Is truth subjective or objective?

Various combinations of different frequencies of light are reflected from a cat regardless of who or what sees it. Surely that is the cats "true" objective colour?

0 Replies

Eorl, if that is true (and I think it is in a sense), then the air disturbances produced by the falling tree is the fall's "true" objective sound--regardless of who or what hears (or doesn't hear) it.

0 Replies

JLNobody

Quote:

My 'objectivism" described somewhere (maybe in this thread), is not in contradiction with your denial of the objective world "out there." I see the world subjectively and that's an objective fact. And this model accomodates all the different kinds of brains having different experiences of the same whatchamacallit. And, of course, it is all an indiscribable unity.

"all the different kinds of brains having different experiences of the same whatchamacallit."

Your wording presents a duality, yet then you follow with, "And, of course, it is all an indiscribable unity."
.

It is odd that Consciousness is nondual yet there seems to be, as I said earlier, trillions of individual dreams or manifestations being observed simultaneously. Though that doesn't assume something ?'other' apart from the not-twoness of Consciousness, since, presummingly, as pure Consciousness, Brahman or Suchness, you ARE all those. When you say, "I see the world subjectively and that's an objective fact." does that include the perspective or ?'observing' of rabbits, lions and all "others"?

And on another note, there is also another notable duality between the observed manifest and the nothing that observes, noticed, in that in experience one moves and the other doesn't. We think the world stays still and ?'we' move, but apparently that is quite impossible.

Do you continue to hold out for some form of ?'somethingness' that is somehow an ?'other' in addition to Consciousness or Suchness? That "what is" is not self originating and therefore not One without a Second?

0 Replies

JL, absolutley.

The way I see it...

..when that tree falls, there is definately a sound.

I'm trying very hard to see other points of view but I feel quite immovable in my absolutist thinking. Please help me find a cure ! What am I missing?

0 Replies

Eorl,

Imagine all species were born without ears. Would we have the word "sound"? If you agree the answer is no then the existence of " a sound" implies presence of an observer with ears. (That observer at the moment is YOU in your "minds ear") . Alternatively suppose a mutation is born next year with a "magnetic sense" organ, such that ferrous materials can be "felt" when passing near. Does that mean there exists NOW some "magfeels" from my iron gates swinging in the wind ?

Reality lies in the interaction between observer and observed and neither can be specified separately.

0 Replies

fresco, you and I both know what we mean by "sound" because we share a language.

But if we didn't, the air would vibrate in frequency waves caused by the falling tree even if nothing could ever detect it.

Yes, your iron gates are causing all kinds of effects some of which we can't even imagine, yet they are there....or they are not.

The ripples in the background radiation of the universe have always been there too....since the beginning of time, even though KOBE detected them late last century.

Many things exist about which nobody knows...I don't see how knowledge effects existence??

0 Replies

Sorry ,no eorl.

We share every word you just wrote (including "vibrate", and "frequency").Thats the point our "reality" is culture specific, species specific, and time specific. A few centuries ago we would have been discussing the "four elements" (earth, air, fire and water) with equal conviction. That was the "reality" then. Today they are talking about eleven dimensional manifolds colliding to produce "the big bang."

Observations change cognitive states... which respecify "reality".... which produces more observations ....and so on in a continuous expanding spiral. Remove the observer and you remove reality.

0 Replies

I understand that my understanding of what "reality" is bears little resemblence the the absolute reality, but I still think reality exists independantly of my cognition. (I'm guessing the universe won't die with me)

0 Replies

Death of "me" implies "death of my universe".

Death of "us" implies "death of our universe".

I'm not sure what "the universe" is unless we evoke a deity as an "ultimate observer".

0 Replies

Thinking about it further, I guess the colour red is like a radio station broadcasting intermittently, shutting down with regularity and playing a different tune across time and space. It competes for attention with various other stations with varying degrees of success. It is accessed
by receivers using radios of different qualities.

Now my subjectivism is becoming objective.
Ouch!

0 Replies

Ok....

I think I'm getting closer ...

If I was to evoke such a deity....then that is the universe I imagine as absolute...the one that she would witness.

But...that deity does not have to exist for the point of view to be valid does it?

0 Replies

i should know better, but i'll toss in my counterexample to what sounds to me a lot like "social construction". suppose i take a gun loaded with blanks and shoot it at someone who doesn't know that it's shooting blanks. is that person going to die from a non-existent bullet? conversely, suppose i mistakenly put in a live round; will the other person go unscathed because i "knew" i was shooting blanks?

incidentally, i belated realized that i should have added this is strictly hypothetical. Never point a gun at anyone unless you intend to shoot somebody.

0 Replies

I don't think i'ts necessary or profitable to choose between subjectivism (epistemological idealism) or objectivism (epistemological positivism). I'm coming to the perspective that both "objectivism" and "subjectivism" are useful (I don't mean "true") ways to conceptualize reality, depending on the purpose of the moment. They are both just cognitive frameworks, not pictures of the world.
I think this is not in contradiction with Fresco's most enlightened construction, viz., that "Reality lies in the interaction between observer and observed and neither can be specified separately." I think this is the Buddhist principle of the Middle Way. Nothing is self-originated, nothing stands or emerges alone. All is the expression of interdependence, the on-going product of dynamic interaction. My experience of a tree results from the interaction of whatever it is that constitutes the nature of the tree and me; and these natures exist as expressions of the interaction/ interdependence/co-origination of everything.

0 Replies

I think before you folks go any further discussing the meanings of "reality" and "truth"...you ought to spend some time learning the meaning of "guess."

You guys are making guesses about REALITY...and pretending that they are enlightened insights.

0 Replies

Frank: In the immediate posts, you might be right(I haven't been keeping up with them, so I can't say for sure), but in the abstract, I think it's entirely possible to deduce the nature of reality, if not its specifics, through use of logic.
For example, we cannot know for sure that what we perceive actually exists, but since we know that we exist, therefore there must be an ultimate reality. Whatever that reality is, it remains immutable and completely objective.
Perceptually, however, what we observe is directly colored by our thoughts and feelings, and is thus subjective. That is why I have said that individually, we only experience a subjective reality, but in the larger sense, there is a concrete, objective reality we all belong to.
I think we might be in agreement on this point, but I wanted to make my statement just to be sure. Hope to hear from you later.

0 Replies

Taliesin, I like your thoughts on the matter. Frank, of course, is just guessing, and loving it. He is sliding into nihilism.

0 Replies

Thanks, JL. Your post is intriguing; do you mean that your theory of reality is that it is a collection of connecting structures/essences: that, whether objects are what we think they are or not, they're still interconnected on a basic level?
If so, then could you explain further your take on Subjectivity vs. Objectivity? I'm interpreting your post to mean that you've discarded both, but I'm unsure as to what else there is besides the two. Thanks.

0 Replies

My "guess," Taliesin, is that Reality consists not of essences (nothing IN Reality stands alone with an absolute nature), but it is a unity of interacting, inherently connected, processes. I like to think of the totality (the Cosmos, Reality, Brahman, etc.) as existing objectively alone and absolute. Subjectivity and objectivity are, as I suggested, merely ways of characterizing experience. They are constructions denoting perspectives. Our experiences are, by definition, subjective; but as events in Reality they are objective. They just are what they are, their insideness vs. outsideness depend on where we are situating ourselves, matters of conceptual perspective.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Frank: In the immediate posts, you might be right(I haven't been keeping up with them, so I can't say for sure), but in the abstract, I think it's entirely possible to deduce the nature of reality, if not its specifics, through use of logic.
For example, we cannot know for sure that what we perceive actually exists, but since we know that we exist, therefore there must be an ultimate reality. Whatever that reality is, it remains immutable and completely objective.
Perceptually, however, what we observe is directly colored by our thoughts and feelings, and is thus subjective. That is why I have said that individually, we only experience a subjective reality, but in the larger sense, there is a concrete, objective reality we all belong to.
I think we might be in agreement on this point, but I wanted to make my statement just to be sure. Hope to hear from you later.

We are in complete agreement here, Tal.

I am not saying that one cannot guess about things...and I am not saying that some guesses seem logical.

But most of the snake oil being sold by theists...and atheist...and people like JL, Twyvel, Fresco and company...are silly guesses based on thin air.

That was my point.

I see JL has already posted one of his bullshyt responses to my comment.

So be it.

BOTTOM LINE: The theists, the atheists, and JL and company just will not acknowledge the obvious...that their guesses are silly and their insistence upon their guesses even sillier.

0 Replies

yitwail,

Note that people have died of heart attacks when threatened with "blanks" and the legal definition of "assault" includes the threat of violence. I bring this in (together with anthropological reports of the effectiveness of "curses") in defense of the concept of "social realty".

But as you correctly identified what was implied earlier is neither idealism nor materialism. "Social" stresses the nature of the level of structure in which "reality" is significant. The currency of such reality is language, a medium for social exchange, yet a currency without a "gold standard". It is the futile search for such a standard that gives rise to the idea of an "ultimate reality", or "objective truth".

0 Replies

Is truth subjective or objective?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know