|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2007 : 19:47:36 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Your definition:| An objective reality is where things actually exist and interact according to some set of physical laws, independent of all classical observers or egos. |
contrasts with:| Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist." [1] [2] The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature). |
(wiki)
From this I would infer that your differentiation between "reality" and "objective reality" depends upon the modifier "things actually exist which interact according to some set of physical laws", thus excluding the category of subjective reality, one subset of the larger category "reality". Is this correct?
I would also assume that "objective reality" as you define it, belongs in the category of "being", not nothingness; and is an example of 'existence' as specified above in the wiki definition. Would this also be correct?
Finally, is the ability to know an act of cognition?
If it is neither cognition nor perception ("independent of all classical observers or egos"), what is the mechanism that permits us to be aware of the existence of that which is unknowable, such as "objective reality?
On the other hand, for example, Phillip K. Dick states: "Reality is what doesn't go away even when you stop believing in it."
A related perspective would be: "Objective reality, defined by mind M, is what M believes wouldn't go away even if M stopped believing in it."
These views introduce a subjective quality to "objective" reality which opposes the view that that which is unknowable (not subject to cognition) can not exist. I sense a possible paradox in this. If belief is a cognitive process, then that which is unknowable is not subject to belief. Therefore, if objective reality is neither subject to belief or perception ("independent of all classical observers or egos"), can it exist?
This obviously is derivative from classical Platonic, or at least Socratic, epistemology; which is in no way new philosophical ground. I am cautious as to whether or not the question can be answered, but I am sure you will enjoy taking a try at it.
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2007 : 20:05:24 [Permalink]
|
| bngbuck, you appear to be confusing the noun "objective reality" with the question "is there an objective reality." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2007 : 23:02:46 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| bngbuck, you appear to be confusing the noun "objective reality" with the question "is there an objective reality." |
Well, that's interesting. To begin with, "objective reality" is not a noun, it is an noun phrase incorporating a noun, reality, modified by an adjective objective. I thought I was speaking to the construct described by your noun phrase "objective reality".
If what I wrote conveys to you that I was attempting to define a modified noun, I am indeed sorry for the misuse of the language. Maybe you could correct my syntax in the above narrative so that it better conveys my attempt at an ontological argument.
Then we may be able to address the question - if we can figure out what the question is!
I apologize for the confusion. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 11/14/2007 23:04:40 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/14/2007 : 23:54:23 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
| I sense a possible paradox in this. |
The entire field is trapped with hidden paradox land-mines!
Definitely not a safe place to be unless you have your wits about you .
I would also assume that "objective reality" as you define it, belongs in the category of "being", not nothingness; and is an example of 'existence' as specified above in the wiki definition. Would this also be correct?
Finally, is the ability to know an act of cognition?
If it is neither cognition nor perception ("independent of all classical observers or egos"), what is the mechanism that permits us to be aware of the existence of that which is unknowable, such as "objective reality?
|
It seems to me that "nothingness" is yet another one of those words....
Is the ability to know an act of cognition? I'd probably answer that with a yes.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 08:50:46 [Permalink]
|
Semantic issues aside, bngbuck, the claim I was making is that the answer to the question "is there and objective reality" is what's unknowable. If what we take to be objective reality - the reality of this desk, your email server, Jerome's existence, etc. - really is the objective reality, we'll never know it.
And "independent of all classical observers and egos" had nothing to do with our ability to perceive or be cognitive of any alleged objective reality. It simply meant that perception or cognition are not required for an objective reality to exist (if one does). Even three-month-old babies can understand object permanence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 09:09:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
This ends up being a problem actually since I typically define "religious faith" as faith about supernatural or mystical claims, while I define "religion" as being about religious faith, an particular type of practice, and/or particular type of social institution (not necessarily all three). |
Yeah, that is a problem. "Religious" to me means nothing more than "like a religion" (well, literally "full of religion"), so the definition of "religion" necessarily comes first, and can't include the word "religious" itself (that would make the definitions circular).| "Religious" is an adjective that depends upon the meaning of "religion" for its own meaning, after all. |
Didn't we say exactly the opposite in the other thread which inspired this one? We talked about someone who practices skepticism (or any other activity) religiously, but then agreed that this can be true while not meaning that the activity being practice is a religion or even part of one. (Edited to add: "we" meaning me and other people on SFN, not you necessarily, although I don't remember you objecting.) |
That's not backwards. One can do religious ("like a religion") things without religion. "I am religious about brushing my teeth" just means that I do it ritually - like it's a religion. But we still need to know what "religion" means before we can say what "like a religion" means.
If I tell you that your art is draptinous, what does that mean? Its suffix clearly says that it means "like a (or full of) draptin," but WTF is a draptin?| I don't find much of a distinction between the faith that the Four Noble Truths are an accurate distillation of the human condition and the faith that Jesus died for our sins. It's a matter of degree, not a matter of kind. |
I find it to be very much a matter of kind. It is like the difference between a moral truth and a claim of fact. |
Well, you used the phrase "moral truth," but I reject the notion that there is any such animal. One needs to have faith that a moral truth exists, in exactly the same way that one needs to have faith that Jesus rose from the dead (if one is to be a Christian, that is). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 09:47:54 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | That's not backwards. One can do religious ("like a religion") things without religion. "I am religious about brushing my teeth" just means that I do it ritually - like it's a religion. But we still need to know what "religion" means before we can say what "like a religion" means. |
Ah, I think I see how this came about... for me "religious faith" refers to belief in mystical or supernatural things because faith is something thought and experienced, not done. The other aspects of religion (institutions and practice) are acting out, not thought. So religious faith is like religion. It is like the part of religion that is about personal thoughts. And religiously brushing your teeth is also like religion in that it is like the part of religion that is about a consistent and repetitive practice.
| Well, you used the phrase "moral truth," but I reject the notion that there is any such animal. One needs to have faith that a moral truth exists, in exactly the same way that one needs to have faith that Jesus rose from the dead (if one is to be a Christian, that is). |
Okay, my point failed to get across, and I realize this is my fault. When I say "moral truth", I don't mean anything that is universal or objective. I mean it in the same way that Ghandi meant it when he said that the source of most human conflict is rooted in the failure of both sides to recognize the truth on the other's side.
People often use the word "truth" about things which are emotional or other subjective experiences, or conceptual cultural constructs. One example is when someone talks about the truths contained in a novel. Obviously they are not literal truths about material reality since it is fiction. And we could say they are "psychological" truths, but that's a little off too since psychology is a scientific field, and novelists are not doing anything scientific. With things like this we run into a usage of words that is increasingly context-based. We could take Grant Wood's painting American Gothic:
Is this an elegant tribute to the working, rural American family, portrayed as noble, uncluttered, and decent? Or is it a neat but satirical knock against rural Americans as uptight, passionless Puritans? Historically we have evidence that Grant Wood was genuinely attempting to paint rural Iowans in a positive light and that he was against modernism in both art and life. But we also know that the critics and curators who accepted the painting, showed it, praised it, and made it a permanent American icon completely interpreted it as a satire. The satire-interpretation was so strong that many rural Iowans wrote angry letters to the newspaper when the painting was exhibited because they felt they were being mocked. So which meaning is the truth? The artist's intention (and many people have interpreted it the way Grant meant it to be) or the way most people have interpreted it? The answer is both are true depending on the context. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/15/2007 09:50:19 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 10:57:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
The answer is both are true depending on the context. |
I'd say they're both true depending upon viewpoint, at best, and that's what faith is about: it lets a person, without firm evidence, claim that something is true. Because there's a lack of evidence, even contradictory "truths" can be held by different "sects" to be correct.
How firmly one holds one's faith - whether fervently or as "metaphorically true" - matters little to the fact that it is faith.
But those who believed that Grant was mocking them had faith he was doing so. Those who believed (but didn't know) that Grant wasn't mocking anyone had an opposing faith. Only those who actually knew Grant's intention had evidence in hand, so they had no need for faith. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 12:06:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: I'd say they're both true depending upon viewpoint, at best, and that's what faith is about: it lets a person, without firm evidence, claim that something is true. Because there's a lack of evidence, even contradictory "truths" can be held by different "sects" to be correct.
How firmly one holds one's faith - whether fervently or as "metaphorically true" - matters little to the fact that it is faith.
But those who believed that Grant was mocking them had faith he was doing so. Those who believed (but didn't know) that Grant wasn't mocking anyone had an opposing faith. Only those who actually knew Grant's intention had evidence in hand, so they had no need for faith. |
No. You have confused the meaning of the work "American Gothic" with the artist, Grant Wood's, intended meaning when he created it. What a work of art comes to mean is not controlled by the artist. For instance, Georgia O'Keeffe never intended her flowers to be interpreted with a Freudian sexual interpretation, but Freud's theories were popular at the time and her husband and dealer, Alfred Steiglitz, spread rumors that her paintings were abstract depictions of female sexuality. Do the paintings mean these things the artist didn't intend? Of course they do! Meaning is created in the mind of intelligent beings. When someone says what a work of art means, faith has nothing to do with their assertion. It is only faith if they are making a claim, without evidence, about what they think the artist meant. That is not what I was talking about with "American Gothic". |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 12:13:57 [Permalink]
|
Also, as for the whole "viewpoint" or "context", aren't you splitting hairs here? Context is the word I used because it is the word that is typically used among art critics, aesthetic philosophers, and academically trained artists. I also use that term because I'm not just talking about an individual's perspective. I'm talking about how something is framed in a social context.
For example, if a Southern Baptist church in a small rural town hangs a copy of "American Gothic" in their recreational hall, everyone realizes the spirit in which it was hung. Even if someone personally accepts the satirical interpretation, when they see the painting in that context, they know it was hung there with sincerity, and the person would be more likely to notice qualities of the painting that lend itself to that interpretation.
Grant Wood made a foolish decision. Instead of trying to market the painting to people who agreed with his point of view, he marketed it to the elitist, urban, modernist art world that he meant to protest. He should have realized that his painting would either be rejected or interpreted in the opposite way he meant it. The latter is exactly what happened.
Meaning might be in the eye of the beholder, but the context in which the beholder sees the thing will influence the meaning they attribute to it. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 16:42:04 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Your original statement.....Posted - 11/11/2007 : 20:56:24 [Permalink]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And on that other note...
"Is our universe reality?" is a question that cannot be answered. It is unknowable in principle.
To answer it in the affirmative (without resorting to qualifications like, "there's no evidence otherwise" or "pragmatically speaking...") would require us to falsify an infinite number of alternatives - an impossible task.
To answer it in the negative (by finding evidence of the Matrix or whatever) is to broaden our "universe" to include some sort of meta-reality, and it simply shifts the ultimate question up a level. (That's actually something that disappointed me about those movies: nobody bothered to ask if the "real" world was really real. Nobody thought to wonder if someone wouldn't show up there with red and blue pills.) |
.....does indeed appear to refer to the "answer" to your question, however, your next statement......We can't even positively affirm or deny that there exists some sort of objective reality, regardless of whether our universe is it or not.
It's completely unknowable. |
I would paraphrase this as: "It's completely unknowable as to whether or not some sort of objective reality exists" and it.....
.....appears contradictory to your most recent post:Posted - 11/15/2007 : 08:50:46 [Permalink]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semantic issues aside, bngbuck, the claim I was making is that the answer to the question "is there an objective reality" is what's unknowable. |
My ontological questions were directed to the existence of objective reality, and to what mechanism permits us to be aware of the existence of such things that are unknowable.
I do not believe that it is essentially a semantic issue, although Marf early in the thread stated:Posted - 11/06/2007 : 16:54:42 [Permalink]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| oh great another semantic debate. |
Yeah, except this is explicitly starting as a semantics discussion, opposed to when discussions over other matters devolve into mere semantics debates. Nobody said you have to join. |
I have never felt that much of the subject matter of The Republic should be put aside as mere semantics. There is value in examining the theory of knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 18:23:35 [Permalink]
|
Color me confused, bngbuck. I don't see any difference in meaning betweenWe can't even positively affirm or deny that there exists some sort of objective reality and...the answer to the question "is there an objective reality" is what's unknowable. Both talk about the question of the existence of an objective reality, and assert that the only answer we will ever have is "we don't know." What is different about them, other than the spelling and grammar?| My ontological questions were directed to the existence of objective reality, and to what mechanism permits us to be aware of the existence of such things that are unknowable. |
What mechanism permits us to be aware of the prior existence of living Tyrannosaurs? The same mechanism, it seems to me. Solipsistically speaking, their existence must also be completely unknowable if we cannot establish that there's an objective reality. Heck, we cannot even establish the existence of last Tuesday or next Tuesday.| I do not believe that it is essentially a semantic issue... |
No, the semantic issue seemed to be your taking me to task over "objective reality" being a noun, even though you clearly understood me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 20:44:55 [Permalink]
|
Regarding the "unknowable" question. Thinking of any specific thing as "unknowable" is a misapplication of the lable since the unknowableness of a thing is properly the property of the epistemological methodology one is using to try to gain knowledge about that thing.
The scientific method is an inductive, observationally based methodology. As such it is limited to things we can observe. Now it does allow for some deduction. In a case when something is consistent every time we measure it then we formulate it as a law or principle or generalized fact and use that as a basis for making deductions, but at its heart science is inductive.
So within the scientific method anything that is unobservable is unknowable. Also because science is inductive at its base, it can never know anything with absolute certainty. So absolute certainty about any particular thing is unknowable to science.
Some things that are likely to be unobsevable (and thus unknowable to science) even in principle are anything that exists only beyond the edge of the observable universe, anything that occured before the big bang, and certain aspects of quantum mechanics as stated in the Uncertainty Principle. However bear in mind that knowledge of what is unknowable is itself uncertain.
Dave said:
| We can't even positively affirm or deny that there exists some sort of objective reality. |
This question is usually considered to be in the realm of metaphysics but I don't think it needs to be. If objective reality is defined as that which can be observed then it's existence follows as a matter of course. I think you may mean that the existence of objective reality cannot be absolutely proven and that is true but knowledge need not be absolute to be knowledge. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 21:06:35 [Permalink]
|
Well said dv82matt. I think you have the essence of it better than I could express it for these last several pages. Thanks!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 11:07:27 [Permalink]
|
Serious sauce from AP:Indeed, the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its followers cuts to the heart of the one of the thorniest questions in religious studies: What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?
In short, is an anti-religion like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism actually a religion? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What is religion?
