Total posts: 910
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
On the other hand, subjective truth matters when choosing a gift based on personal taste, recognizing beauty's subjectivity. Perspectives on subjectivity and objectivity can coexist, like a color being subjectively beautiful while objectively holding no inherent beauty.Then they don’t coexist under that example because according to you you can’t objectively prove beauty therefore it doesn’t objectively exist within that context.
This does not imply they cannot coexist. Beauty can be viewed as both objectively nonexistent and subjectively existent simultaneously. This is because objective refers to an attribute of an object while subjective Refers to the attribute of a viewer or subject. It is in this way that an object may hold no intrinsic value or beauty and an external entity or subject can value or find beauty in an object through their perspective. Therefore, beauty does not exist within an object but within perspective. I see this to have no inconsistencies or controversies and give a much more comprehensive understanding of reality.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I would prefer to stay on topic so I will only be answering some of your responses.
Why do we cling to ignorance?Sometimes ignorance is the only way to win an argument, support your side or deal with the truth. For win, you cannot be open.You cannot have constant opinion and at the same time be open to change. People respect the consistency too much to change mind.Being open minded means changing and adapting. Being open minded is objectively better for survival. It is discouraged by society.
We cling to ignorance as a coping mechanism to avoid the emotional pain associated with mental realignment. This is because the brain rewards us with a positive feeling when we understand something correctly and creates negative emotional pain when we realize a mistake. This is also logical from a Darwinian perspective as the brain has evolved to further understand the world, which proves that understanding the past is beneficial to survival and existence. This indicates that ignorance should be avoided, but we have learned to avoid the penalty of error we chose ignorance and claim we never made an error. This undermines the purpose of the brain and devolves our actions to a state of mindlessness.
How can we know when we are likely to cling to ignorance?When we start defending view by making very poor excuses.When we refuse to compare both sides of the topic with fair judgment.When we deny obvious truth to uphold what we want to be true.
We cling to ignorance to avoid emotional pain, so how do we know when we are clinging to ignorance? It would be what we are most likely to avoid, which has the greatest pain. The greatest pain is the thing that we have the greatest emotional attachment to, or what has the greatest influence on our life. This is because it is all the worse when we are incorrect on something that is highly impacting our lives so our brain punishes us all the more severely. This means that what we get emotional about and what we have a great emotional attachment to is highly influential in our lives and we are more likely to cling to ignorance because of our desire to never recognize what we hold so valuable as incorrect.
How does the brain interplay with the proclivity of ignorance?I am guessing that lying is the skill our ancestors needed to survive, so it was a skill that was passed on to us.
The brain has a penalty function of emotional pain as a result of recognizing an incorrect understanding of the world so that way it drives us towards understanding. We have discovered that by remaining ignorant to our flaws we can avoid acknowledgement and hold off the penalty that is associated with error. It is from us choosing to avoid the punishment associated with error that we are punishing ourselves with a far greater consequence which is lack of understanding. The very thing that it was meant to protect us from we have chosen to cling to because we are unaware of the severity of the consequences of a lack of understanding, which this form is meant to highlight.
Why should we fear ignorance?It is the most harmful thing after violence.
We should fear ignorance because understanding is what helps us navigate the world towards success. When you understand how to play chess you can move your pieces and semi predict the movements of your opponent. This implies that by understanding you can both predict and control the thing of what you understand to a degree. This indicates that to the degree that a person can predict and control the world is the degree that they understand it. I can predict that when I drop a ball it is going to fall and that when I throw a ball, I am able to move it from one place to another indicating my understanding of reality in a certain aspect. The consequence of ignorance is remaining blind to understanding which our ability is to predict and control the world, leading us to a blindly unfolding existence. We are at the mercy of probability with no control in our own fate since we lack understanding. The reason why we should fear ignorance is because the world will come towards us nonetheless and we are blind to what will happen next and what we could do to make our future better. It is relatable to driving blind as you are still heading forwards in time and there are dangers out there that you may crash into and yet you choose to remain ignorant to it because you fear that acknowledging its existence. It is essentially sacrificing your future self through your present pleasure, and it is a very childish action. A person who clings to ignorance is choosing to benefit their present self by avoiding the present penalty of acknowledging their error and sacrificing their future self as they will continue to make the mistakes that they have always made rather than correcting their mentality to compensate with reality and make better choices in the future. Not only this but emotional pain is far less a consequence than making a wrong choice in reality as it is irreversible and something your future will be depending upon, whereas emotional pain can be overcome and put in the past not changing your future irreversibly like consequences of our actions. It is in this way that people who cling to ignorance not only sacrifice their future self for their present, but they sacrifice their future self to a much greater consequence that is irreversible in order to put off a much lesser penalty for their present self.
Why should we not fear understanding?If you think that your side is right, you dont need to fear understanding.If you think that your side might be wrong, you should understand why.
Many people fear understanding the world for what it is and they choose to cling to ignorance because they fear that by understanding the world correctly two things will happen. The first is they will have to realign their mentality and go through the process of emotional pain associated with error which is an unpleasant experience. The second is they believe that by understanding reality for what it is they will change their perspective of reality. The second statement is only partially true. Yes, it will change their perspective of reality as they will understand it for what it is, but if they recognize that the reality, they uncovered was with them all along then why they were fearful of it and content with where they were at. They were content with their past reality and yet fearful of uncovering what their past reality would be. Instead, they should recognize that the newly discovered understanding is essentially the past that they were content with just enlightened and more understood.
A primary example of how people may cling to ignorance over understanding is associated with value, specifically intrinsic human value. People are very aware that value is not inherent in the object but rather a perception of the view. This is known through many quotes and sayings understood as one man's trash is another man's treasure, or water is more valuable than gold in the desert. It demonstrates that value is not an intrinsic thing but a value that one entity places on another. It shows that one thing by itself cannot have value because value is one thing's appreciation for another. In this way, many cling to their past claiming that they cannot accept an existence with no intrinsic human value because that would be a life not worth living, but they essentially understood it backwards. Instead, they should have recognized that this new understanding of reality better explains why value is dependent on the individual, which demonstrates its better accuracy with reality, But they also shouldn't fear it, because if they were content with the reality they want new and the discovery is meant to explain that reality that they were content with then the explanation is associated with the reality they were content with, not the other way around. Essentially, if a person is content with their life as it is, and they understand it to be something else then they should be content with the new discovery as it is still the thing that they were content with before. This is why people should not fear understanding reality even if it may seem appalling at first, and why they should fear ignorance which so many cling to.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I believe that is correct, to interpret reality correctly you must have a standard which you are judging. This coincides with my understanding of truth as a metric of alignment with an external system.
Created:
Here are the main forum points that will be thoroughly addressed:
- The brain’s job is to help us navigate towards abetter future by understanding the past.
- Understanding the past helps us navigate thefuture as evident by the brain’s evolution.
- The brain utilizes emotions to reinforcelearning by rewarding us with positivity when correct and negativity when incorrect.
- The emotional attachment to our beliefs isproportional to their influence on our lives.
- This is because the brain has evolved to rewardus based on the amount of effort we invest while considering how many variousdecisions have been affected.
- The misconception of a task at work may inflictminute negative emotions, but to misconceive a traitor as a best friend isdetrimental, deserving a much worse reward.
- Many choose ignorance to avoid pain from mentalrebirth, which shelters them through blindness.
- This is a short-term pleasure at the expense ofone’s future.
- A person who blinds themself to the world mayfeel secure in the short-term, but they sacrifice their future self as a resultof their lack of preparation from their ignorance.
- If our misconceptions are implemented in ourdecisions, they will have consequences.
- All decisions have consequences.
- If we base our decision on a misconception, wewill often have negative consequences.
- We should fear ignorance because it blinds us towhat is coming.
- Life is coming regardless of our ignorance.
- If we do not see what is coming, we are drivingblind.
- We should not fear understanding because what weuncover was already there.
- If we are content with misconceptions and fearfulof what we may uncover, then we should not fear what we uncover since it was thereall along.
- Discovering the world for what it is does notchange how the world is, but shows us what the world is like, when it is whatyou have discovered it to be.
Created:
Description:
Fear ignorance, this is the first part of my series toward cultivating epistemic empowerment that is meant to embrace understanding and navigate the future successfully. This is meant to cultivate a mentality that is able to navigate any situation given any amount of complex knowledge and be able to overcome and regain a better understanding of the world. In this forum, I encourage you to share your understanding and knowledge you have obtained that is relevant, but most of all be curious and ask questions.
This marks the beginning of the utmost fundamental and essential concepts to grasp about the world, paving the way to empower your ability to tackle any question with confidence. If you believe a similar topic should be a part of this series, please feel free to address it and If I believe it truly is then I will consider it in as great a depth as I can for another forum of the series.
Brief description:
This is meant to be an interactive educational forum to express what I believe to be one of the most necessary keys to understanding.
We will cover the following questions to get started:
Why do we cling to ignorance?
How can we know when we are likely to cling to ignorance?
How does the brain interplay with the proclivity of ignorance?
Why should we fear ignorance?
Why should we not fear understanding?
Coming soon on "Cultivating Epistemic Empowerment":
How to Learn?
How to Think?
How to Debate?
How to Decide?
How to Simplify?
Looking forward to "Essential Foundations to Comprehensive Understanding":
What is Reality?
What is Truth?
What is Understanding?
What is Morality?
What is God?
Final and unending series "Demystifying Philosophical Controversies":
...Unknown...
Brief Description: Meant to make sense of all commonly decided questions such as the morality of abortion and many others.
Please help productively refine my understanding and others by using the following guidelines:
- NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately. Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I'm glad you could join us early on in the forum of truth I started. Feel free to preview my stance, and I'll do my best to answer all your questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Unfortunately, I'm unable to convey my enthusiasm through text, but I'm delighted to hear such a thought-provoking question. Certainly, I'll share my thoughts.
In the forum link that follows I provide my stance on truth being relative without contradiction:
This is my current understanding of the nature of truth:
I believe in the coexistence of multiple independent truths, each based on a specific lens and reference system. Truth, to me, is the alignment of one system with another. For instance, True North serves as a metric for aligning with what North is. All these perspective truths remain valid in their respective contexts and do not invalidate one another. Objective truth applies when choosing materials to withstand boiling water, considering their ability to resist heat. On the other hand, subjective truth matters when choosing a gift based on personal taste, recognizing beauty's subjectivity. Perspectives on subjectivity and objectivity can coexist, like a color being subjectively beautiful while objectively holding no inherent beauty. The key is to choose the most practical truth for specific questions, understanding that each truth arises from a particular perspective and should be considered as a "prospective truth." Embracing multiple truths and appreciating their validity in different contexts is vital. Rather than seeking a universal truth, considering different perspectives leads to the most relevant and meaningful answers.
If you are seeking to go into this in depth, feel free to post on my forum. I will try to keep morality on this forum. We can pick up on morality after discussing truth since I believe it is necessary to understand morality.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Do you not believe depending on the perspective a nomad could be considered free and enslaved given my last comment?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Don't pay your bills and quit your job. Reality with no delusions, no alternative perspectives.What leads you to believe this is what people should do?I don't want to lead anyone to do anything. I simply said quit your job and don't pay your bills and you will find there is no alternative perspective on what reality will bring to you.
What you said was without much context, so I had to interpret a bit. I believed you were presenting the idea as a positive means to escape delusions, but I now understand.
What would happen if one decided to live as a nomad without the responsibilities of a job or bills?
Being in control of one's reality implies a lack of constraints and the ability to shape one's life according to personal choices. On the other hand, a life without control or knowledge of the players involved may lead to a lack of understanding and limited control over one's circumstances. Considering the absence of a job, it may initially seem liberating as it frees an individual from the obligations and constraints associated with traditional employment. However, this newfound freedom comes with its own set of limitations. Without a job, one may find themselves constrained by limited options to influence or control their reality effectively. Thus, a person without a job can be simultaneously perceived as free in certain aspects, such as being unburdened by work-related responsibilities, while also being enslaved in other respects due to their limited control over life's circumstances. Both perspectives hold truth and relevance, highlighting the lack of a job and bills can have alternative perspectives of truth.
In essence, a nomad may be considered free in the aspect of employment obligations, while enslaved or constrained to a certain fate as they have little to no means of control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I personally view the book as a means of winning an argument not necessarily having the best future for oneself or others. It is because of this; I view the book as a way for a child to have a tantrum and if other children join to stomp their feet they will win together. The unfortunate part is that it may work for others who are speaking to emotionally driven audiences, which is a decent part of the populus. I believe that if someone used the steps and instructions provided in this book, I would have no problem winning an argument against them assuming that my argument was correct.
I believe that the true intention is not to win a debate but rather to navigate the world towards a better future. I also believe that by winning a debate you are not necessarily leading yourself to a better future especially if you plan on implementing your decision from the debate and if the decision affects you. If a person has concluded a false reality, and then implemented it and the decision affects them, I believe this will negatively affect their future. This is why I viewed the book as not only impractical but irrational, illogical, and priority flawed.
In essence, I don't believe this book is beneficial to anyone's life, and it may lead to negative consequences that many who share this emotionally driven mentality will fail to consider.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Personally, I attack my own ideas from their weakest points with the intention of critiquing them or creating a new theory all together.
I believe what you're saying is in the context of the book it was meant to be used in a less rational manner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
For people who are unfamiliar with the topic:
- Encouraging Ad Hominem Attacks: The book allegedly promotes attacking a person's character and past mistakes instead of focusing on the merit of their arguments. Ad hominem attacks aim to discredit opponents personally rather than engaging with their ideas.
- Manipulating Emotions Over Logic: According to the comment, the book suggests using emotional appeals rather than logical reasoning in debates. It purportedly advises prioritizing emotions to sway the audience's opinion rather than relying on sound and rational arguments.
- Using Stories to Play on Emotions: The book apparently advocates using storytelling techniques to elicit emotional responses from the audience. These stories might be employed to create empathy or manipulate sentiments, potentially diverting attention from the substance of the argument.
- Focusing on Worst Point Rebuttal: The book is said to encourage focusing on the weakest points of an opponent's argument and exaggerating their significance to mislead the audience into believing that these weaknesses discredit the entire argument.
- Prioritizing Winning Over Truth: The commenter expresses concern that the book places more emphasis on winning debates through manipulation and tactical maneuvers rather than seeking truth or honest discourse.
Unfortunately, many people are not logically or rationally guided to make decisions. Instead, they allow themselves to make judgements based on their momentary emotions. This is certainly not an effective strategy to make desicions. Nonetheless, the book seems to exploit that, indicating the book is geared to winning arguments for the masses and not for winning rational dialogue because in a one-on-one discussion the individual founded upon rationality wouldn't be affected by this tactic.
In a debate of logical and rational minded intellectuals, this tactic would be hardly useful and easily identifiably as a childish attempt to win. No one would consider the validity of the idea based on the credibility of the person's credentials but rather take the value of the words for their own merit. Stories are an effective way to express ideas they are also an effective way to express emotions, and this could be seen as an attempt to play on emotions but for a small group of rational minded individuals it would merely convey the point of the story and would not have much of an emotional overcoming effect. I think it is essential to focus on the worst point in a rebuttal, and I believe many people would agree with me. I am often self-critical and examine my own decisions and essentially try to dismount them and I focus on their weakest points. It is in this way that I am not only able to reform my idea to support and rigidify against such accusations, but I am also able to identify arguments that are incapable of withstanding the accusations and then form a new one that holds better than before. It is most certainly an important aspect of a debate to prioritize truth over winning, especially if the decision will be one that affects you. We live in a world that is not exactly as we wish it would be and therefore by playing on emotions and pretending as if the world was how we wish it would be and then we make decisions based on how the we wish the world would be we will not get the results that we wanted because we did not acknowledge the world for what it is.
Essentially, the book could be recognized as morally concerning as it tends to focus on winning as a primary objective over truth and understanding. This can be harmful to anyone involved in the decision as they will be affected by this false judgment. The book strategies would not be effective in a debate among a small group of intellectuals who are emotionally collected and rational minded. Instead, the book Is more focused on irrational and emotional individuals which would be the general populus, and in larger groups. When an individual is arguing a stance and in front of a large audience, they are more likely to be offended when a person is accusing their credibility and trying to dismount their idea at its weakest point these leads for a higher chance that the debate will become emotional and subject to being overcome by the tactics.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sometimes it's just easier to conclude that what one perceives is an accurate representation of an external reality.
Yes, it is always simpler to conclude our perception of reality is correct. This is what children do all the time as they mentally develop. They lack the necessary experience to understand the world, yet their brain drives them to pursue answers, so they make inaccurate conclusions about how the world works to avoid the fear and anxiety of the unknown. This is because a world that is unknown is a fearful one. This is also why people tend to avoid taking new chances and opportunities. They wish to stay in a world that matches what they believe is true, and the more they explore the more likely they are to discover the world is more complex than they thought.
This is why so many people get PTSD from going to war. They developed a mental structure that the world must act in a specific way and then that foundational principle to almost everything else they know becomes shattered. This causes their world to become chaos as nothing they thought they knew was true and so everything around them becomes unknown and frightening. As a result, they then start to question all their other core beliefs, which leads to the phenix transformation of metal rebirth as they rebuild their understanding of reality.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Don't pay your bills and quit your job. Reality with no delusions, no alternative perspectives.
What leads you to believe this is what people should do?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think of understanding like a game of chess. If you are a new player and no one tells you the rules you will never know what will happen next because you don't understand, but once you understand the game, you can predict what the opponent may throw at you and can prepare for it, meanwhile controlling the opponent with a better understanding of the game. I ask myself the question, do I control reality, or does it control me. Sure, we may be set within the bound rules of the game, but we are in control of our moves. Similarly, we can compare the understanding of chess with the ability to control its moves to whether you understand reality to the degree you are able to predict and control the future. When I pick up a spoon, I move the spoon, and I know I understand reality enough to move the spoon. The more that I can control the world the better I believe I understand it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The basis for proposing a theory of objectivity is its utility. I'm not proposing that there is a world beyond subjectivity. In essence, whether the objective world exists or not is irrelevant since we can never experience it, but the theory of objectivity has served many purposes in our subjective realm. Therefore, out of practicality, I find the theory of objective reality essential to understand.Then perhaps "objectivity" is not the appropriate term to apply to this theory.However, it is not the point. I'm trying to explain that the underlying consistency among subjectivity can be better understood by using the theory of objectivity. I do not claim it to be a real place or something that can be experienced since by definition objectivity cannot be experienced, but that the theory can be utilized to benefit ourselves.Then perhaps "objectivity" is not the appropriate term to apply to this theory.
Why do you believe not? After all, it is the theory of a standard that is independent of individual perception.
It's more than merely a perception,How?
Because an individual's perception may be different than everyone else's. If you do not understand something, and someone can explain it to you, does that mean the other person had a different perspective than you, and they were right, and you were wrong? I view this as evidence that not every perspective is able to predict and determine the world which I believe to be the most essential aspect of perception to be in with. From a darwinian perspective our perception of the world is evolved in a way that we can better understand and manipulate reality to our advantage and be more successful in life.
it's an underlying consistency,How does underlying consistency = beyond perception?
It doesn't necessarily, but it could be. Nonetheless, the theory captures the essence of the idea and for all intents and purposes is correctly able to understand and manipulate the world better than any individual perspective. If you're familiar with mathematics, you can think of reality as a complex graph equation. What we know of the world is a set of data points on the graph. Many different equations can pass through all of the data points on the graph. There is only one equation that matches what reality is and that is the equation of reality. Therefore, it is possible to create various logical and probable theories about reality that capture what we know about it correctly but the odds we completely understand reality is almost infinitely improbable. Nonetheless, if we are only concerned with what we have decided to consider as a data point then the theory has the purpose of predicting the set of data points we have chosen. This is why it has utility, It is meant to capture the essence of what we consider to be important.
It seems to me that you are suggesting that numbers and empirical evidence are merely perceptions of individuals, I am in agreement.I don't do "seem." (Seem is not an argument.) I am stating as much.
I thought your whole argument was that there is nothing objective and therefore everything is subjective in a perception which would be something that seems to be correct to the individual that is perceiving it? Why do you not think that everything that you believe is what you seem to be correct?
Would you explain what materialist misconception you are trying to avoid?The misconception of which I speak is that objectivity can be determined by materialist standards, i.e. analysis and expressions of physical concepts.
I see, I suppose my stance is more of a naturalist.
They are commonly accepted to be,Consensus =/= objectivity.
Are you familiar with the international metric standard? It is considered to be an objective fact by many, and it was most definitely consensus or majority vote.
and without a sufficient explanation besides "They're not," you are hardly convincing me.Empiricism is necessarily subjective; therefore empirical data is necessarily subjective. I assumed you knew this, which explains my lack of a sufficient explanation.
I believe empiricism is a subjective standard. I attempt not to assume someone who disagrees with my position would agree with all of my prerequisites for that position, it seems nonsensical.
I cannot know for certain if a meteor with strike my home, yet I make the assumption it will not.But you've experienced meteors. Not necessarily being hit by one, but seeing how they're described, and gauging the likelihood one would hit your home at random. This is not the same for claims of objectivity, which is absolutely devoid experience or observation. Anything you state which intends to inform objectivity will only be a projection of your own bias.
You keep using bias in a context that it would support one's idea when it is not meant to be. Bias is something that a person desires to believe or would desire for personal benefit. A person may believe or receive something that is not to their liking and therefore it would not be inherently biased to receive or believe anything.
Simultaneously, while being uncertain since I don't know,There's a difference between "not knowing" and being "incapable of knowing."
There is a difference between knowing blackholes exist and being incapable of experiencing them. You seem to believe that incapable of experiencing is incapable of knowing, I believe that nothing can be known for certain but merely it is our best representation of reality. I also believe in the possibility of there being an objective reality and the theory seems to rigidify it without proving it.
Every time anyone goes to their home, they are acting on the unknown presumption a meteor will not strike. I consider this to be evidence that we can act upon the unknown.Except it isn't an unknown. If it were an unknown, you wouldn't know what a meteor was. In which case, your taking the chances of a meteor striking your home into consideration would be inapplicable.
I was talking about the strike not the meteor's existence.
Secondly, I am referring to utilizing something we cannot conceptualize in our mind through theoretical representation,And how does this escape bias?
I suppose you don't believe in anything that can't be experienced. What are your thoughts on the multiverse?
I may not fully understand how a car, fridge, phone, or laptop work, yet I put them to use dailyIt's not the same.
Of course it's not the same, a fridge is an objective reality. My point is things that we cannot comprehend are still usable.
Similarly, the objective theory of the world cannot every be understood or experienced, yet we can utilize the theory in many ways since it is meant to be the underlying concept of subjective reality, bettering our understanding of others.Why is that which we can never understand or experience the underlying concept for that which we do understand and experience? That isn't a sound proposition.
Because we can never experience that which cannot be experienced, objectivity.
------------------------------------------------------------
I have a hard time understanding my past quotes in such short snippets. I would appreciate a bit more context on some of the quotes, thanks.
I neither claim the existence or non-existence of an objective reality, but that the theory of objective reality is purposeful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Do you not notice similarities of subjective experience among various individuals in certain aspects of reality such as quantity consistency?Consensus =/= Objectivity; mass subscription to a standard =/= Objectivity; consistency =/= objectivity.
I don't believe this answers my question, nor do you support your ideas validity.
A bias is something a person would prefer due to its benefits for that individual. I don't see how this benefits me specifically. I also don't see the circular reasoning you are abstractly referring to.The bias of which I speak is necessarily present in your impression of an underlying commonality which you have suggested informs the theory of objectivity. Because your formulations, your observations, your calculations will always be subject to your experience, your theory is in and of itself biased--its benefit to you notwithstanding. Your reasoning is circular because the premise of your assumption is your assumption.
Why do you believe I'm biased towards an underlying commonality? Perhaps I don't care for the idea of an underlying commonality but still believe it is true. In this case I would not be a biased belief, but an impartial one. Just because someone believes something to be true doesn't mean they are biased. One may believe in Nihilism; this doesn't mean they like the idea.
My point remains because we were able to discover new chemicals and create new compounds before we could see the atom.How does "discovery" escape bias?
I don't see how your question relates to the quoted text, nor do you acknowledge that this was made possible through the theory of an underlying consistency.
How would it be possible to live in a universe where anything makes sense if it were not consistent?
I don't claim discovery escapes bias, they are independent concepts that are not affiliated. One discovery could be biased, while another not.
Second, it's hard to say what qualifies as an image of an atom. I could claim my photograph of the couch is a picture of atoms.Does this image seem like an atom to you: https://www.news-medical.net/image.axd?picture=2018%2f7%2fCornell_atom_image_a61c3418583143b9a8197696f3b31f23-310x240.jpgThis informs my point: that which qualifies as an image of an atom is subject to the standard one accepts; the proposition that it exists as such independent of observation or perspective is irrelevant.
My point holds true, without having a standard for what measures truth we cannot know what reference to judge. If one person thinks gravity goes up it is not helpful to build a home, I definitely wouldn't hire that engineer. What is helpful is the theory of an independent consitency. I suppose one could think of the theory of objectivity as subjective since it's a metaphysical concept and thus must have a subject to conceive it.
The idea I'm presenting is that we have been able to make much use of theories and concepts in all aspects of science.My dispute is not against theories in general; my dispute is against the affirmation of objectivity.
I agree, I have said before I don't claim that objectivity exists or not but that it is irrelevant; only out of practicality of understanding our subjective world do I claim the theory of objectivity to be useful. Not confirmed.
It doesn't establish a proof of independence of the mind.Then it cannot be "objective."
I don't understand why something that isn't establishing proof of independence cannot be objective. Perhaps you mean by not establishing proof there can be no proof. You are saying, because we have no proof, it is proof it does not exist, I don't agree at all. Instead, I view the absence of proof as what it is an absence of proof, it does not support or destroy the idea. Nonetheless, the theory's utility is why I value it, not because I'm certain of an objective world.
It establishes a proof that the theory of independence of the mind has much application in our subjective reality. Again, I say it is the "theory of objectivity" that is useful to us, not objective reality as a place.Then perhaps "objectivity" is not the appropriate term to apply to this theory.
Perhaps this is true, I will be more definitive. Objectivity is an attribute of an object whereas subjectivity is an attribute of the subject perceiving the object.
I believe it is the theory of certain attributes associating with an object independent of perception is useful within our subjective reality.
You are suggesting in order to theorize an objective reality we must experience it. While I see you draw a connection of experience, I believe it's more reasonable that by understanding our many subjective experiences and the underlying commonalities we are able to theorize the ultimate subjective reality or the reality devoid of subjective experience, which is the theory of objective reality, regardless of whether we've experienced directly.What does theorizing the ultimate subjective reality have to do with theorizing an objective reality? Why does underlying commonality lead you to assume or theorize objectivity?
Objective reality is the theory of a reality where certain attributes are associated with an object independent of subjective perspective. We can never experience an objective reality because in order to experience it we must perceive it. Nonetheless, we can theorize it by the commonalities among our subjective perspectives. I would consider the underlying commonality among all subjective perspectives to be the ultimate subjective reality. If there isn't objective reality independent of subjective perception, there would be certain aspects that are common between all perspectives. This is why I believe the ultimate subjective reality to be the underlying commonality between all individual subjective realities which I believe to be objective reality which is independent of perception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Being the objective view is the theoretical concept underlying our subjective experiences, by understanding the objective view we can make predictions and better understand our subjective views along with others rather than being completely blindsided to an underlying commonality and being ignorant towards the ability to predict others subjective lens which we obviously can do to a certain extent by using knowledge about the objective world and by viewing other's personalities.But why would a logical necessity, i.e. subjective experience, have a logical absurdity, i.e. objective experience, underlie it? Why is "commonality" expressed through the proposition of "objectivity" and not the proposition of "logical consistency"?
Do you not notice similarities of subjective experience among various individuals in certain aspects of reality such as quantity consistency? I believe that there is most certainly an underlying commonality among many parts of subjective experience.
I believe I understand that your stance is if we can never truly experience the objective reality then what is its intended purpose. The purpose would be to understand the bias in our own emotions and subjective lens and by understanding the underlying theoretical truth we can better interpret and understand the subjective lens of others.But that in and of itself is a bias. And it's a bit of circular reasoning given that premise and its extension are the same.
A bias is something a person would prefer due to its benefits for that individual. I don't see how this benefits me specifically. I also don't see the circular reasoning you are abstractly referring to.
As I said, I am remarkably familiar with the topic, and I have argued for Solipsism in the past and still do. Nonetheless, I see utility in understanding the underlying theoretical concept behind our subjective views of the world and see we can use this to make predictions and better understand our world. A primary example of this would be the theory of atoms. No one has directly experienced or been able to see an atom since they are far too small.The assumption itself is the only "substance" provided for the assumption. And we have seen atoms using electron ptychography if I remember correctly (correct me if I'm wrong.)
My point remains because we were able to discover new chemicals and create new compounds before we could see the atom.
Second, it's hard to say what qualifies as an image of an atom. I could claim my photograph of the couch is a picture of atoms.
Does this image seem like an atom to you: https://www.news-medical.net/image.axd?picture=2018%2f7%2fCornell_atom_image_a61c3418583143b9a8197696f3b31f23-310x240.jpg
The idea I'm presenting is that we have been able to make much use of theories and concepts in all aspects of science.
Nonetheless, the theory of atoms has allowed us to invent electromagnetic generators along with new materials and chemical compounds. It is in this way that theories and concepts are crucial to understanding and navigating one's life.But what relevance does that bear to the claim of objectivity? How does the invention of electromagnetic generators as well as new materials and chemical compounds establish independence from the mind?
It doesn't establish a proof of independence of the mind. It establishes a proof that the theory of independence of the mind has much application in our subjective reality. Again, I say it is the "theory of objectivity" that is useful to us, not objective reality as a place.
That is an assumption, but it is also an educated assumption which makes it a theory, and as I explained above, I believe that theories and concepts are a crucial aspect of understanding the world.An educated assumption would imply knowledge or prediction using experience. What knowledge or experience does anyone have of "objective reality"? The point of objectivity is that it negates knowledge or experience.
You are suggesting in order to theorize an objective reality we must experience it. While I see you draw a connection of experience, I believe it's more reasonable that by understanding our many subjective experiences and the underlying commonalities we are able to theorize the ultimate subjective reality or the reality devoid of subjective experience, which is the theory of objective reality, regardless of whether we've experienced directly.
My perspective is that if there exists an underlying structure that permeates all of our subjective views, then by formulating theories about the objective realm, we can gain insight into our subjective perspectives and biases. While I acknowledge that the world cannot be directly experienced in an objective manner, I believe we can theorize about it, and the theory itself can be known and help us understand our subjectivity. Therefore, I see the objective realm as unknowable, but the theory of the objective lens is knowable, as evident in my current conception of it. Ultimately, what we can grasp is not the world in isolation from perception, as it remains unknowable, but rather the shared essence among our subjective experiences—a collective subjective theory (theory of objectivity, not objectivity) that can be known.But what is the basis for even proposing a theory of objectivity in the first place? Or that the world lies beyond that which we directly experience? The assumption itself. How can that be a theory, or even an educated guess, if that assumption isn't based on any knowledge or experience?
The basis for proposing a theory of objectivity is its utility. I'm not proposing that there is a world beyond subjectivity. In essence, whether the objective world exists or not is irrelevant since we can never experience it, but the theory of objectivity has served many purposes in our subjective realm. Therefore, out of practicality, I find the theory of objective reality essential to understand.
Many people agree that quantities are independent of perception because it is consistent among all individuals that the number remains the same.Isn't that a perception, especially considering that they all "agreed" to it?
It's more than merely a perception, it's an underlying consistency, which I believe to be all the evidence we need to theorize an objective reality and better understand our subjective reality.
Being that it is self-evident to most people and myself that numerical quantities are objective and independent of perception, could you explain why you believe otherwise?Because numbers are but mere abstractions we use to give a form to our experiences. When I've asked for proof of the number, "2," for example, that is, proof of its mass, volume, weight, chemical composition, etc. no one has been able to do so. (Not that I would expect them to provide proof.) When I see two apples on my table, is their existing as two apples independent of my or any observation or merely an expression of a standard of description to which I and others subscribe? Standardization =/= Objectivity; Consistency =/= Objectivity. Logical consistency can be found within subjectivity. In fact, logical consistency can be found ONLY in subjectivity.
It seems to me that you are suggesting that numbers and empirical evidence are merely perceptions of individuals, I am in agreement. However, it is not the point. I'm trying to explain that the underlying consistency among subjectivity can be better understood by using the theory of objectivity. I do not claim it to be a real place or something that can be experienced since by definition objectivity cannot be experienced, but that the theory can be utilized to benefit ourselves. Therefore, it is not an absurdity, but a utility.
When I apply the terms objective and subjective, my application is in concordance with their philosophical descriptions, which avoids materialist misconception.
I too understand objectivity and subjectivity based on their philosophical descriptions. Would you explain what materialist misconception you are trying to avoid?
For example, while scientific data and measurements are objective,They're not.
They are commonly accepted to be, and without a sufficient explanation besides "They're not," you are hardly convincing me.
their interpretation and implications can involve subjective judgments.Their interpretations and implications ONLY involve subjective judgements.
Yes, the judgements of individuals are made subjectively.
On the other hand, objectivity is crucial for empirical research, making decisions based on evidence, and providing a common ground for shared understanding.Your conclusion has operated on a description of objectivity inconsistent with that which was applied before.
Then let me rephrase myself so you may follow. "The theory of objectivity is a crucial aspect of reality to understand." Since people are incapable of experiencing a world devoid of experience such as an objective reality it is merely theoretical and henceforth why objectivity is referred to as a theory. Thus, when I say objectivity is a crucial aspect of reality to understand I am referring to the theory since there is nothing more than the theory to understand.
We can think of the theory of objectivity as a refrigerator. We do not need to understand the inner workings of its entirety to make good use of it. I refrigerate my groceries everyday and I don't have a complete understanding of how it works, yet its helpful to me everyday in my subjective world. Similarly, it may be impossible to comprehend the objective world, as previously stated it is unperceivable, yet this does not render it unless or absurd, but unknown and available for use.How can it be put to use if it's "unknowable"?
I cannot know for certain if a meteor with strike my home, yet I make the assumption it will not. Simultaneously, while being uncertain since I don't know, I continue to make decisions based on the meteor not striking, such as going home every day. Every time anyone goes to their home, they are acting on the unknown presumption a meteor will not strike. I consider this to be evidence that we can act upon the unknown.
Secondly, I am referring to utilizing something we cannot conceptualize in our mind through theoretical representation, similar to the multiverse. I may not fully understand how a car, fridge, phone, or laptop work, yet I put them to use daily. Similarly, the objective theory of the world cannot every be understood or experienced, yet we can utilize the theory in many ways since it is meant to be the underlying concept of subjective reality, bettering our understanding of others.
Why is it you think someone may disagree on their favorite movie or song than another individual, is one lying? Only once they understand that perception is subjective can they understand they may both be correct, since the attribute is not of the object but the subject.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you think an interpretation of reality that cannot predict or determine the future is a correct interpretation? I would think not, so there must be a standard for what is judged as correct. I think the standard for what is determined as correct is how accurately it can predict outcomes in the world. This leads me to believe anyone can pin down reality correctly to the degree of which their interpretation can accurately predict the world.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
@zedvictor4
One does not understand reality "correctly" whatever that means. One only ever experiences the best approximate of reality one's brain can conjure.
Do you then believe no one can experience subjective reality? It was not specified, so it refers to reality in general. I assume you're referring to objective reality?
Moreover, "Whatever that means" indicates a lack of grasp on the question, then it's followed by a certainty of rejection.
I'm certain you have reason to believe what you do, it is just not apparent to me. Could you explain?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, I agree they both have essential utility, and remain equally valid. Though, sometimes it may be required to choose one perspective over the other due to practicality. I may choose subjectively and buy my friend a gift based on their subjectively most beautiful color, while I may choose a material objectively, such as an oven pan that will not melt given the objective melting point of the material. I believe even when through the objective lens a material is devoid of beauty that from a subjective view an object can be filled with beauty, and I do not believe these two contradict one another and they remain simultaneously true. The one statement says the object has no beauty the other says I see beauty, these do not support or conflict each other and can remain simultaneously true.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I find Quanta to be quite significant for scientific breakthroughs and a standard for people to agree upon. Perhaps more useful than the subjective world.
For those who are unfamiliar with the topic:
The idea expressed in the statement is similar to Immanuel Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena.
1. Quanta (Phenomena): In the statement, quanta is described as the "brute fact" that can be directly measured and grasped, and it is factually accurate and objective. This aligns with Kant's concept of phenomena, which refers to the appearances or the things as they appear to us in our subjective experiences. Phenomena are the empirical data and objective aspects of the world that we can perceive and understand through our senses and rationality.
2. Qualia (Noumena): The statement describes qualia as the "experience" or the nature of our subjective experiences, and it is meaningful and visceral but entirely subjective. This is reminiscent of Kant's notion of noumena, which refers to the "things in themselves" or the objects as they exist independently of our perceptions. Kant argued that we can never have direct access to noumena since our knowledge is limited to the way things appear to us (phenomena).
Both the statement and Kant's theory highlight the distinction between the objective, measurable aspects of the world (quanta/phenomena) and the subjective, experiential aspects that depend on individual perceptions and consciousness (qualia/noumena). Kant's philosophy explores the limitations of human knowledge and understanding, emphasizing that we can only know the world through our subjective experiences (phenomena) and not as it exists independently of us (noumena).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
We can think of the theory of objectivity as a refrigerator. We do not need to understand the inner workings of its entirety to make good use of it. I refrigerate my groceries everyday and I don't have a complete understanding of how it works, yet its helpful to me everyday in my subjective world. Similarly, it may be impossible to comprehend the objective world, as previously stated it is unperceivable, yet this does not render it unless or absurd, but unknown and available for use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
This is why I view objectivity as a theoretical concept that has pragmatic purposes, while acknowledging it cannot be proven.What use is the "theory" if independence can never be established?
Being the objective view is the theoretical concept underlying our subjective experiences, by understanding the objective view we can make predictions and better understand our subjective views along with others rather than being completely blindsided to an underlying commonality and being ignorant towards the ability to predict others subjective lens which we obviously can do to a certain extent by using knowledge about the objective world and by viewing other's personalities.
I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone viewing an object must be subjectively experiencing the object.Why is that reasonable when objectivity cannot be reasoned outside of absurdity?
I believe I understand that your stance is if we can never truly experience the objective reality then what is its intended purpose. The purpose would be to understand the bias in our own emotions and subjective lens and by understanding the underlying theoretical truth we can better interpret and understand the subjective lens of others.
In this way no one can ever experience the reality objectively, but subjectively.What is an "objective reality" if not an absurdity? You just argued--and quite well I might add--that it's impossible to know that which lies independent of the mind, so what reason can objectivity inform? What use is the "theory" of objectivity in epistemology? Does existence have any significance outside of epistemology?
As I said, I am remarkably familiar with the topic, and I have argued for Solipsism in the past and still do. Nonetheless, I see utility in understanding the underlying theoretical concept behind our subjective views of the world and see we can use this to make predictions and better understand our world. A primary example of this would be the theory of atoms. No one has directly experienced or been able to see an atom since they are far too small. Nonetheless, the theory of atoms has allowed us to invent electromagnetic generators along with new materials and chemical compounds. It is in this way that theories and concepts are crucial to understanding and navigating one's life.
To better explain my stance, I believe subjectively the world only exists within our mind but that objectively the world exists beyond our mind, and I believe both perspectives are simultaneously true and do not conflict each other as they are referring to different lenses of reality.
Regardless, we can theorize what the world is like separated from our perception by using consensus and non-subjective tools such as thermometers.But that is not scientific. That's just an assumption.
That is an assumption, but it is also an educated assumption which makes it a theory, and as I explained above, I believe that theories and concepts are a crucial aspect of understanding the world.
In essence, every person is a subject within the universe and experiences it subjectively, while the objective realm is a theory of what the world is like independent of perception and is calculated based on empirical evidence.Noumena are a Kantian assumption that bears no application in epistemology.
That is an elegant quotation, and quite true. For those who aren't familiar with this:
This statement refers to the philosophical concept of "noumena" as introduced by Immanuel Kant, a prominent German philosopher. In Kant's philosophy, he distinguishes between two realms of reality: the noumenal and the phenomenal.
- Noumena: This refers to the things-in-themselves, the ultimate reality that exists independently of human perception and cognition. Noumena are things as they are in their true nature, beyond our ability to perceive or fully understand.
- Phenomena: This refers to the world as we perceive it through our senses and interpret it through our understanding. Phenomena are the appearances or representations of the noumena that we can access and comprehend through our senses and mental faculties.
The statement suggests that "noumena" is an assumption made by Kant that has limited or no practical application in the field of epistemology. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, sources, and limitations of human knowledge and understanding. It seeks to understand how we come to know things and the conditions under which knowledge is possible.
The criticism here is that Kant's idea of noumena, being things that exist beyond our perceptual and cognitive capacities, cannot be known or accessed by humans. Since epistemology deals with knowledge and understanding, concepts that are beyond the reach of human knowledge would have no application in this context. In other words, if noumena cannot be known or understood by humans, then they are not relevant to the study of epistemology, which focuses on the limits and possibilities of human knowledge.
My perspective is that if there exists an underlying structure that permeates all of our subjective views, then by formulating theories about the objective realm, we can gain insight into our subjective perspectives and biases. While I acknowledge that the world cannot be directly experienced in an objective manner, I believe we can theorize about it, and the theory itself can be known and help us understand our subjectivity. Therefore, I see the objective realm as unknowable, but the theory of the objective lens is knowable, as evident in my current conception of it. Ultimately, what we can grasp is not the world in isolation from perception, as it remains unknowable, but rather the shared essence among our subjective experiences—a collective subjective theory (theory of objectivity, not objectivity) that can be known.
I believe it rational that a quantity is a non-subjective aspect of reality such as the number of marbles in a bag which could be considered an objective aspect of reality.How are quantities not subjective?
Many people agree that quantities are independent of perception because it is consistent among all individuals that the number remains the same. This would make it an attribute of the object and not of the perceiver, which makes it an objective and not a subjective attribute. While beauty may be considered a subjective attribute, I do not consider a numerical quantity to be subjective. Being that it is self-evident to most people and myself that numerical quantities are objective and independent of perception, could you explain why you believe otherwise?
The terms "objective" and "subjective" refer to different ways of understanding and evaluating information or experiences. Here's an explanation of the difference between the two concepts and how they apply to different aspects of our lives:
Objective:
- Objective refers to something that exists independently of individual opinions, beliefs, or perspectives.
- It is based on measurable and verifiable information that is consistent and replicable across different observers or measurements.
- Objective information is not influenced by personal feelings, biases, or interpretations.
Examples of Objective:
- Empirical Data: Scientific measurements, experiments, and observations that can be objectively verified.
- Numerical Quantities: Mathematical values such as length, weight, time, etc., that can be precisely measured and expressed.
Subjective:
- Subjective relates to individual perspectives, opinions, feelings, and experiences.
- It is influenced by personal beliefs, emotions, cultural background, and individual context.
- Subjective information can vary from person to person and may not be verifiable in an objective, standardized manner.
Examples of Subjective:
- Beauty: The perception of beauty varies from person to person and is influenced by cultural norms, personal preferences, and experiences.
- Value: The value of an object, experience, or idea is subjective and depends on how individuals perceive its worth or importance.
It is essential to recognize that the distinction between objective and subjective is not always clear-cut. Some aspects of life may have elements of both objectivity and subjectivity. For example, while scientific data and measurements are objective, their interpretation and implications can involve subjective judgments.
In many cases, subjective experiences and perspectives are important and valid in understanding human emotions, culture, and individuality. On the other hand, objectivity is crucial for empirical research, making decisions based on evidence, and providing a common ground for shared understanding.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, it is impossible to make a decision without a perspective because if you cannot perceive the situation there is no way to conclude a response.
What do you mean by the brute fact is often meaningless?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I wasn't speaking about our conversation but about what information is relevant towards making a decision in general. Should someone consider the subjective, objective, or another view when making a decision? Perhaps it is the compilation of these views that builds the entire picture necessary to make it a competent decision?
Created:
Perhaps the information that should be considered as relevant to the equation is what plays a part in the outcome, no matter what perspective or lens it is being viewed.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I apologize if I'm coming across as to verbose. I'm trying to be a specific as possible so we have less room for miss communication of our thoughts.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I think it's important that we understand why we choose certain information as relevant and no other information so we are not arbitrarily choosing what we desire and creating a false understanding of the world like so many do as a coping mechanism. I believe that everyone does this to a degree, but I also believe by recognizing how to identify what information is chosen as a coping mechanism while other information is valid, we can reduce this to a minimal amount through conscious effort.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
It has to start with the axiomatic acceptance that it is indeed a representation of reality.
Perhaps it's less of a representation and more of an interpretation or perspective of reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Do you think that a theory with no proof is illogical, or the certainty of its truth?It isn't that objectivity is a theory with no proof; objectivity extends an absurd premise--i.e. reality can be observed and rationalized independent of the mind.
I currently accept Solipsism as a logical truth that nothing can be known to exist outside the mind. This is because in order to conceptualize the existence of something or in other words to know it exists it must be conceived within the mind and so in order for you to know something exists it must be within the mind's grasp. The theory of an objective reality mainly depends upon the existence of a reality that is separate from the mind. I would argue that since nothing can be proved to be known to exist outside of what is within the mind, then anything outside the mind is merely a theoretical projection. This is why I view objectivity as a theoretical concept that has pragmatic purposes, while acknowledging it cannot be proven.
I do not believe that the concept of an objective realm implies that a viewer may be able to perceive it objectively. I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone viewing an object must be subjectively experiencing the object. In this way no one can ever experience the reality objectively, but subjectively. Regardless, we can theorize what the world is like separated from our perception by using consensus and non-subjective tools such as thermometers. Evidence of thermometers can prove that there is an objective value to heat but humans experience it subjectively which is why some people prefer warmer or colder weather. The heat is not different for each person but is perceived differently. In essence, every person is a subject within the universe and experiences it subjectively, while the objective realm is a theory of what the world is like independent of perception and is calculated based on empirical evidence. I believe it rational that a quantity is a non-subjective aspect of reality such as the number of marbles in a bag which could be considered an objective aspect of reality. Ultimately, I do not think objectivity extends upon an absurd premise but is the theory of what the world is like independent of perception, which is why I believe it only to be theoretical.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you find it concerning that the foundational components that comprise our answers are chosen arbitrarily? Perhaps there is a consistency within our choices, but we have yet to articulate them? In other words, we are unconsciously choosing what information is valid while consciously unaware of the pattern.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
How many truths are there?By law of non-contradiction, there can only be one truth. Just because we don't know it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I misspoke previously. I believe that these many truths are not in conflict with one another if they seem to disagree. For instance, person A may perceive an object as beautiful, while person B may perceive the object as ugly, while objectively the object remains void of beauty since beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The three perspectives are that one person views the object as beautiful another views it as ugly and objectively it is devoid of beauty. Each of the three views do not support or conflict with each other. Each perspective is a different aspect or lens in which to view the situation, and none are in conflict with each other even if one person views the object as beautiful and another as ugly.
What if multiple truths conflict?Some of them, then, must be false. Two opposite things cannot both be true.
This was corrected in the paragraph above.
Are any truths superior to others?I assume there is only one truth.
I do not believe that any one truth is superior to another, nor do I believe that any truth is more valid than another. In the same way, a teaspoon is a valid tool of measurement and so is a voltmeter. We could measure a teaspoon of sugar and then we could test it with the voltmeter, and both would give accurate metrics of what the sugar is within the aspect we are measuring it. Simultaneously, the sugar is measured as one teaspoon and it is also measured as 0 volts. Someone may perceive that the sugar cannot be zero and one at the same time, but it can within the distinct aspects it is being measured being 1 teaspoon and 0 volts. Neither truth is more valid than the other and instead they are simultaneously true within perspective. Of course, we must choose the perspective we wish to view depending on the answer we wish to receive. It may be valid to measure the volts of a teaspoon of sugar but that will not help us bake a cake. Practically we should use the teaspoon. This does not invalidate the voltmeter but instead we choose the one that is more practical given the situation. Similarly, I view the objective and subjective view of the world as simultaneously valid truths that are not in contradiction with one another, and we must practically decide which perspective is relevant to the question based on the answer we wish to receive.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Let’s first ask: What is reality?Reality is the unadulterated, absolute truth. But does such an absolute truth exist? That is kind of hard to answer…Truth is what we want it to be. People can convince themselves about anything if they wish to do so. If you don’t believe me, then try talking to flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers.We observe what we are capable of, and it isn’t always correct.
Yes, it is true that many people can use denial to form and create a hypothetical world that fits to their values and what they want to believe. The largest problem with this is deciding whether we are one of those people or not. How can one tell if their knowledge is what they want the world to be or how the world really is? I believe the way to tell is whether you can predict the world. If you can predict the world accurately then you have an accurate belief model that aligns with the world, but if you fail to predict or claim Something does not make sense or is unbelievable then your belief structure fills to understand, and it means your model of the world is inaccurate and most probably molded in a direction of your bias. Where else would your model of the world bend to if not from reality towards your own liking.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
One does not understand reality "correctly" whatever that means. One only ever experiences the best approximate of reality one's brain can conjure.
You claim that one cannot understand reality correctly but then you state that you do not understand what that means. How can you make this presumption without understanding what the claim is?
I believe what you're saying in the second sentence is that our mind can never fully experience reality, but rather our brain attempts to make its best representation of the world. If that is the case, can and how does one measure the accuracy of one's knowledge in predicting the future or outcomes?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
How can one measure the accuracy of an idea in alignment with reality?Debating and finding reasons. Usually, if one side has much more reasons to support it, that side is more likely to be right.
Do you then believe that the accuracy of an idea is highly consistent with consensus view, or do you choose what reasons are relevant?
If it is just you, how do you choose which reasons are relevant?
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
What you're suggesting is correct, one aspect of truth is whether it aligns with one's perspective of the world and one's perspective of the world will always be in alignment with their perspective of the world in other words their perspective is always true with itself. However, the utility of this proof is not applicable for properly navigating the world and so this perspective does not seem to me as productive. Would you agree?
Created:
I currently believe the following, but I'm open to new perspectives:
I believe that the present rests upon the past, and that the future is dependent on the present. I believe that if one understands the world correctly, they can properly navigate it in a way that they can predict outcomes and choose the best course of action towards success. I believe there is more than just properly navigating the world that leads to success such as circumstances. However, one who knows how to navigate the world correctly can align themselves in such a way that is most probable to succeed. I judge the accuracy of my knowledge based upon how well I can predict situations in the future. If someone tells me a story and I tell them the end beforehand and I am correct and I explained why that explanation seems to be relevant and for every story I can predict further the more certain I am my explanation holds true with the world. The reason for this is because there is an underlying concept that the world follows, and many variations of concepts may fit within the threshold of what has been examined as of yet. Similarly in math we can think of several data points on a graph, and we must figure out which equation draws the graph that matches the data points. Any mathematician would be aware that several if not then infinite different equations could create a graph that passes through the several data points specified. The more circumstances we have exposed ourselves to in the world the more data points we are aware of and if we create a hypothesis or a concept that matches the data points, and the more points we have, the more likely our equation will match that of the world. In essence, the more we know about the world the more predictable it can be and the more nuanced our concept of understanding must be in order to match the circumstances therefore it is closest in alignment with the world. I am never certain that I am correct, instead I acknowledge that what I believe to be true is merely best Interpretation I have, which makes it the most practical concept to be guided by until a better understanding is reached.
Created:
I would like to present some quotes I have derived from much pondering and past experience and see if they can hold true against any criticisms or potentially develop them further to be more accurate and concise.
"The more nuanced a thought, while still remaining true, the more accurate the idea":
When I first put my thought into words, I thought it was self-evident that this was true, but I have never had as clear an understanding of what to strive for in my ideas to be accurate. I think that the more time one spends critiquing and detailing an idea with the more precise definition while it still remains true with reality the more accurate the idea aligns with the world and captivates its processes.
"If the given information is not enough to predict a situation, there are unknown variables":
Whenever I think of something that does not make sense, I think of the factors I am using to predict the outcomes that are insufficient, and I imagine what more variables could be at play that are influencing the change and unpredictability. I have found that when I take a step back and view the concept from a larger view, I find the missing variable that can then accurately predict the situation. For the circumstances I have not found the variable, I theorize that it is there, I just did not take enough steps back, and perhaps it is too many steps back to comprehend.
Created:
How does one know if one understands reality correctly?
In this forum, I encourage you to share your understanding and knowledge you have obtained that is relevant to the nature of knowledge itself.
We will cover the following questions to get started, but please feel free to ask new ones related to the topic:
- How does one know if the knowledge they have obtained is accurate with reality?
- How can one measure the accuracy of an idea in alignment with reality?
Please use the following guidelines to productively participate in the forum:
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately. Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and simple language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
I hope everyone enjoys this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Do you think that a theory with no proof is illogical, or the certainty of its truth?
Created:
Posted in:
This is my current understanding of the nature of truth:
I believe in the coexistence of multiple independent truths, each based on a specific lens and reference system. Truth, to me, is the alignment of one system with another. For instance, True North serves as a metric for aligning with what North is. All these perspective truths remain valid in their respective contexts and do not invalidate one another. Objective truth applies when choosing materials to withstand boiling water, considering their ability to resist heat. On the other hand, subjective truth matters when choosing a gift based on personal taste, recognizing beauty's subjectivity. Perspectives on subjectivity and objectivity can coexist, like a color being subjectively beautiful while objectively holding no inherent beauty. The key is to choose the most practical truth for specific questions, understanding that each truth arises from a particular perspective and should be considered as a "prospective truth." Embracing multiple truths and appreciating their validity in different contexts is vital. Rather than seeking a universal truth, considering different perspectives leads to the most relevant and meaningful answers.
Created:
Posted in:
Here are the commonly accepted frameworks of truth:
- Objective View: The objective view holds that there are truths and facts that exist independently of individual opinions or perspectives. These truths are considered to be universal and can be verified through empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
- Subjective View: The subjective view emphasizes that truth is influenced by personal opinions, feelings, and interpretations. It recognizes that different individuals may perceive the same situation differently based on their unique experiences and beliefs.
- Intersubjective View: Intersubjectivity acknowledges that certain truths or beliefs are not purely subjective but are shared and agreed upon by a group of individuals. It involves understanding how people collectively construct and validate their beliefs and meanings.
- Relativism: Relativism posits that truth and knowledge are not absolute but are relative to the context, culture, or framework in which they exist. Different societies or individuals may have their own truths that are valid within their specific cultural or historical contexts.
- Pragmatism: Pragmatism emphasizes the practical consequences and usefulness of beliefs and actions. According to this view, truth is not an abstract concept but is determined by its practicality and effectiveness in achieving specific goals.
- Constructivism: Constructivism suggests that individuals actively construct their knowledge and understanding of the world through their experiences and interactions. Truth is seen as a product of the mind's construction rather than an objective reality.
- Absolutism: Absolutism asserts that there are absolute and objective truths that exist independently of individual perspectives or beliefs. According to this view, certain truths are universally valid and not subject to change based on context or interpretation.
- Realism: Realism posits that there is an external reality that exists independently of human perceptions and beliefs. This perspective holds that objective truths can be discovered and known through scientific inquiry and observation.
- Nihilism: Nihilism challenges the concept of truth altogether, asserting that all beliefs and values are ultimately meaningless and without objective basis.
These various philosophical perspectives provide a framework for understanding how truth is conceptualized and perceived. Each perspective offers unique insights into the nature of reality and the role of human perception and cognition in shaping our understanding of the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
In what way do you view the objective realm causes logical inconsistencies? The nature of objective is it is meant to be universal or independent of perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
How many truths exist in reality, and is there an ultimate truth?
In this forum, I encourage you to share your Understanding and knowledge you have obtained that is relevant to the nature and origin of truth.
I would like to start off with the objective and subjective truths of reality, but you're welcome to include any other perspectives in the discussion.
We will cover the following questions to get started, but please feel free to ask new ones related to the topic:
- How many truths are there?
- Are any truths superior to others?
- What if multiple truths conflict?
Please use the following guidelines to productively participate in the forum:
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and humble. Do not claim or imply that your knowledge is superior or definitive. Try to acknowledge the limitations and uncertainties of your knowledge, and the sources and influences that shape it. Try to value words for their merits and usefulness, not for the labels or credentials of their source.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and simple language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
I hope everyone enjoys this forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I don't think that the objective realm is irrational, but theoretical. Would you agree that the objective realm is theoretical but also pragmatic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I believe I understand now. You believe what exists is only what is conceived by the mind and nothing outside of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I misunderstood your syntax, my apologies. What do you mean by quanta does not equal objective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
What do you mean by quanta equals objectivity? What do you believe constitutes an objective property?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have learned something new today, thank you for sharing. Intersubjectivity and collective subjectivity are related concepts, but they are not exactly the same.
Intersubjectivity refers to the shared understanding or agreement between multiple individuals about a certain concept or phenomenon. It involves the recognition that different individuals may have different subjective experiences or perspectives, but they can still reach a common understanding or agreement through communication and interaction. In other words, intersubjectivity is the process of arriving at shared meaning and knowledge through social interactions.
On the other hand, collective subjectivity refers to the shared beliefs, values, and attitudes of a group of individuals. It is the idea that a group of people can collectively hold certain subjective views or interpretations that are specific to their shared identity, culture, or experiences. Collective subjectivity is often related to group norms and cultural perspectives that influence the way individuals perceive and interpret the world around them.
In summary, intersubjectivity is about reaching a shared understanding between individuals through communication, while collective subjectivity is about the shared beliefs and attitudes of a group of people based on their common experiences and cultural context. Both concepts involve shared perspectives, but they operate at different levels: intersubjectivity is about individuals reaching a common understanding, while collective subjectivity pertains to the shared beliefs and interpretations of a group.
Created: