"Objective reality"

Forums: Philosophy, Reality, Philosophy Of Science, Objective Reality
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I come across the term "objective reality" every now and again. From what I understand it means "reality described independently of our human perception of it".

Do scientists and contemporary philosophers believe that it is correct to think of objective reality, as opposed to reality percieved by humans?
If so, what is this reality like?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 14,196 • Replies: 161

No top replies

@Cyracuz,

how would i know

2 Replies

@oolongteasup,

That's the obvious question.
And if you cannot know, then you cannot really say anything about reality except in relation to a conscious observer.
But then, what is science about?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

One answer to "what science is" is suggested within Maturana's analysis of language. To understand this you need to take on board that "observers" operate in a consensual domain" requiring no concept of an objective reality.
http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html

See also Von Glasersfeld's interpretation of M's view of "the observer".
http://www.oikos.org/vonobserv.htm

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Do scientists and contemporary philosophers believe that it is correct to think of objective reality, as opposed to reality percieved by humans?
If so, what is this reality like?

This was a pretty hot topic in philosophy in the second half of the eighteenth century. George Berkeley, drawing on Cartesian idealism, couldn't figure out how there could be an objective reality if our perceptions of reality were all subjective. Finally, he hit upon the solution: god can perceive everything, so objective reality was whatever god perceived. Kant found this entirely unsatisfactory, so he came up with the notion of the "Ding an sich" ("the thing-in-itself") -- the unknowable reality of the thing that is separate from its subjective representation.

I'm not sure if modern philosophers really care very much about this issue. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the concept of "objective reality" isn't terribly useful: it leads to misunderstandings and lends itself too easily to strawman arguments.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

To use god as an explanation is just answering the problem with a bigger problem. But I imagine this wasn't so back then...

I agree that objective existence isn't perhaps such a useful concept, but even though it may be generally accepted that empirical observation can never be proven, it seems to me that the implications of this realization remain absent. We still percieve ourselves as originating from a physical world, and seek to explain everything in purely physical terms.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I suspect it is neither useful to insist that reality exists only as an objective fact or that reality is only in the subjective experience of people. It's neither and both. John Searle once said something like All is subjective and that's an objective fact.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

I think you are right JL. Perhaps reality is best understood as relationship...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I think that is what Fresco has been emphasizing--and I agree. The ultimate unity of reality is expressed not in some solid non-dynamic monolithic uniformity. My impression is that its unity is the overall cumulative (?) body of interconnectedness, of relationships. It is simulataneously one and many.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Yes, that is how I tend to think of it as well. I've sometimes used the word "god" to describe this body of interconnectedness just to get a new spin on familiar concepts.
And writing about reality as relationship did make me think of fresco. I must confess that both fresco and yourself are big influences on my thinking.

0 Replies

Those who would relegate this connectedness concept to "the metaphysical" should consider the current shift in the technology of communications which has enabled "non-localized" interaction. No doubt Ph.D. theses are being written as we speak on the import of such developments on the concepts of "the individual" or "the group", both having immediate access to global events thereby inter-relationally altering the course of those "events".

1 Reply

@fresco,

I think a good bit of that involves so called massive multimedia online roleplaying games. Virtual worlds where real people meet and form real relationships based on "virtual knowledge".

0 Replies

I do not make the ONTOLOGICAL claim that an absolute, objective world (i.e., a thing in itself) does or does not exist.
I do make the EPISTEMOLOGICAL claim that we cannot (intellectually) "know" reality except in terms of our constructions (our working concepts, categories, models, interpretations, formulaes, paradigms, etc.).
We can only "know" reality in our terms, not "God's".

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I come across the term "objective reality" every now and again. From what I understand it means "reality described independently of our human perception of it".

Do scientists and contemporary philosophers believe that it is correct to think of objective reality, as opposed to reality percieved by humans?
If so, what is this reality like?

Imo it's pure rubbish, there are no other proven reality, there are only 1 reality, everything else seems like skitzo ramblings.

I would categorize this as Kirkegaard's "objective truth", what is truth? Truth is usually very subjective, ignorence and superstitions usually clouds the truth, and takes immense intelligence and knowledge to produce anything resembling truth.
Church stated as truth: Earth is flat, innocent drwons and guilties floats, medical knowledge is herecy ..etc ..etc.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I come across the term "objective reality" every now and again. From what I understand it means "reality described independently of our human perception of it".

Do scientists and contemporary philosophers believe that it is correct to think of objective reality, as opposed to reality percieved by humans?
If so, what is this reality like?

Exactly like what is perceived. Why should its being perceived make a difference to what is perceived any more than its being thought about should make a difference to it?

0 Replies

@oolongteasup,

oolongteasup wrote:

how would i know

Why wouldn't you? We can know inferentially as well as directly. And we can infer from the fact that perception does not alter what is perceived (at least in the macro-world) that what there is, is the same whether or not perceived. Why would you think that perception does, but thinking about something does not, alter its object?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I suspect it is neither useful to insist that reality exists only as an objective fact or that reality is only in the subjective experience of people. It's neither and both. John Searle once said something like All is subjective and that's an objective fact.

If he said that he was wrong, unless he meant by "subjective" something other than it ordinarily means. (Also, what he said is self-contradictory).

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

If he said that he was wrong

I challenge you to define "wrong" without begging the question of "objective reality".

2 Replies

@fresco,

I propose a duel. The winner is right Smile

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Can a non-dualist duel ? If so, with whom ? Wink

1 Reply

"Objective reality"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know