Objective / Subjective

[Apoi_Viitor]

Do propositions like: "there is no one objective reality" or "art is subjective" mean anything? What do they prove?

[Turinbaar]

At most they prove a certain antipathy towards both objective reality and artistic criticism from the one who says such things. Because these positions deny the existence of substantive meaning, they are necessarily meaningless and empty. It is the sort of bourgeoise thinking that Marx analyses at length in his critique of the Hegelian dialectic.

[Meridian]

Your first proposition does not make sense, while it appears meaningful. The inverse version would also be non-sense.

Your second proposition could be rephrased into "people's opinion regarding art varies", or something like that. But words like "subjective" seem to carry deeper implications beyond mere contingent observations. I doubt the utterer of the statement would be satisfied by research showing that there is indeed variance in a group's opinion of a work of art.


Because these positions deny the existence of substantive meaning, they are necessarily meaningless and empty.
What does "substantive meaning" mean?

[Azraella]

Do propositions like: "there is no one objective reality" or "art is subjective" mean anything? What do they prove?

The first proposition is ridiculous. Material and objective reality is a provable thing. The computer I'm typing from is objectively real. The second proposition is true. Everyone has tastes, and those tastes don't always mesh up with each other. That said, it is also fair to say that there is a fair amount of subjectvity in reality(at least in interpreting it) and a bit of objectivity in art(any form). I might see a solution to a problem that isn't the same as how someone else sees it or to use a pop music example show that Rebecca Black is talentless.

[Meridian]

The first proposition is ridiculous. Material and objective reality is a provable thing. The computer I'm typing from is objectively real.
You state that, but we have yet to see you prove it.

In fact, I would like to see you prove that "material and objective reality is a provable thing". I also challenge anyone to prove the negation of this, or even to think of a way to prove it.

[JustMovement]

Well lets look at what the common-sense meaning of the first statement is: "There is no objective reality"

Intuitively, we seem to think that objects outside of ourselves exist independently of us, that they posses an "objective" reality, outside of our "subjective" point of view. So for example, if we go to sleep, or stop thinking about them, they do not stop existing. However how can we be sure of this? After all the only way we can know an object is through our own experience.

Now regardless of whether anything exists "outside" of ourselves, the only way to "know" things that are not us is through our senses. Reality, understood as that set of all things, that we know and that we do not, can only be known through our senses, and it can only be understood or be given meaning in relation to a subject.

That would be my interpretation of "there is no objective reality" I am not saying I agree, but I think it as at least a superficial coherence and plausibility. Now whether it is ultimately incoherent in the face of further examination is another story.

[Turinbaar]

What does "substantive meaning" mean?

Meaning derived from a direct sensual connection with the universe that has real implications in the actual world, as opposed to meaning which can only be understood abstractly and has no relevance to reality. For instance people may find meaning from the belief that God loves them, but this belief is not derived from any relation to or investigation of reality and not meant to be applied in reality, but rather ultimately in an abstract afterlife that takes place beyond tangible reality.

Scientific theories have substantive meaning, because they arise from an appreciation of substance (ie the material world) whereas religion regards reality itself as a second order of consideration, one which can be ignored if need be. Hard tangible, substantive stuff is seen by religion as illegitimate and inconsequential in proving anything precisely for its material, non-abstract essence.

Post-modernism accepts religion's pretentions at their face value by asserting God as the source of objectivity and meaning. It then rejects God, as well as objectivity and meaning and pretends then that it has discovered enlightenment. The prime example of this is Max Stirner, the proto-nietchean who Marx tore apart in his critique of the german ideology.

[Meridian]

Meaning
You should constantly keep in mind how the word is used in human activities and what forms of sentences we would use with this word.

"I don't see the meaning of this!"
"What he meant by doing that was..."
"What is the meaning of this word?"


Meaning derived from a direct sensual connection with the universe that has real implications in the actual world, as opposed to meaning which can only be understood abstractly and has no relevance to reality. For instance people may find meaning from the belief that God loves them, but this belief is not derived from any relation to or investigation of reality and not meant to be applied in reality, but rather ultimately in an abstract afterlife that takes place beyond tangible reality.
I see your point, but I would still not use "meaning" in the way you do. There are questions that arise from what you write simply due to misusing language.


Scientific theories have substantive meaning, because they arise from an appreciation of substance (ie the material world)
Then this strikes me as an observation the religious would be quite happy about.


whereas religion regards reality itself as a second order of consideration, one which can be ignored if need be. Hard tangible, substantive stuff is seen by religion as illegitimate and inconsequential in proving anything precisely for its material, non-abstract essence.
Agreed.


Post-modernism accepts religion's pretentions at their face value by asserting God as the source of objectivity and meaning. It then rejects God, as well as objectivity and meaning
'Objectivity' and 'Meaning' should be discarded, along with God, as philosophical terms born out of mishandling language, taking it out of the context from which it derives its function.

[Rafiq]

If there is no material world then why aren't humans a projection of the mind, too? I could understand a crazy ass man thinking EVERYTHING is a projection of his mind, but he will die eventually and we will still be here. I think it's a vulgurly naive thing to say, that an objective material reality does not exist. It's pretty arrogant of humans to think so. We aren't that important. Earth has been without humand for billions of years...

[Luís Henrique]

Do propositions like: "there is no one objective reality" or "art is subjective" mean anything? What do they prove?

"There is no one objective reality" - Does this mean, "there is no objective reality", or does it mean "there is more than one objective reality"?

"Art is subjective" - seems to mean, "value attributed to particular works of art is variable from individual to individual", which is a half-truth (one can argue at lenght on whether we should prefer Shostakovich to Prokofiev or the other way round, but only a complete ignoramus would argue that Lehar is better than Bach).

Really, what does it "mean" to keep asking whether such or such sentence "means anything"? The meaningfulness of sentences is given by the social acceptance of the fact that they convey some idea, not by an abstract analysis of some misnamed "grammar".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

At most they prove a certain antipathy towards both objective reality and artistic criticism from the one who says such things. Because these positions deny the existence of substantive meaning, they are necessarily meaningless and empty. It is the sort of bourgeoise thinking that Marx analyses at length in his critique of the Hegelian dialectic.

You contradict yourself. If your first sentence is true, then "art is subjective" has a precise meaning: that artistic criticism is necessarily invalid. And so it may be "bourgeois thinking", and it may well be false (as I believe it is), but "meaningless" it is not.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

You state that, but we have yet to see you prove it.

The criterium of truth is practice. Everybody behaves as if there was an "objective reality", and those who don't do it at their own risk.

Luís Henrique

[Meridian]

The criterium of truth is practice. Everybody behaves as if there was an "objective reality", and those who don't do it at their own risk.
So you are saying that, because people behave as if there is an "objective reality" (whatever that is supposed to mean) then it exists? Well, this means that, since everybody keeps talking about the sun setting and rising, the sun must really be what is rotating around the Earth.

Of course, you appear to be attempting to make an argument against solipsism. However, one can reject philosophical use of the word "objective" without accepting any form of solipsism, or indeed any other philosophical theory, and it should not be confused with rejecting the existence of the universe.

[Broletariat]

The criterium of truth is practice. Everybody behaves as if there was an "objective reality", and those who don't do it at their own risk.

Luís Henrique


Quite a lot of people also behave as if "God" exists.

[Luís Henrique]

So you are saying that, because people behave as if there is an "objective reality" (whatever that is supposed to mean) then it exists? Well, this means that, since everybody keeps talking about the sun setting and rising, the sun must really be what is rotating around the Earth.

"Talking about" is very different from "behaving as if". There are no consequences to be faced if you refuse to use the words 'sunrise' and 'sunset'; there would be very dire consequences if one refused to acknowledge the material existence of objects.


Of course, you appear to be attempting to make an argument against solipsism. However, one can reject philosophical use of the word "objective" without accepting any form of solipsism, or indeed any other philosophical theory, and it should not be confused with rejecting the existence of the universe.I don't care about the use of the word "objective", and neither should you. If you just care to look at how the phrase "objective reality" is used, you would see that there is absolutely nothing problematic with it.

... because indeed, what "objective reality" means is exactly "the universe", and this is how it is used.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Quite a lot of people also behave as if "God" exists.

And those of us who don't won't face any actual consequence for disbelieving. Try to be agnostic about the idea that if you jump from the seventh floor you will die...

Luís Henrique

[u.s.red]

You state that, but we have yet to see you prove it.

In fact, I would like to see you prove that "material and objective reality is a provable thing". I also challenge anyone to prove the negation of this, or even to think of a way to prove it.

When a house comes crashing down on your head that pretty much proves that gravity and wood are real.

[u.s.red]

... because indeed, what "objective reality" means is exactly "the universe", and this is how it is used.

Luís Henrique

Well, the sun is part of the universe. But isn't appreciation for a work of art also part of the universe?

[∞]

The question of human's living in an subjective reality was put by Descartes famous epitaph; "I think therefore I am,". I say that if we share a shared perception of reality there must be something objective about it. However one could say that the projection of other conscious bodies could be an illusion. They best way I can confirm that you and I are both conscious is use empirical science. Perhaps scanning someone's brain and I can confirm that their's is not physically different than mine. Or I could use the logic I posses, from what can I deduce that reality is subjective when our reality obeys certain laws of nature. Sure there is schizophrenic people who have dillusions. But they are diagnosed as crazy because they do not conform to the objective reality.

[ZeroNowhere]

The question of human's living in an subjective reality was put by Descartes famous epitaph; "I think therefore I am,".
Not sure what exactly this is supposed to mean. Descartes would certainly be closer to the view that we live in one, 'objective' reality, although for him this was ultimately an expression of God qua absolute subject. This isn't the same as saying that 'reality is subjective' in the sense it's probably meant here, though.


I say that if we share a shared perception of reality there must be something objective about it.
Well, that depends entirely on what this means. If one wishes to posit this 'perception of reality' as essentially private, then there is no real way that we can know that we have a shared perception of reality; my private 'red' could be different from your private 'red', and then there would be no real basis for calling them both 'red' as such. Such would be vulnerable to Wittgenstein's criticism of 'private language'. If, on the other hand, one wished to supersede the privacy of these perceptions, then one would ultimately have to posit shared practical, hence objective reality as a pre-requisite for the shared 'perception of reality', rather than positing shared private 'perceptions of reality' as the basis for the objectivity of the world.


However one could say that the projection of other conscious bodies could be an illusion.
One couldn't say that.

[u.s.red]

I say that if we share a shared perception of reality there must be something objective about it.

Just because a perception is shared does not mean that there is a thing perceived. Mass delusion is a real phenomena. Hundreds of people could share the perception of seeing aliens. Religion is probably a mass, shared, delusion.

On the other hand, the perception or illusion is a real thing.

[∞]

Well, that depends entirely on what this means. If one wishes to posit this 'perception of reality' as essentially private, then there is no real way that we can know that we have a shared perception of reality; my private 'red' could be different from your private 'red', and then there would be no real basis for calling them both 'red' as such. Such would be vulnerable to Wittgenstein's criticism of 'private language'. If, on the other hand, one wished to supersede the privacy of these perceptions, then one would ultimately have to posit shared practical, hence objective reality as a pre-requisite for the shared 'perception of reality', rather than positing shared private 'perceptions of reality' as the basis for the objectivity of the world.

Actually there is plenty of research done on how we see red. The way we feel about color is based on the language that surrounds it. Many cognitive scientists assert this claim by examining how people arrange colors and found that they can predict the patterns they'd put next when the subjects arranged them in a particular order. Anyway is no reason behind saying our reds are different considering that light waves hit our eyes the same way and our brains process them the same way.

[∞]

Just because a perception is shared does not mean that there is a thing perceived. Mass delusion is a real phenomena. Hundreds of people could share the perception of seeing aliens. Religion is probably a mass, shared, delusion.

On the other hand, the perception or illusion is a real thing.

Not true. Religion is not a shared perception. It is an ideology and a belief in some god. Mass delusion is not real for they do not share the exact same perceptions at the same time.

[ZeroNowhere]

Actually there is plenty of research done on how we see red. The way we feel about color is based on the language that surrounds it. Many cognitive scientists assert this claim by examining how people arrange colors and found that they can predict the patterns they'd put next when the subjects arranged them in a particular order. Anyway is no reason behind saying our reds are different considering that light waves hit our eyes the same way and our brains process them the same way.
...Or you could argue that objective reality exists by appealing to the research of cognitive scientists within objective reality, I guess.

[∞]

...Or you could argue that objective reality exists by appealing to the research of cognitive scientists within objective reality, I guess.

Thats not what I was saying in the first place?

[JustMovement]

If the question is whether objective reality exists, it is a banal question equivalent, as someone else said, to asking whether the universe exists.

a more interesting question is if there is such thing as an objective point of view.

[u.s.red]

Not true. Religion is not a shared perception. It is an ideology and a belief in some god. Mass delusion is not real for they do not share the exact same perceptions at the same time.

Ideology, belief, perception....all pretty much the same thing. Fundamentalist Christians will tell you they all believe in the same true god, all at the same time. They are not lying, they are simply sharing a mass delusion, in my opinion.

What is interesting, I think, is that perceptions, delusions, beliefs, ideologies all have historical developments, a historical dialectic, as they say.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, the sun is part of the universe. But isn't appreciation for a work of art also part of the universe?

Indeed. And this means, of course, that "objective reality" and "subjective reality" - if such a phrase exists - cannot be pitched against each other as opposites, for the former encompasses the latter.

Luís Henrique

[JustMovement]

If subjective reality is a subset of objective reality, as Luis Henrique claims, how is it possible that something can be true relative to someones subjective reality, that then does not correspond to objective reality.

To rephrase it, if objective reality contains the element "A", and a persons subj. reality contains the element "Not A", how can subjective reality be a part of objective reality.

[u.s.red]

Indeed. And this means, of course, that "objective reality" and "subjective reality" - if such a phrase exists - cannot be pitched against each other as opposites, for the former encompasses the latter.

Luís Henrique

Then it would seem to follow that the objective and the subjective encompass and determine each other, making each category dependent on and relative to each other. Isn't this the classic Hegelian dialectic?

Is there a unity from the two opposite categories, an evolved "reality" which is a new dialectic category?

[Red 7]

I think the idea of an 'objective view' can often be a little misleading, but at the same time, it sort of speaks for itself (the 'view' part is very important). We humans can only perceive, think about and interact with the world as ourselves, from our own limited perspective (subjects)... therefore we have a view, and even thought it is objective in so far as it is actual (real, tangible, material), and a matter of representing moving objects, it is also subjective in as far as it is the subjects own personal view/representation of the objective world of objects. It is only a single, possible view, its not the whole, or the universal. It is mediated. Its a Human --> World relation.


If subjective reality is a subset of objective reality, as Luis Henrique claims, how is it possible that something can be true relative to someones subjective reality, that then does not correspond to objective reality.

To rephrase it, if objective reality contains the element "A", and a persons subj. reality contains the element "Not A", how can subjective reality be a part of objective reality.

I hope nobody minds if I attempt an explanation. I think, if I understand your question correctly, it comes down to the matter of representation. I take it your question is asking whether... for example, If I had the subjective thought of a fantastical creature or event that doesn't actually exist in reality... a unicorn, how, if a composite or 'subset' of 'objective reality', can this be true (and objective)?

I would say that the object, after going through the mediation of the subject (perception, thought etc) is subjectivised - yet retains some of its originality, conceptually. The object is now a component of the subjective, but now it is in its representational form. So the objective-subjective relation isn't static, or a binary opposition - its a dialectical relation, in that it moves back and forth, retaining some of its form, whilst at the same creating new qualitative forms. This is at least how I view human's relation to nature (perception, thought etc).


Then it would seem to follow that the objective and the subjective encompass and determine each other, making each category dependent on and relative to each other. Isn't this the classic Hegelian dialectic?

Is there a unity from the two opposite categories, an evolved "reality" which is a new dialectic category?

I would also say, roughly, yes to this. And Hegel would say yes to the last part - artistic thought, religious thought and then philosophical thought are all of a more 'evolved' dialectic mediation. I think its a very good question by the way - we go through a sort of dialectic evolution (even if just at the smallest form) constantly... all the time. Now for example, just in our thinking. But in terms of higher dialectical processes - historical epochs etc, its a very good question.

[Luís Henrique]

If subjective reality is a subset of objective reality, as Luis Henrique claims, how is it possible that something can be true relative to someones subjective reality, that then does not correspond to objective reality.

To rephrase it, if objective reality contains the element "A", and a persons subj. reality contains the element "Not A", how can subjective reality be a part of objective reality.

The fact that Johnny believes in the Tooth Fairy is a part of objective reality. The Tooth Fairy itself, however, isn't part of objective reality. As far as I understand, the belief in the Tooth Fairy is also part of Johnny's 'subjective reality'; Johnny is a subject, and really believes in the Tooth Fairy. But it would be false to say that the Tooth Fairy is part of Johnny's 'subjective reality' - it is part of his subjective fantasy, and nothing more than that.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Then it would seem to follow that the objective and the subjective encompass and determine each other, making each category dependent on and relative to each other. Isn't this the classic Hegelian dialectic?

Don't know; I have never read Hegel.


Is there a unity from the two opposite categories, an evolved "reality" which is a new dialectic category?

There is always the fact that a lot of the confusion between 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' involves ignoring a third category, that of intersubjectivity, but I am not sure if this is what you are asking about. On the other hand, I don't think there is a "unity of opposites" between 'objective' and 'subjective', because they don't seem to be opposites at all.

Luís Henrique

[Meridian]

"Talking about" is very different from "behaving as if".
Not necessarily.


there would be very dire consequences if one refused to acknowledge the material existence of objects.
How would one even acknowledge/deny the material existence of objects? It doesn't make sense. An object may be in plain view, it may be hidden, or it may not be around you at all; 'material existence' is not a characteristic of an object. To my knowledge, no one has to this day seen an object that 'existed materially', and if they announced that they did it would be rightly corrected as an entirely useless observation.


I don't care about the use of the word "objective", and neither should you. If you just care to look at how the phrase "objective reality" is used, you would see that there is absolutely nothing problematic with it.

... because indeed, what "objective reality" means is exactly "the universe", and this is how it is used.
If it only were that easy. You should know that 'objective reality' and 'subjective reality' is invoked in all forms of philosophical conundrums.

[Luís Henrique]

Not necessarily.

Maybe not necessarily, but certainly in the example we are discussing. Using the word "sunrise" isn't a commitment to Ptolemaic astronomy; looking both sides before crossing a street is a commitment to the belief in the material existence of automobiles.


How would one even acknowledge/deny the material existence of objects?Picking them. Throwing them at something else. Building them. Avoiding their fall on one's head. Destroying them. Walking over them. Summing it up, using them as elements of one's practice.


It doesn't make sense.And why not, pray tell?


An object may be in plain view, it may be hidden, or it may not be around you at all;Yes, so?


'material existence' is not a characteristic of an object.And what would be 'characteristics' of an object?


To my knowledge, no one has to this day seen an object that 'existed materially',Indeed? Do you mean that people only see objects that don't exist?


and if they announced that they did it would be rightly corrected as an entirely useless observation.Well, it is usually useless, as people don't often doubt the existence of objects. But when people flirt with idealism, it may be necessary to point to them that there is a difference between things that exist, and things that don't exist.


If it only were that easy. You should know that 'objective reality' and 'subjective reality' is invoked in all forms of philosophical conundrums....for instance?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

How would one even acknowledge/deny the material existence of objects? Picking them. Throwing them at something else. Building them. Avoiding their fall on one's head. Destroying them. Walking over them. Summing it up, using them as elements of one's practice.

But, of course, this answers only half or your question: that's how people acknowledge the material existence of objects. How do they deny such existence? In a completely different way: by talking about the lack of existence of objects that they commonplacely manipulate as everybody else.

Unless, of course, we are talking about inexistent objects, in which case we "acknowledge" their "existence" by putting up a fantasy, and deny it by pointing to the fact that no actual interaction with them is possible.

Then you can see that acknowledgement and denial of the material existence of objects are not the symmetric of each other.

Luís Henrique