Do you believe in an objective reality?
 

I do. Opinions are subjective, facts aren't.

Discuss.

I'm too skeptical of the ambiguity and dual nature of "objectivity" versus "subjectivity." Often, I find they serve simply as another avenue to the Victorian opposition between reason and emotion. I reject that opposition.

reality is an individual's holographic interpretion of sensory data.

so, although an objective reality may exist, and perhaps may be strived for, not enough data exists.

How do you figure?

I don't see much ambiguity between definite truth and claiming that there is no definite truth. That is, unless you're obviously more on the subjective reality side of the argument.

yes, i do believe in an objective reality. mostly i do this because it makes me feel better.

sure why not.

I do believe in an objective reality, but we do not necessarily perceive it right, or at least completely. We only get the version our senses get from it - and that is only a slight part of it. Maybe the fact that I'm color-blind - and therefore do not see the world as it is, or at least, as you all see it - influences my opinion on this.

A metaphor: the objective reality is like a FLAC file and we only get the 128kbps stream

I'm fully willing to admit that while being the center of my own personal universe, I am not the center of the universe. Therefore, I can not believe in a subjective reality.

once you realize that you are not the center of the universe, but but you circle around it, you will begin to view parts of the whole.

we're all spinning down into the maw of eternity. please, keep your head, arms and legs inside the ride.

although I'm not sure that any of that even matters. it's all what you make of it.

lol, reality and objective.
why should it matter?
whether it is or not.
you'll think it is anyway.
and you won't have an OBJECTIVE answer.

i am in the center of the universe.

I believe in objective reality. And I'd like you all to get the fuck out of it, please.

Yes, even though it's too easy to fiddle with it so that what you get is not what you see.

You don't see any peculiarity in claiming there is an indefinite truth that is metaphysically separate from definite truth? Wouldn't an indefinite truth be no truth at all? How is it even possible to observe and delineate between entities and observers from outside ourselves as observers? Through logical self-reflection? Is there a mathematical proof or are we resigned to assume it as axiomatic? If truth is formal proof, how does that relate to facticity in the world? Or, instead, is objective truth only what is a fact in the world? If so, we return to the problem of our own position as observers that obscures what a fact is without being conditioned by observation.

No ambiguity, you say? Perhaps you can clarify all this for me.

You should transcend to a faster broadband.

I believe in a subjective reality. There an be ambiguity in believing that either "subjective reality" is a "self-revolving universe", or it is denying the existence of objectivity. Anything most can conclude as something that "is" "objective" doesn't necessarily conclude that it "is", or speaks the truth, as it does not apply to everyone's reality - just a large amount of people's perceptions. Many believe that history and fact are distorted as a result.

You should consider reading Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson if you haven't already, the book goes quite in depth on this subject. I have the e-book if you would like it

You've all failed to get out of my objective reality. Ergo, you should just kill yourselves.

Thanks.

if I could get everyone to join me, I'd do just that, and leave you here, twilight zone style.

white nights

I object.

I'll debate what I can.


Certain things are true, certain things are not. As long as we're not talking in matters of opinion, there is absolutely a definite truth.

Now, I'm not saying that humans are even half-capable of understanding the grand secrets of the universe. Just because everyone believes something to be true, doesn't necessarily make it true. But there is a constant state of truth that has existed since the beginning of time, and will inevitably outlive time, itself.



Does your tin foil hat get hot in the summer?

The fact that I know that we've both considered the assumption that no one else is real but ourselves, is more than enough for me to believe in both of our existences.




I completely agree.

You're using very casual definitions of objectivity and subjectivity if you think the difference is between definite truth and opinion. Opinions aren't false by definition. How can one talk of matters of definite truth without accountable right opinion?

So you are saying time is not a constant state of truth? What is this constant state of truth? Where is it? Can you point to anything beside an abstraction in your head?

What is a hat outside of human fashions? What is summer outside of region-specific weather? What is getting hot to someone who has never felt warmth? All the parts of your question refer to first-person experiences to things outside itself. As such, subjective experience cannot exist without the objective for it to refer and the objective cannot be approached by any other means beside those that begin with subjective experience. This is why the dichotomy is shit. To refuse the dichotomy doesn't mean I'm a subjectivist nor an objectivist. The world in which we live and can make sense to ourselves is entwined in such a way that two simplistic post-Kantian terms can't undo it.

time is not a constant truth, if you think if is, you fail Einsteinian-theory.

but what did he know? its not like you can see black holes...


does anyone get the feeling that bradders furiously rubs his junk as he types out these constant eruditic graduation-validations?

the doctor is IN.

it's like watching intellectuals' cum slowly cascade down the walls

Nah, I let your mom do it for me.

I do believe in an objective reality. I just don't believe we can comprehend it beyond a few quite minor surface details, thankfully.

does a nice discussion need to be reduced to cocks and moms...

I think there is an objective reality that exists and that we interact and experience it through subjective means

how would we ever be able to know if there is an objective reality?

I didn't say opinions were false by definition. Just because something is subjective, doesn't mean it's false... :confused:



No, I'm just trying to express that truth is more definite than time.



I agree. Figuring out whether reality is subjective or objective, is only the tip of the iceberg.




I think you've nailed it. :)

yeah. even if there would be we an objective reality we wouldn't be able to tell.

That's what you get when you set up truth versus opinion.

Once again, Rob Instigator proves how awesome he is.

and seeing as there is no way for anyone to know then it kind of nullifies it's existence.

If theres one thing I do know its discussing philosophical matters such as this on the internet has definitely run its course for me. And after all that, i dont think ive changed my mind at all. Some say thats a sign of intellectual inflexibility and stubborness. I would say it means i was on the right path all along.

the only beliefs i hold are that nothing is true and everything is permissable

Jesus, im so tempted to wade in... but i mustn't

It's about the medium. tl;dr is the law of forums. I'm surprised at the resistance to the notion of the noumenal in this thread, but not really inclined to wade in.

I'd also like to direct you to rules 8, 11, 14, 15, 20, 25, 27, 32, 39 and 40 of the internet. Although, obviously, rule 34 is the only real rule.

Having said that, PMs do help to mollify the general futility of 'this sort of thing'.

Vote Labour

requesting rule 34 on object and subject, plz

any of you cockswains ever heard of the weak anthropic principle? read up on it-- it will cut through this bullshit like hot spunk on butter.