of 4 cups of coffee. I'm on cup #2. So all of this is just a figment of my imagination right now.

For me, reality is something that does not exist until I've had a minimum of 4 cups of coffee. I'm on cup #2. So all of this is just a figment of my imagination right now.

Or..it could be a figment of my imagination....

In reality, you are wide awake, and having lunch with a friend.
However, in my reality, you are groggy, and drinking coffee, and since subjectivity is objective....you arent actually any of those things.

Make sense now?

Or..it could be a figment of my imagination....

In reality, you are wide awake, and having lunch with a friend.
However, in my reality, you are groggy, and drinking coffee, and since subjectivity is objective....you arent actually any of those things.

Make sense now?

It does! Thank you! *looks at dessert menu*

Is reality objective or subjective? Is there a "real" reality that is perceived my most of us and whoever doesn't perceive it insane? Or is reality simply determined by a collective opinion, which may or may not be hallucination?
Objectivity and subjectivity are the result of perspectives. When viewed from the perspective of the individual, the world is seen subjectively; when viewed as from a perspective apart from the individual, the world is examined objectively. So the answer is that reality, which is objective to us, can be viewed objectively or subjectively.

Even if reality is a product of our minds, it is objective to us because it defines the world around us, apart from us, "not-us"; we can view it subjectively or objectively as we choose.

It does! Thank you! *looks at dessert menu*


I suggest the Chocolate Moose.

Thats not a typo.

In my subjective perception of reality, there is a "real" reality that is perceived by most of us, and whoever doesn't perceive it is insane. How d'you like them apples?

Reality is pretty obviously objective. It's hard to seriously argue otherwise.

Reality is objective. But each of us perceive reality through a filter mostly of our own creation. It's a filter created from our experiences, our prejudices and our predilections. Sometimes these filters can be manipulated by outside sources, but for the most part, our filters are our own and it's our flaws and ignorances that allow others to manipulate them.

These filters we perceive reality through distort some things, sharpen others and may even completely block still others. Everybody has a filter and that's a completely natural thing. It's almost impossible to not have your opinion on the world affecte by your filter, but acknowledging that you have one and it's different from other's filters is a sign of wisdom.

My filter is covered in mud. :)

Reality is objective. But each of us perceive reality through a filter mostly of our own creation. It's a filter created from our experiences, our prejudices and our predilections. Sometimes these filters can be manipulated by outside sources, but for the most part, our filters are our own and it's our flaws and ignorances that allow others to manipulate them.

These filters we perceive reality through distort some things, sharpen others and may even completely block still others. Everybody has a filter and that's a completely natural thing. It's almost impossible to not have your opinion on the world affecte by your filter, but acknowledging that you have one and it's different from other's filters is a sign of wisdom.

My filter is covered in mud. :)
Haha. Mine is too. :)

That's a fine tie-in of the other context of subjectivity.

Our interpretation of reality is what is subjective, not necessarily the reality itself. Snow exists, without us needing to ever see it, feel it, or know of it at all. How do we know that? We don't. But it doesn't make snow into something that doesn't exist. Humans aren't the beings that make things real. Things simply are.

I'll just keep groping this lovely elephant if nobody minds.

I'll just keep groping this lovely elephant if nobody minds.

:eek: That's not a bowling bag! :eek:

You guys are using the word "subjective" wrong. Subjective is used to describe all the objective reasoning that goes on in our heads that we aren't aware of and can't explain ("gut instinct" is a good example). So what do you mean by objective and subjective? Are you saying that I can say 2+2=4, but you can say 2+2=5, and we are both right in terms of "subjective" reasoning?

Are you saying that I can say 2+2=4, but you can say 2+2=5, and we are both right in terms of "subjective" reasoning?
You'll have to find a harder problem then I can display two "subjective" (i.e. different) ways to find the same answer (objective). But, there's also truth and facts, which aren't objective or subjective. Until journalists get thier hands on them.

Poop.

This stuff always gives me a headache, because everything I've read so far about this subject (in this thread and during my life) actually makes sense. I prefer to see reality as neither subjective or objective, but a mix of both and all others things we don't/do have words for.

Once I figured out I quite possibly couldn't ever understand it anyway, I gave up on and started accepting reality as a thing that just 'is'. Or maybe it isn't :confused: Ow. Headache.


Hence I adopted this motto: "Nothing is certain and not even that." So far it's working out just fine.

Mariehamn, why don't you show me one of these subjective problems? I've never seen anything of that nature.

Philosophy (as we know it today) is a bunch of crap, because it's really "emotional logic". The problem is that emotion isn't logical. Some people say that genetic experimentation is always OK, some people say that it's always wicked. Neither of those two parties have any rational reason for believing what they do, it's just what their emotions tell them to do. So whether the universe is objective or subjective is basically an emotional question for you, and it could be either one. Just depends on your definition and train of thought.

So, pick your definition of "morals", and then stick with it. If you continue to debate over what exactly is moral and what isn't, you'll get nowhere, because its an emotional issue. The only logical thing that you can "logically" debate is what conforms or violates YOUR moral system or someone else's, not what is moral itself.

Our interpretation of reality is what is subjective, not necessarily the reality itself. Snow exists, without us needing to ever see it, feel it, or know of it at all. How do we know that? We don't. But it doesn't make snow into something that doesn't exist. Humans aren't the beings that make things real. Things simply are.
I agree, to a point. It would be burdensome to try to explain why I disagree to a point too though.


Oh, and Sin....you have a TG.

You guys are using the word "subjective" wrong. Subjective is used to describe all the objective reasoning that goes on in our heads that we aren't aware of and can't explain ("gut instinct" is a good example).

No we aren't, and no it isn't (although you personally might use the word that way, you are flying in the face of its accepted meaning).


Philosophy (as we know it today) is a bunch of crap, because it's really "emotional logic".

This is just plain nonsense, as contemporary philosophy includes logic, which by definition is not "emotional logic".

Mariehamn, why don't you show me one of these subjective problems? I've never seen anything of that nature.
You mean you've solved every mathematical problem you've ever done in the same manner? Impossible.

If reality is subjective, then we are saying that it is each individual that ultimately is responsible for defining and experiencing their own worlds. Everything within that world is local to the individual. What is real to a person is not that somewhere an apple falls to ground but that he sees the apple falling. Similarly, what is real to an observer is not that a subject has an idea or intends to say something but rather that something is said.

If it is subjective, everything that is heard (or otherwise perceived/experienced) is generated locally. Ideas that you hear or read about are all things within yourself. Therefore, all ideas that exist in your reality cannot belong to anyone else. There is no subjectivity of thought; everything is your own opinion in some way.

Therefore, if all empirical facts are subjective then all opinion is objective within this frame.

The only logical analysis of this is to state that if reality is subjective, it is simultaneously objective; there is no distinction in a "subjective" reality as to what is self and what is not, because everything you perceive, experience and think defines another part of who you are.

Is reality objective or subjective? Is there a "real" reality that is perceived my most of us and whoever doesn't perceive it insane? Or is reality simply determined by a collective opinion, which may or may not be hallucination?

(This is not the "Is morality objective or subjective?" thread, which can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469767 )

I prefer to simply ask "is reality?"

Cut to the chase dammit!

Some people seem to be confused about what objectivity and subjectivity are.

There is only one thing that is truly "a subjective thing," and that is "me" (the sense of "self"). Everything else is objective to it, everything that self can recognize and put a label on as a part of the world that we inhabit. If something can be recognized by self as "not-me" then it is "objective to me"; it is the object, and I (a person, group or thing) am the subject.

Objectivity is more than just objective things --objectivity is a view from an indistinct point apart from the self that includes the self as a part of the whole. This view elminates the view from the subject, but only abstractly; it is a person who exercises this view in language to emphasize the truth of a matter, to lend credence to an idea by putting it in a context of universality (where anyone can experience the same thing).

Subjectivity, then, is things viewed from the perspective of self, from the perspective of "the inside looking out." The subject exists in/is conscious in the present moment, so subjectivity is expressed in present tense. "You suck!" is a subjective statement. This is also where the emotional context of subjectivity ties in, as the view from the subject is always of an object in relationship to it --things out there exist for the subject, in support of it, sustaining it, against it, opposed to it, even neutral to it, etc. These all describe relationships, and are expressed outwardly. (So the definition of subjective things, then, is extended to include expressions of self in word, art and motion, although these exist objectively.)

If reality is subjective, we would never know; we cannot be conscious of the self, only of things (objects) in relationship to self.

Reality is objective.

Perception is subjective.

The objective reality is perceived subjectively.

I'll leave this one to Bill...
Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves.

Reality is pretty obviously objective. It's hard to seriously argue otherwise.

There is no way you can ever truly know this, because there's no guarantee that the sensory input you get from "reality" is real. Obviously, "I think therefore I am", so with me being real as well you're not alone.

Of course there's no way for me to know that you're not part of the illusion either.

I'll leave this one to Bill...

I dunno, i think i'd have preferred to hear Goatboys take on objective and subjective.

;)

Is reality objective or subjective? Is there a "real" reality that is perceived my most of us and whoever doesn't perceive it insane? Or is reality simply determined by a collective opinion, which may or may not be hallucination?

(This is not the "Is morality objective or subjective?" thread, which can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469767 )

I'm taking this to ask "Is there an objective reality, or is all reality purely based on subjective characteristics?" In which case I say that there is an objective reality, although of course our perceptions of that objective reality are colored by our subjective experiences.

To use a very short, succinct example of what I mean, a tub of water that has a temperature of 35 degrees Celcius is, barring skeptical considerations (note that these are distinct from subjective considerations), 35 degrees Celcius; that is simply an objective fact of the matter about the world independent of our subjective experience. That view of the tub of water, however, is of course colored by how we perceive that tub; subjectively, it might be lukewarm, warm, hot, cold, or cool.

There is no way you can ever truly know this, because there's no guarantee that the sensory input you get from "reality" is real. Obviously, "I think therefore I am", so with me being real as well you're not alone.
Then there is no way that you can ever really know anything, as *everything* is perceived. That makes your statement as tenuous as you claim hers to be.

Of course there's no way for me to know that you're not part of the illusion either.
There is not even an illusion, because you can't know that. According to you, you can't know anything (i.e. the definition of "knowing" you use is lacking).

Everything --including knowing --takes place in the context of our perception. We *can* know things, because the definition of "to know" includes that faculty of perception. Know: "to apprehend with the conscious mind; to be acquainted with by experience; to recognize..."

There is no way you can ever truly know this, because there's no guarantee that the sensory input you get from "reality" is real. Obviously, "I think therefore I am", so with me being real as well you're not alone.

What does it mean for the "sensory input you get from 'reality'" to be "real"?

The whole concept of "real" stems from relevance. We see a given object as "real" because it can effect us; if I touch it I feel something, if I drop it I hear something, if I lift it I use energy, etc.

What does it mean for that to be an "illusion"? It cannot be illusory, because for it to be illusory there would have to be another, "true" reality. If that reality, since all of our "reality" is illusory, is in fact imperceptible, it is not "real" at all, and is just a theoretical invention.

If reality is subjective, we would never know; we cannot be conscious of the self, only of things (objects) in relationship to self.
That's kinda what I was getting at. If reality was subjective, the distinction between self and other would be non-existent.

Of course, I like rubbing out that distinction anyway. Can't we consider objectivity to be merely subjectivity in the frame of the universe itself?

Don't ask me ... I'm Schizoaffective.

Don't ask me ... I'm Schizoaffective.

The doctor told me i was a paranoid schizophrenic with a persecution complex. Well, he didn't so much tell me, but the voices in my head told me that he'd said it to EVERYONE I KNOW.

Of course, I like rubbing out that distinction anyway. Can't we consider objectivity to be merely subjectivity in the frame of the universe itself?
Subjectivity can only happen from a unique perspective, and a subject cannot know itself, only the relationships between itself and the world around it. So a discussion with the universe as the subject of perception would have to be a discussion about something apart from the universe. Perhaps about us. ;)

What does it mean for the "sensory input you get from 'reality'" to be "real"?

The whole concept of "real" stems from relevance. We see a given object as "real" because it can effect us; if I touch it I feel something, if I drop it I hear something, if I lift it I use energy, etc.
Brilliant! Thank you; I like that. It ties together the reality of concepts with physical reality.

I consider myself to be an agnostic on this topic, though the principal of utility does seem to favor one position over the other.

The way I see it, there are two possibilities: that of one objective reality that everyone experiences through their own distorted lens (as most people tend to believe), and that of subjective realities that we exist within independent of each other.

If there are only subjective realities, there is no reason to assume that the people we know in our own reality actually do exist outside of our minds. Since we are the only ones that we can be verify the existence of, the only real moral code that makes any sense at all is hedonism. The ramifications: empathy, sympathy, etc. are all useless in this system.

If everyone is simply perceiving an objective reality through their own distorted lens, real interactions between people can occur, though the perception of these interactions can distort them to such a degree that one or more parties may not even know that they are happening. The fact that our actions do mean something outside of our perception of them makes this system more responsibility-based. If everyone lives according to this system of beliefs, as most people do, it benefits the whole.

A type of Pascal’s wager can be made:
Believe in objective reality leads to missing out on the pleasures of hedonism if incorrect, but the preservation of the happiness of the entire system if correct.
Believe in subjective reality leads to experiencing pleasures of hedonism if correct, but the devastation of other peoples’ lives through your reckless pursuit of pleasure (and the other way around).

Similarly to Pascal’s wager, this cannot be used to prove one position or the other, all it can do is offer better "odds" for one scenario. Thus, whether there is an objective reality or not is relevant, although obviously there is no way to actually determine which is truly the case.

Interesting. I seem to remember creating a thread with the same question...

Reality (truth) is totally objective. But we can only percive it with our totally subjective minds.

I consider myself to be an agnostic on this topic, though the principal of utility does seem to favor one position over the other.

The way I see it, there are two possibilities: that of one objective reality that everyone experiences through their own distorted lens (as most people tend to believe), and that of subjective realities that we exist within independent of each other.
"Reality", if created in the imagination, is not real, and therefore not reality. It is an imagining. Imagination is the antithesis of reality. So really, we are discussing reality vs. imagining.

Things imagined in our minds can be as objective to us as things apart from us.

(I made this same mistake when I started out on the topic.)

If there are only subjective realities, there is no reason to assume that the people we know in our own reality actually do exist outside of our minds.
True; if there is only imagining, there is no reason to assume that the people we know "in reality" actually exist.

Since we are the only ones that we can be verify the existence of, the only real moral code that makes any sense at all is hedonism. The ramifications: empathy, sympathy, etc. are all useless in this system.
Hedonism is a philosophy that makes sense under any circumstances. But I don't understand what you're saying here: are our imaginary friends not deserving of happiness, too?

If everyone is simply perceiving an objective reality through their own distorted lens, real interactions between people can occur, though the perception of these interactions can distort them to such a degree that one or more parties may not even know that they are happening.
I like this. This imaginative view posits an objective view of objective reality.

The fact that our actions do mean something outside of our perception of them makes this system more responsibility-based. If everyone lives according to this system of beliefs, as most people do, it benefits the whole.
I don't see why we can't also be responsible to our imaginary friends, especially as we are the ones who ascribe meanings such as "responsibility" to things. Outside of our belief systems, there is no meaning.

Our interpretation of reality is what is subjective, not necessarily the reality itself. Snow exists, without us needing to ever see it, feel it, or know of it at all. How do we know that? We don't. But it doesn't make snow into something that doesn't exist. Humans aren't the beings that make things real. Things simply are.Does this mean that by this same token, there could be an objective morality, as well? To quote a couple of other posters: reality is objective, our interpretation of it is not. Could morality be the same?

Objectivity is more than just objective things --objectivity is a view from an indistinct point apart from the self that includes the self as a part of the whole. This view elminates the view from the subject, but only abstractly; it is a person who exercises this view in language to emphasize the truth of a matter, to lend credence to an idea by putting it in a context of universality (where anyone can experience the same thing).Is it possible to view things from a point apart from the self?

Is it possible to view things from a point apart from the self?
Using imagination, yes.

This is just plain nonsense, as contemporary philosophy includes logic, which by definition is not "emotional logic".

There are parts that make sense. But there is also a lot of totally arbitrary ("subjective" in your usage) issues like "what is the meaning of life?" and "is moral relativisim correct?".

As for whether reality is objective or subjective, it depends on your opinion. You could say, "Hey, I saw an apple fall from a tree, and through whatever distorted lens I see it, an event did occur that caused me to see an apple fall from a tree, and I'll call this event 'the apple falling from a tree'." Or, you could say, "I saw an apple fall from the tree, and I don't know what the hell happened, and if you say you're 100% sure an apple actually fell from a tree, you're wrong." So you could say there is an absolute way to look at the world, or you could say there is no such way. Depends on your opinion.

My reality is subjective.
Within that subjective reality exists an objective reality which all of you inhabit.

That you can't see this is your problem, not mine.

I see the subjective reality as objective, and so it is.

Is reality objective or subjective? Is there a "real" reality that is perceived my most of us and whoever doesn't perceive it insane? Or is reality simply determined by a collective opinion, which may or may not be hallucination?

(This is not the "Is morality objective or subjective?" thread, which can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469767 )

Yes.

Nope. Reality doesn't exist.