How is this definition of "belief"?

@Olivier5,

You wrote,

Quote:

...by definition, reality objectively exists, but by definition too, it can only be apprehended subjectively.

Makes sense to me! Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Welcome, Frank.

Never understood what this discussion about the objectivity or subjectivity of reality was about though. Why can't it be both? Why can't you guys agree on something like: by definition, reality objectively exists, but by definition too, it can only be apprehended subjectively.

I have absolutely no difficulty whatever agreeing that our conprehension and appreciation of REALITY HAS TO BE subjective. I've mentioned that very often in other threads devoted to this issue...and at no point in this thread have I ever suggested otherwise.

So...understanding of and apprehending REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE.

REALITY itself is objective.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

We could reduce cars people faces landscape all to patterns when we refer to objects..smalls changes in patterns specially in highly complex detailed patterns wont alter the fact that the patterns keep being the same pattern while they last at least in our functional level of resolution as I couldn't care less if cars are loosing some paint less alone atoms...igm view goes the other way around as in his view any change changes the thing which is impermanent...but curiously enough, such is the grape of reality, even changing immediately presupposes the very same thing just changed must first exist even if it lasted just for a millisecond...that all being said patterns resonate and operate with us perceivers...there are levels of functionality at play between what we ourselves are as a thing in itself and what objects in themselves are, the interplay between both objects raises in the relation an objective third object which is phenomenal...that which we experience. Such object is as true and real as an apple or an orange...perhaps we may never know if reality at its deepest level is just a bunch of mathematical functions build upon a 1 level dimension space string with zeros and ones...but none of it makes our own phenomenological experience less real or less objective...a third category order reality born out of precise mechanic relations between patterns is just as true as 1 order category itself...Reality is what we experience plus whatever is the case to justify it !
Itself a prime object that founds subjectivity as a third degree object processor or if you prefer that founds all order of complex relations at work.
Without a source there is no real, no quantity, nor rationality !

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

What does "objective" mean?

I know what I put into the word, but I am interested in hearing what you put into it, if you will indulge me.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

What does "objective" mean?

I know what I put into the word, but I am interested in hearing what you put into it, if you will indulge me.

First a question for you:

Are you telling me that we have just gone 58+ pages of argument on whether or not REALITY is objective or not...and you do not know what I mean when I say "objective?"

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

A more appropriate response about objectivity to Cyr would be what did you just wrote ? being a subjective being I cannot read you...eh ? what ? what ?
Give it a go... Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Well, since no commonly accepted definition of the concept seems to square with your stating "reality is objective" as fact, I figure you have to have some unique usage of the word which allows for you to automatically know that "reality is objective". It is not given by the tautology "reality is", at least not with any meaning of the word "objective" I can think of.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil... that only makes sense if you're you...

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, Olivier just agreed with the notion that reality (and all its contents, I gather) is both objective and subjective. You add that while its apprehension is subjective * reality itself is objective.
Now perhaps that's all a semantic quibble. Cryacuz asks you how you can prove that to be so. I'm more interested in your deep intuition that such is the case. You simply can't be shaken off that track.
I joked a bit with you on your tacit reliance on intuition regarding your "grasp" on reality's objective nature. I also lay very great stress on intuition in my philosophical and spiritual efforts, probably more than I depend on logic. But I do not consider intuition to be infallible; I just consider it very satisfying. And after all what do we ultimately want in our pursuit of answers? Satisfying answers. So more power to us. Very Happy

*(and I add that that is an "objective" fact)

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Well, since no commonly accepted definition of the concept seems to square with your stating "reality is objective" as fact, I figure you have to have some unique usage of the word which allows for you to automatically know that "reality is objective". It is not given by the tautology "reality is", at least not with any meaning of the word "objective" I can think of.

I have absolutely no idea why you think no commonly accepted definition of the concept squares with 'REALITY is objective." Sounds gratuituous to me.

Cyracuz...the REALITY is whatever actually IS.

Whatever IS...IS.

There is no getting away from that.

("reality is" is not a tautology. "What IS...IS"...is a tautology.)

Whatever the REALITY IS...IS!

I have no idea of what the REALITY actually IS...I suspect nobody does. (Fresco likes to pretend he does!)

I cannot rule anything definitely IN...and I cannot rule anything definitely OUT. I make no pretenses of that.

I DO NOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY.

But whatever the REALITY IS...that is what it IS.

There is nothing subjective about that. It is purely objective.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, Olivier just agreed with the notion that reality (and all its contents, I gather) is both objective and subjective. You add that while its apprehension is subjective * reality itself is objective.

Please re-read what Olivier wrote...and then come back and discuss what you just wrote here with me. Then we will go on to the remainder of your post.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank just curious what is that you do not rule in Reality ? Even false perceptions are false real perceptions...that they don't refer to a real object doesn't make their imaginary category any less real as imagination and its bi products is itself a part of reality...I gather you will agree and I know what you meant...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...by your token making an assertion that I am me should probably be a subjective fact... so I rather bypass any objective attempt of talking with you Mr. Green

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Is a mirage subjective or objective? Mr. Green

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

It is an objective fact that there are subjective experiences like seeing mirages hallucinating etc... Wink

...can you imagine someone in the shrink going on about this subjective experience about an hallucination you weren't sure you did really had...

patient explains - ...doctor I might or might not have seen something there among the bushes...
...doc answers - eh, what, what ?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Frank just curious what is that you do not rule in Reality ? Even false perceptions are false real perceptions...that they don't refer to a real object doesn't make their imaginary category any less real as imagination and its bi products is itself a part of reality...I gather you will agree and I know what you meant...

Not really sure of your question. Fil...but there are no possible components of REALITY that I can rule out...and none that I say must be included.

I have no idea of the true nature of REALITY.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Normally when I cannot include something in any category of reality and that goes for imaginary objects also I don't say nothing...

Don't tell me you are not sure, when you are imagining anything, that your imagining is a real imagining... Very Happy

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Normally when I cannot include something in any category of reality and that goes for imaginary objects also I don't say nothing...

Don't tell me you are not sure, when you are imagining anything, that your imagining is a real imagining...

I repeat: I see no reason to exclude any possible ingredients of REALITY...from my considerations of REALITY.

I see no reason that any possible ingredients of REALITY...must be included in my considerations of REALITY.

I do not know the true nature of REALITY.

0 Replies

I'm grateful everyday there's a clear difference between someone memorising some stuff in college and someone real able to think...while the later succeeds with some ease when not so common sense is required, the former tends to drawn as soon he gets out of his comfort zone...(this is not for you Frank I was just thinking out loud really)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I'm grateful everyday there's a clear difference between someone memorising some stuff in college and someone real able to think...while the later succeeds with some ease when not so common sense is required, the former tends to drawn as soon he gets out of his comfort zone...(this is not for you Frank I was just thinking out loud really)

I'm being truthful with you...and I am expecting you to be truthful with me. So there is no reason for me to doubt you.

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know