Is objective reality pointless?

Gary L

Ridiculous title I know. Been thinking about this. The human condition is subjective right? Obviously intermingled with the universe as it exists objectively seperate from our perception.

To be clear from the start, It is of the upmost impotance that humanity strives for obectivity and endlessely pursues understanding and knowledge. But visualize the universe if consciousness never arose. I cant. What is it actually like when our brain isn't throwing together this lovely picture? Is it subjectivity that makes it a 'reality'?

Edit: Just realized this presumes that the universe is not conscious(God). If you think it is do speak up. I'd love to hear about it.

Joe1919

Gary L wrote: »

Is it subjectivity that makes it a 'reality'?

My view is NO. But subjectivity shapes the reality that we percieve and feel and we have no way out of this. This view would be close to transcendental idealism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_idealism

philologos

Personally, I believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth and falsity, absolute morality - right and wrong, these are all objective.

However, and a very important however, subjectivity only arises because our human faculties such as our senses are limited. Truth exists externally to the mind, and it doesn't depend on the mind. I can believe that the earth is flat, and I can believe that Amsterdam is the capital of Western Australia, but the external truth outside of my mind is that Amsterdam isn't the capital of Western Australia, and that the earth is round.

For humans knowledge also depends on empiricism, this is also a limitation in our grasping of the truth. If a tree falls in the forest, and if there is nobody to hear it is there any sound? No. There's no sound because sound depends on waves travelling to the ear drum. Does this mean that it didn't happen? No, the tree fell nonetheless even if there was nobody to hear it. This is problematic for our understanding of the truth. Truth dwells beyond experience in a lot of cases.

So yes, I'd hold that reality is reality external to human cognition, but as Joe1919 said we are locked in our own subjectivity, in that we can only perceive what is real through our fallible senses. This can make for a lot of error, but it does not mean that the truth itself is not absolute or objective, it merely means that humans are fallible and that their interpretation of reality is always going to be inadequate.

This has interesting prospects for the philosophy of religion also. Is it possible for humans to remove the obstacle of the senses through interaction with God to establish objective truths about reality and right and wrong? Since God is beyond human limitation, it is possible that our finite intellect might be able to find surety in God's infinite intellect. If so this offers an intriguing possibility for epistemology. It also raises questions of what we can and cannot know through the means of religious experience or divine revelation which is also to an extent empirical.

Morbert

As far as a mind-independent reality is concerned, I think realism just doesn't cut it. I.e. We can't verify whether or not any statement about reality is necessarily true. Even solipsism falls apart.

Joe1919

Morbert wrote: »

As far as a mind-independent reality is concerned, I think realism just doesn't cut it. I.e. We can't verify whether or not any statement about reality is necessarily true. Even solipsism falls apart.

"Most fortunately it happens, that since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.

Here then I find myself absolutely and necessarily determined to live, and talk, and act like other people in the common affairs of life. But notwithstanding that my natural propensity, and the course of my animal spirits and passions reduce me to this indolent belief in the general maxims of the world, I still feel such remains of my former disposition, that I am ready to throw all my books and papers into the fire, and resolve never more to renounce the pleasures of life for the sake of reasoning and philosophy." (David Hume, A Treatise on Human Nature, Book 1 vii).

In the end, we have to accept the 'general maxims of the world' or some form of realism. We have no choice. When we become hungry, we have to eat.
The problem is with the use of words like 'necessarily', 'absolute', 'ultimate'. Drop these and life goes on. We don't need 100% knowledge.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=EEo5ombCkzwC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=nature++reason+hume&source=bl&ots=kmJG5SYJvY&sig=CweaAfIbkkHvOM0cf23kaRzUSqk&hl=en&ei=08rFTO2CNcP74AaN-aW5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Morbert

Joe1919 wrote: »

"Most fortunately it happens, that since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.

Here then I find myself absolutely and necessarily determined to live, and talk, and act like other people in the common affairs of life. But notwithstanding that my natural propensity, and the course of my animal spirits and passions reduce me to this indolent belief in the general maxims of the world, I still feel such remains of my former disposition, that I am ready to throw all my books and papers into the fire, and resolve never more to renounce the pleasures of life for the sake of reasoning and philosophy." (David Hume, A Treatise on Human Nature, Book 1 vii).

In the end, we have to accept the 'general maxims of the world' or some form of realism. We have no choice. When we become hungry, we have to eat.
The problem is with the use of words like 'necessarily', 'absolute', 'ultimate'. Drop these and life goes on. We don't need 100% knowledge.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=EEo5ombCkzwC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=nature++reason+hume&source=bl&ots=kmJG5SYJvY&sig=CweaAfIbkkHvOM0cf23kaRzUSqk&hl=en&ei=08rFTO2CNcP74AaN-aW5Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CBYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Anti-realists eat when they are hungry too. They just don't claim the satisfaction/experience of still being alive maps to some mind-independent reality. Realists make extra assumptions about what experiences like eating or starving or dying mean.

Joe1919

Morbert wrote: »

Anti-realists eat when they are hungry too. They just don't claim the satisfaction/experience of still being alive maps to some mind-independent reality. Realists make extra assumptions about what experiences like eating or starving or dying mean.

The argument I am putting forward is that we are forced to make assumptions and one of these assumption is that the world is out there and will continue turning whether I live or die. We become hungry and have to forage for food and make assumptions about what's edible or not. If we make the wrong assumptions we either starve or poison ourselves.

I am also convinced that the world will continue turning and my children will continue living when I die.

I am not defending absolute realism but like Hume am saying that we forced to accept a sort of realism (general maxims of the world). I am saying that total scepticism is untenable. This does not claim any type of 'ultimate truth' about the real world. But we must accept certain conventions like that when we post a letter it will somehow arrive there independently of our personal supervision.

This is a common sceptical view (to accept conventions). Remember that the true sceptic is also sceptical about scepticism itself. (like Hume). It is a common position in eastern philosophy e.g the Buddhist two truth doctrine and Emptiness itself is empty. We can accept the phenomenal world without committing ourselves to ultimate truths, a sort of doctrine of the middle way.

However, it has been argued that some objective basis (a sort of realism/pragmatism) can be given to our view of the world. The person/society with the most 'useful' view may have a competitive advantage over others and hence the view of the world that fits our purpose and matches our needs will naturally evolve.

Morbert

Joe1919 wrote: »

The argument I am putting forward is that we are forced to make assumptions and one of these assumption is that the world is out there and will continue turning whether I live or die. We become hungry and have to forage for food and make assumptions about what's edible or not. If we make the wrong assumptions we either starve or poison ourselves.

I am also convinced that the world will continue turning and my children will continue living when I die.

I am not defending absolute realism but like Hume am saying that we forced to accept a sort of realism (general maxims of the world). I am saying that total scepticism is untenable. This does not claim any type of 'ultimate truth' about the real world. But we must accept certain conventions like that when we post a letter it will somehow arrive there independently of our personal supervision.

This is a common sceptical view (to accept conventions). Remember that the true sceptic is also sceptical about scepticism itself. (like Hume). It is a common position in eastern philosophy e.g the Buddhist two truth doctrine and Emptiness itself is empty. We can accept the phenomenal world without committing ourselves to ultimate truths, a sort of doctrine of the middle way.

However, it has been argued that some objective basis (a sort of realism/pragmatism) can be given to our view of the world. The person/society with the most 'useful' view may have a competitive advantage over others and hence the view of the world that fits our purpose and matches our needs will naturally evolve.

I don't take issue with such a frameworks provided it is acknowledged that "a mind-independent world will continue turning" is a pragmatic assumption, and might not be true. But I am against any stance that tries to argue that it is actually the case that there exists a mind-independent world which will continue turning. I would reject the argument that an objective basis can be built on natural evolution, for example, because it assumes that societies exist.

Don't get me wrong. Nihilism/Anti-Realism is effectively useless. But that doesn't mean it isn't true in the strictest sense of the word.

Joe1919

Morbert wrote: »

..... Nihilism/Anti-Realism is effectively useless. But that doesn't mean it isn't true in the strictest sense of the word.

I would be more or less in agreement with you here. Indeed, I would consider myself to be an anti-realist in terms of seeing the world as a constant changing flux of interdependence with no stable essential features (essences) other than those we choose to name or conceptualize ourselves.

But anti-realists have to eat and shelter like everyone else and hence they are forced to make some kind of sense of the world in order to survive. Hence we start to distinguish between food and non-food, drink and non-drink, shelter and non-shelter. These 'essences' of food, drink, shelter are not in themselves essential (in that what I consider edible, you may consider inedible) but are relative to our needs and demands.

We also learn to grow crops and become aware that the crops will continue growing even if we are not looking at them and will become ripe around a predicable time (when certain stars also seem to be in alignment).

Hence at some point, the question is asked 'What's the difference between the realist and anti-realist?' They both eat, drink, sow their crops etc.
This is an important point. For example, in Zen it is said that before enlightenment, one chops wood and carries water, after enlightenment one does the same.

So (imo), from the point of view of day to day life, the anti-realist continues living and behaves in the same way as the realist. However there is one difference and that is their view towards absolute or ultimate truth. The realist, because he believes that there is some reality to be known will be more likely to commit himself to beliefs and 'causes' such as religions, politics, science etc. He will for example believe that there is some ultimate difference between theism and atheism.

The anti-realist may be inclined to take a different view. For example, he may see all 'isms' as just views of the world and may see wisdom in not looking for truths in such beliefs and instead perhaps be just observant and take the world as they see it.

Anyhow, I am not claiming any type of truth here. Indeed, as an anti-realist I cannot claim any 'ultimate' or 'real' difference between realism or anti-realism and this is my point. The difference is perhaps very slight and just one of attitude.

philologos

There is defeatism and positivism.

You read different philosophies with the acceptance that there could be the possibility that our finite intellects may be informed in some way by the infinite. In the ancients from Plato (stepping out of the cave seeing the unchanging universal ideas behind a radically changing existence) onwards, and indeed in philosophy such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Descartes. There is a recognition that there is a possibility that there is an overarching universal truth that can be known via a source external to ourselves. I'm currently reading Friedrich Schleiermacher a German romantic philosopher on the possibility that our finite intellects might place finite things in an overarching unity through religious experience.

Then of course there are other philosophers that would go down the path of saying that we are locked into our own subjectivity. This is what I would call philosophical pessimism in respect to the universal. If we are convinced that there is no overarching unity to anything, and if we are convinced that there is no possible way that this external and overarching unity can inform the particular then we are locked in it with no hope of receiving any fuller insight, which as a philosophical realisation must be suitably depressing.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

There is defeatism and positivism.

You read different philosophies with the acceptance that there could be the possibility that our finite intellects may be informed in some way by the infinite. In the ancients from Plato (stepping out of the cave seeing the unchanging universal ideas behind a radically changing existence) onwards, and indeed in philosophy such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Descartes. There is a recognition that there is a possibility that there is an overarching universal truth that can be known via a source external to ourselves. I'm currently reading Friedrich Schleiermacher a German romantic philosopher on the possibility that our finite intellects might place finite things in an overarching unity through religious experience.

Then of course there are other philosophers that would go down the path of saying that we are locked into our own subjectivity. This is what I would call philosophical pessimism in respect to the universal. If we are convinced that there is no overarching unity to anything, and if we are convinced that there is no possible way that this external and overarching unity can inform the particular then we are locked in it with no hope of receiving any fuller insight, which as a philosophical realisation must be suitably depressing.

The problem isn't so much "How do we know things?" but rather "How do we know we know things?" It could very well be the case that my experiences can be mapped to reality, but we have no way of demonstrating this is the case. The closest we have ever gotten is "I think therefore I am", and even that has problems.

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

Then of course there are other philosophers that would go down the path of saying that we are locked into our own subjectivity. This is what I would call philosophical pessimism in respect to the universal. If we are convinced that there is no overarching unity to anything, and if we are convinced that there is no possible way that this external and overarching unity can inform the particular then we are locked in it with no hope of receiving any fuller insight, which as a philosophical realisation must be suitably depressing.

I'm going to try to answer you on this paragraph and try to show why a Christian, for example, can see some optimism in taking an anti-realistic 'attitude' towards the world. Please consider these as more thoughts than arguments, as I fully respect your position. I have come at this from an Eastern perspective because they have a long tradition in this regard.

1. I have tried to show that there is no 'real' difference between realism and anti-realism ( Hume, Zen etc.). Its just a different attitude. In the anti-realism of anti-realism ( or emptiness of emptiness, scepticism of scepticism) "The doctrine of the world is not destroyed. In reality, no factor at all is demonstrated." (near the end of seventy stanzas)

2. Because we do act and interact and are dependent (on what are we dependent ?), there must be some sort of 'conditions'?

3.In denying knowledge, are we not leaving room for 'faith'? Indeed, perhaps there is no difference between knowledge and faith (expect perhaps the person who claims faith has the intelligence and humility to know that he cant be certain and he just has to take the best position that he can.(Thats why perhaps he may accept faith as a gift).

4.Anti realism, especially in its eastern form of dependence origination, tends to acknowledge the overall unity of the world and the dependence of the processes of consciousnesses on this overall unity.

http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/genesis.htm&sa=U&ei=oF_JTKPBOdTNjAfq9NXeDw&ved=0CBEQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNHwDN_HemUtv68gqgJCt0nkWZv-9A
http://www.google.ie/url?q=http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Dblog.view%26friendId%3D18714473%26blogId%3D154296451&sa=U&ei=4WbJTMPaGNWRjAfcs6X4Dw&ved=0CBcQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHgq_M-hzWeVNC7kBZPQwS2Gio_WQ

philologos

Personally, I strain to see how it is possible to be a Christian, and to hold this viewpoint. By believing in God, the universal source of all things, one must also believe that there is universal knowledge. Indeed, if we can come to a relationship with God, there must be a way as Schleiermacher puts it that the Infinite can become manifest in the finite. Although I would disagree with the mechanics behind Schleiermachers reasoning I would largely agree that if God exists, and if we can come into a relationship with Him, then we must be able to perceive something of the universal.

I can't see how Christianity or any religion that posits a universal, omniscient, omnipotent Creator God could be anything else.

As for knowledge and faith, this is another issue where I disagree with Schleiermacher having read him a lot recently he seems to be the main one to call on for this. He would hold that religion cannot be a form of knowledge or science. If religion were to be it would be subordinate to either knowledge and science and thus wouldn't be universal. I don't know what to make of this really. Personally I do believe that much of God is beyond reason, but at the same time I believe that if God did create the world and is active in Creation, He must be evidently in it.

This is why for example, I would hold that I see God working in peoples lives, my life and in the world. Given divine revelation, and given that God is claimed to be active in the world, it is not unreasonable that I should be able to know at least something of the finite. Schleiermacher distinguishes between an immediate feeling that gives perspective, and a mediate reasoning process by which we come to knowledge. I don't feel the need to do this, yes God can give us perspective, but we can reason from first principles based on what we know of Him to derive conclusions. There is no proper argument to say that one cannot reason, or know anything based on religion.

Honestly, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that anti-realism / nihilism can be in any way an acknowledgement of dependance. If one through ones senses cannot begin to know anything absolutely, why would one hold to anything such as a universal reality to begin with. How can we be in any way certain that there is one? - The point is, without any recognition of a mechanism that the Infinite can become manifest in the finite, we can't. We're hopeless and such thinking is wholly futile apart from to be a leap into the unknown.

Joe1919

What we claim as knowledge is always of something 'finite', with form or essence. But form and essence is always a limit and this limit is something that we, as humans, put on things, in order to make sense of things. It is we that impose the limit. Man is the measure of all...... The infinite has no measure, there is nothing to measure.

The anti-realist would claim that these 'limits' or essences are not real, as everything is interdependent and comes from a limitless or infinite whole.

But the Whole has no limits. To see the Whole as having limits or essences (other than the existence of the Whole) is to see the Whole as not what the Whole is.

We cannot have knowledge of the Whole then, because there is no knowledge (as form, essences or limits) to be had of the Whole.

Anyhow, I agree, it takes a leap to appreciate this. But it's a leap worth taking. (imo)

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I strain to see how it is possible to be a Christian, and to hold this viewpoint. By believing in God, the universal source of all things, one must also believe that there is universal knowledge. Indeed, if we can come to a relationship with God, there must be a way as Schleiermacher puts it that the Infinite can become manifest in the finite. Although I would disagree with the mechanics behind Schleiermachers reasoning I would largely agree that if God exists, and if we can come into a relationship with Him, then we must be able to perceive something of the universal.

I can't see how Christianity or any religion that posits a universal, omniscient, omnipotent Creator God could be anything else.

This brings us to the issue I mentioned earlier. Anti-realism is not about "How do we know?" but instead about "How do we know we know?" I would not, for example, argue that God has not given us some form of universal knowledge. I would instead argue that we cannot distinguish between the scenarios where there actually is a God who has given us universal knowledge of the truth, and where there is no God, and it is all an illusion. That is the heart of anti-realism: Even if our experiences are indicative of something real, we cannot verify what is real and what isn't. . As a Christian, this would mean believing God is real, and that we know things through God, but at the same time accepting that this belief cannot be verified.

bastados

Wow a thinkers corner....snarf snarf

We experience the world in an allegorical sense and those experiences soak in in a totally subjective manner.

I spent a lot of my youth trying to penetrate the fabric of reality with an intellectual folly and found truths dont offer themselves up willingly.It was Nietzsche that said if you stare long into the abyss it will stare back at you and so it is with reality...reality isnt a dead mute thing as our Judeo-christian heritage generally leads us to believe.

I used to have quite a clear view of both the subjective and the objective until I started reading Sam Beckett , he seems to turn the entire notion of these two things as opposing spheres on its head.

The question of how to remove subjectivity and render a question capable of being answered in any real subjective sense is difficult.

philologos

bastados wrote: »

reality isnt a dead mute thing as our Judeo-christian heritage generally leads us to believe.

How did you get this from Judeo-Christianity by the by?

Trog

OP have you read Husserl's Vienna lecture? Excellent stuff in there about the role of subjective and objective knowledge. It's directed towards solving the 'European Crisis' of the WWII era, but deals with it via this topic. Here's a link:

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/husserl_philcris.html

Personally I believe that the objective world is merely a characteristic of subjective experience- it is our way of systematizing our experience so we can understand it. I believe in objective entities, but I don't believe we have the capacity to understand them (at least not at this stage in our evolution). In a kind of Nietzsche's Uberman way I think we'll evolve to a greater understanding of objective entities (although I don't think it'll be by art).

I say these are 'beliefs' because I'm fickle, and my believing these things is based on me not having come across a more suitable solution yet. I can't claim to be the most well read in philosophy, and I don't know how completely I could back them up be argument.

bastados

Jakkass wrote: »

How did you get this from Judeo-Christianity by the by?

"Judeo-Christian" not "-ity" and I arrive at that supposition by having interacted with the world for 43 years.We live in a largely christian country and the bible gives us a certain reality in its stories.For me its pretty much an accepted supposition.

philologos

Claiming that something is Judeo-Christian would surely imply that there is something Judeo-Christian about it?

Perhaps you're referring to Irish society which may have been Judeo-Christian more by name than in substance over a long period of time.

Trog

Jakkass wrote: »

Claiming that something is Judeo-Christian would surely imply that there is something Judeo-Christian about it?

A society can have a Judeo-Christian culture, and history, which influences its manner of thinking and its mode of morality, without being in any explicit way a Judeo-Christian society. For example, Modern (Western) philosophy is strongly influenced by medieval philosophy, as a part of its history. This doesn't mean we subscribe to Medieval Christian views, but that we have built our manner of argument, at least in part from their mode of argument. This doesn't mean we are a Medieval philosophy, but we do have a history in Medieval philosophy, culturally.