Needs more Objective Clues

Frizzy's picture
Submitted by Frizzy on Thu, 2006-02-02 13:06

Hello,

So, ok, like I've been hearing about this interesting concept of objectivism.
And now I'm formulating a question that perhaps someone here can enlighten me on.
So if I started out by identifying as a subjective entity, in that I see life being totally subjective in virtually every way, and I have built up a lot of understanding about how things work under this very broad and sweeping premise, it seems very daunting to colapse that whole structure of thinking in favor of the strange new concept (to me), objectivism.
Understandably people don't like giving up their figurative security blanket, so the question I have is, how can you convince me that there is an objective reality, rather than the one I percieve currently, which is working quite nicely btw, without threatening violence to make me say that I admit your objective reality is more 'correct' without believing it to be?

My lack of experience with objectivism may be gaping wide open so go easy if it is Smiling

Is there an arguement that can disprove the following statement, sort of a proof by contradiction?
"Objectivism is only an intellectual concept that exists in minds, and that there is no objective reality, only a common medium for limited communication"


( categories: )

Hi Ed,

krishna2's picture

 I also exist! ...laughing...

So do you ignore the high level geniuses!...smiling...

You do exist!

Ed's picture

Thanks for the politie and intelligent response, Frizz (can I call you "Frizz"?)!

There I was, goading you, and you showed that you were above the pettiness that I was peddling. While you've made me feel like somewhat of a heel now (by taking the high ground, as I had just slung a mud-pie at you), it's a pleasure to see that you've put great thought to these things.

Ed

Frizzy, in all other posts

Frizzy's picture

[quote Ed]
Frizzy, in all other posts you've responded back to me in less than 72 hours, but -- for this one -- it has taken more than twice that long, and there's still no reply from you.

May I presume then that, as a devout skeptic, you are simply not really sure that I -- or even "my argument" here exist(Drunk [which conveniently obviates the need for any response]?!

[/quote Ed]

Hi Ed,
Thank you for your concern, I am alive and well.
Please do not take my silence as an answer.
I have been pondering my original posted questions and all the responses to it, looking for the answer, all the replies were thoughtful and interesting, but quickly diverged from the topic raising many other interesting topics, very distracting, so I went away and thought about things for myself and found the answer.
I have no doubts that there is an objective reality, and people with very strong opinions, and your sarcasim is certainly not going over my head, its quite interesting to get some now and then.

Hi Ed,

krishna2's picture

 I agree with everything you said in the last post, but I would like to add one more thing to your

list! It is that the world should belong to the high level geniuses and never to the non-geniuses.

And that means that no matter what is the state of existence or how much progress we have made,

life will always be great and wonderful and easy to live!

   Observe that the world looks pathetic today precisely because of the absence of the geniuses!

I ask for things like publishing this book or $10,000 but everybody seems to be asking me to wait!

Don't you think that the world has already waited for too long by now! Take it from me, it has been

5000 years by now!...smiling...

  Or do you want to wait for another 50 years?...smiling...

  When the geniuses are around, decisions are taken pretty quickly! It doesn't take a 1000 or even

50 years.It might take just a day.Thats my point, you see!

Under the "influence" -- but superiorly coherent

Ed's picture

krishna2,

After a couple of bloody mary's, I find that you are easy to talk to.

Smiling [smiling]

You mentioned that the world is going to hell in a handbasket (because of cartoons, or whatnot). This is a necessary theme of salvation religions, by the way (the world HAS to be interpreted that way -- for these belief systems to "fly"). But did you know that the world has never -- never -- been this good? ... laughing, and pointing at you now

Here's some history, pal ...

Old world dictators like Vlad the Impaler and Ivan the Terrible would kill up to millions of folks, in order to retain their unearned power -- but nobody kills millions of folks today. ... smiling

New world dictators like Stalin, Mao, and Hitler killed millions of folks, in order to retain their unearned power -- but nobody kills millions of folks today. ... laughing

Kids used to be slaves and were "routinely" molested -- but that's not true today. ... looking down, and to the left

1 of every 2 kids born, died, by the age of 5, but less than 1 out of every 10 born die this young today. ... smirking, somewhat self-righteously

Blacks used to be traded as slaves -- but that's not true today. ... chuckling

Women couldn't vote for their political leadership -- but that's not true today. ... winking

I could go on, and on, and on, about the undeniable moral progress of the world -- but I won't. ... making a funny face

Moral progress -- in spite of religion -- is inescapable to the intellectually honest among us. I guess you could say that it's a "sin" not to recognize that aspect of reality. I'm wondering, krishna2, do you?

Smiling [grinning]

Ed

 

Hi Ed,

krishna2's picture

I see, you are telling me how people live their life completely divorced from reality!...smiling...

Thats why the whole world looks so pathetic today...

Do you like it the way it is today? The lid has been blown off for everybody by now...laughing...

Consider just a single point - How the entire West has been floored by a single man who lived

some 1,300 years ago - The cartoon

issue,you see!

 There is nothing much to consider in the present world,isn'it?...laughing...

  THATS WHY I SO DESPERATELY WANT TO PUBLISH THIS BOOK RIGHT NOW!...SMILING...

I hope you are out of the caffeine and not into the wine or something else either before you

reply to this post of mine...smiling...

smiling & laughing

Ed's picture

===================

Is it possible that people might fear Roark and Galt more than anybody else on this earth?...laughing...

===================

... smiling ... smiling ... laughing some ... smiling ... smiling more ... big smile now ... really big smile ... gut-busting laughter ... catching breath ... smiling ... tears of joy ......... smiling again ... smirking now? ... nope, smiling! ... chuckling some ... more smiling ... giggling ... "ah, er, ohp!": smiling ... grimacing ... laughing ... kind of a cross between a grin, a smirk, and a smile ... winking ... staring and smiling ... winking some more ... finger pointing ... raised eybrow ... smiling ... laughing ... shrugging shoulders ... pointing and laughing ... smiling ... kind of a deer-in-headlights "stupor" look ... moving into an eyes-open, jaw-dropped "surprise" look ... laughing .. smiling ... smiling, while pointing, while shaking my head at you ... laughing ... laughing some more ... laughing louder now ... catching breath ... smiling ... laughing again ... sporadic laughing, interjected with ear-to-ear smiling ... looking up and to the right ... yawning ... yawning some more ... closing eyes ... zzzzzzzzzzzzz [napping]

[don't mess with me when I'm on caffeine, brother]

Ed

Hi Ed,

krishna2's picture

 I might be tempted to feel the same thing about my topic of the final thing...smiling...

Is it possible that people might fear Roark and Galt more than anybody else on this earth?...laughing...

Taking your silence as an answer

Ed's picture

Frizzy, in all other posts you've responded back to me in less than 72 hours, but -- for this one -- it has taken more than twice that long, and there's still no reply from you.

May I presume then that, as a devout skeptic, you are simply not really sure that I -- or even "my argument" here exist(Drunk [which conveniently obviates the need for any response]?!

Smiling

Ed

Ashley is one cool chick

Ed's picture

Thanks Ashley, for helping to clear the muddy waters that separate Frizzy from me on this issue. You did it with both skill and grace. You see, Frizz, I (who decry skeptiCISM) can be skeptiCAL of various things while doing it! Thanks Ashley, for making that important distinction.

Frizz,

Here's my answer to your question ...

A skeptiCIST is one who champions skeptiCISM (others are merely skeptics). This is true of other ism's. An objectivist champions objectivism, a dogmatist champions dogmatism, a pharmacist champions ... er ... ah ... well, you know what I mean!

Now that it's clear that the ist's (the people) champion the ism's (the ideas) -- we need only deal with the ism, in order to understand the ist. That said, I stand by my "Cambridge" definition above, restated ...

===============

Skepticism, in the most common sense, the refusal to grant that there is any knowledge or justification. --p 846

===============

If you prefer an online source to indepently view, then direct your web browser to the following address ...

http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?query=skepticism&action=Search

Which is linked from its main home page ...

http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?A+Dictionary+of+Philosophical+Terms+and+Names

Ed

Reference Materials

Ashley's picture

HI Frizzy:

>I checked out www.britannica.com and infoplease.com, and neither had a definition for 'Skepticists'.

Did you try "skepticism?" I think you will find more information that way. I think sometimes when someone has difficulty finding a term it isn't that there is no information about it, but that they are using a term that isn't working. Obviously, you can just google the term you are interested in, but again sometimes it is far too much trouble to sift through the results. Also, I tend to get lots of results for about.com pages, which I detest because they are cluttered, the contributors are not always that expert, and the links are not elegant but end up taking you round in circles.

I am just off dictionary.com because it seems like whenever I have used it I got very weird results. Either extremely simplified definitions with no link to further information or just plain irrelevant answers. For example, I was arguing with someone about the word "christian" and they went to "prove it" with dictionary.com. The first result that came up was for a jazz musician or something. I think dictionary.com, like google, allows people to pay for ads that come up first in search results, which means the first thing you see isn't necessarily the best, most useful, or most common definition.

I have no idea what Ed was thinking about in his posts, so I won't presume to speak for him, but as I mentioned before, when I hear the term "Skepticist" I *do* think of the Skeptics Society, as opposed to when I hear the term "skeptical." When I hear "he is a skeptic" I am unsure, so I usually ask.

My personal views also disagree with the statement "All I know is that I know nothing" but in all fairness, the skeptic.com website also says "But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism." In reading the "about" part of the website as well as the "skepticist manifesto" I didn't really get much of a negative feeling about it, although they don't seem to be entirely consistent in their views. Maybe if I looked around the website more I would find more stuff that I didn't like.

Hi Ashley, That is a very

Frizzy's picture

Hi Ashley,

That is a very informative post, I had not heard of the Skeptic Society before.

I checked out www.britannica.com and infoplease.com, and neither had a definition for 'Skepticists'.

I would happily use any online dictionary for common reference, it need not always be a specific one.

I would still like Ed to confirm which definiton for Skepticists he was using, as I don't think its likely that he thinks I am a member of the Skeptic Society, we have not gone down that path of discussion yet.
My personal views disagree with the statement "All I know is that I know nothing". So I do not consider myself to even be an unofficial, or unaware, member of the Skeptic Society.

Skepticists

Ashley's picture

People misuse and overuse the word "skeptical" all the time just as they do "ironic," "depressed," and "love." Are you asking about Skepticists as in the group or movement that calls itself "The Skeptic Society" and those who follow it?

Their own website (www.skeptic.com) says this:

But skepticism as a way of thinking has a long historical tradition that can be traced back at least 2,500 years. The foremost historian of skepticism, Richard Popkin, tells us (1979, p. xiii): “Academic scepticism, so-called because it was formulated in the Platonic Academy in the third century, B.C., developed from the Socratic observation, ‘All I know is that I know nothing.’” Two of the popular received meanings of the word by many people today are that a skeptic believes nothing, or is closed minded to certain beliefs. There is good reason for the perception of the first meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives this common usage for the word skeptic:

One who, like Pyrrho and his followers in Greek antiquity, doubts the possibility of real knowledge of any kind; one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever (Vol. 2, p. 2663).

Since this position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one (except a few confused solipsists who doubt even their own existence), it is no wonder that so many find skepticism disturbing. A more productive meaning of the word skeptic is the second usage given by the OED:

One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry; one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement.

The history of the words “skeptic” and “skepticism” is interesting and often amusing. In 1672, for example, the Philosophical Transactions VII records this passage:

Here he taketh occasion to examine Pyrrhonisme or Scepticisme, professed by a Sect of men that speak otherwise than they think.

When I hear the work "skeptical" I think about something different than when I hear "Skepticist." People frequently use "skeptical" to mean they don't think something will really happen or doubt someone's intent, whereas when I hear "Skepticist" I think more about the philosophical movement. Maybe Ed does too, which might explain why he used the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy to answer the question. If the historical root of Skepticism is "All I know is that I know nothing" then I can understand why people think it means that Skepticists "refuse to grant knowledge."

Again from www.skeptic.com:

It is also important to remember that dictionaries do not give definitions; they give usages. For a listener to understand a speaker, and for a reader to follow a writer, important words must be defined with semantic precision for communication to be successful. What I mean by skeptic is the second usage above: “One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry.”

If you must use online dictionaries, might I suggest that you use a better one than dictionary.com. It seems primarily geared toward 5th graders doing school reports. I find that it is often useful to go to www.britannica.com, or sometimes infoplease.com to really get a good idea of something. Using a dictionary and insisting that the first definition is the only one that really counts is like doing a google search and only ever clicking on the first result. Just because its used most often doesn't make it the best choice, definitions are context driven.

Ah...

Frizzy's picture

Hi Ed,

I think I get where you are coming from now...

You are using a different, if somewhat similar meaning, to a word that has had a long established set of meanings, and because our opinions of what the words meanings differs, its fairly logical that we would have disagreements.

For example, the definition for the word "Skepticism" as I know it, and use it can be looked up on dictionary.com, which is more along the lines of "doubt about the truth of something", compared to the definition that you posted.

As not everyone has a copy of "Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy" on their desk for alternative jargon reference, I propose that you start using the meaning of words as defined by dictionary.com as presumably if a person can get to this site they can also get to dictionary.com.

BTW, I thought I was quite clear that I asked for a definition for the word 'Skepticists', please put on your glasses and pay close attention to the exact spelling I have requested and make sure that the next definition that you offer up refers directly to your word of the exact same spelling, please.
I thought objectivists would at least try to pay close attention to observable objective detail?
The way you are trying to argue is certainly a good case for subjectivism Smiling

Hi Frizzy,

krishna2's picture

Don't mind the picture here! Its not mine but the younger brother of Andrew here! 

I know what you are talking about which I think others here are a little shy to admit that it is so!...

laughing...

 You mean 'If I bash your teeth in Would you then still open your mouth to talk about reason'

Sure apart from metaphysically given things thats one more area where reason is not applicable!...

smiling...

 And reason leads to objectivism, but remember that there is someone superior [or many other

high level geniuses] who are superior to Ayn Rand!...smiling...

To first define terms? Gladly!

Ed's picture

Frizzy, the 2nd Edition of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states ...

===============

Skepticism, in the most common sense, the refusal to grant that there is any knowledge or justification. --p 846

===============

Refusal to grant knowledge -- that is what skepticism is. Clear?

 

===============

Hmmmm, hypertrophied with every heartbeat... would you care to post a picture?

===============

While straight, I may still grant your request -- as I'm thinking of posting my bodybuilding pictures on a personal blog here (gotta' find me a scanner, first). If you are male (& interested), then I will take that as a compliment, and no more than that (thank you).

Ed

Hi Ed, Before we get too far

Frizzy's picture

Hi Ed,

Before we get too far ahead of ourselves, can we please confirm meaning for "Skepticists". I'm sure you'd agree that its imprtant to have a common language for discussion.
I cant find the exact word on wikipedia.org or dictionary.com, but I find several hundred instances with google, so I'm not about to argue that it isn't a word, its just one I cannot find a definition for.
I suspect that it is a word that follows several of the existing 'rules' of the english language, but there are exceptions to many of those rules, so I should really get you to confirm before we get too confused.
So from the rules I am aware of about English, are you are talking about the plural of a person who is a skeptic, so the group of people who are Skeptics, when you say 'Skepticists'?

Hmmmm, hypertrophied with every heartbeat... would you care to post a picture?

Hmmm, there isn't a 'deep

Duncan Bayne's picture

Hmmm, there isn't a 'deep breath' smilie ...

When Oprah declares that she likes eating double layer chocolate cake, the average weight of americans increased and there is now an obesity epidemic. The implication that people are supposed to overeat causes people to think that way if they are exposed to the suggestion.

What she has proved is that some people are prone to suggestion and / or faddish behaviour. This is nothing new; hypnotists have for generations (possibly millenia) been able to exploit this aspect of human nature to control people.

In fact, the issue of hypnotism nicely addresses the subjective / objective reality dichotomy.

If I hypnotise you so that you are 100% convinced, beyond any doubt, that you can fly, and you then jump off a skyscraper ... is your 'subjective' reality valid? Will you in fact fly, or will you fall to your death?

There are so many StarTrek fans out there that they have influenced reality in its core premises, and recently scientists have been able to transport a photon, trials have begun on electrons.

I really don't understand what you mean w.r.t. Star Trek, but as for the photon / electron transfer, we're learning more about the universe, and that includes the possibility of instant information transfer (you'll have to speak to a quantum physicist here - I'm most certainly not one). But again, this doesn't mean that reality is subjective, just that it's objective & we're learning more about it daily. If it weren't objective, we couldn't learn anything about it, could we?

I say that there is evidence of a subjective reality, if you can get your mind outside of the objective reality paradigm long enough to look for the clues you will see them everywhere.

That smacks awfully of "if you don't understand it, I can't explain it". If the evidence is everywhere, cite some yourself.

I say that for you to convince me of an objective reality, you will need more than just clever banter, and a nice haircut

Actually, they're both proof of same. Regardless of what you think of my haircut or how you describe it (though I'm pleased you like it Smiling) it will remain the same.

Have you ever successfully been able to convince people that something exists when they keep telling you that they have never seen it?

I believe you're confusing the well-known fact that people can be wrong about the nature of reality (flat earth, aether, God, etc.) with the fact that reality is subjective. Go back to the hypnotism example; just because someone thinks something is so, doesn't necessarily make it so. Reality is objective.

Getting my daily mental workout ...

Ed's picture

Frizzy, I consider you a workout, and I'm about to do some "reps" with you here [stretching out first] ...

=====================

If there is an objective reality, and you are currently percieving it, surely then you should be able to percieve an objective morality? or perhaps be able to give an example of one, but I am not sure how that can be done without prejudice for your own political or religous inclinations, if there is indeed a subjective reality.

=====================

A morality is a code of values, by which an acting agent conforms her actions. Morality is always & only aimed at "value" (you couldn't even "have" a morality, without first taking something to be of value). 

For religionists, the values are taken to be predetermined in holy texts (texts written almost exclusively by ancient men). The nature of this type of value is intrinsicism (the theory of innate value).

For skepticists (subjectivists), the values are taken to be immediate esthetic desires. For them, in order to find out what is valuable -- one must ask oneself: What is it that I "want" now? Note how these "values" can change, and even contradict one another. For the crack-head, desire for the next hit becomes their highest value (and they often sacrifice their very life in pursuit of that "value"). Subjectivists have to agree that, for crack-heads, that next hit is "morally-right" -- because it, decisively, answers the question: What is it that I "want" now?

For objectivists, the values are discovered via thorough examination of human nature. This is very close to -- and often identical with -- elements of Virtue Ethics (Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics) and Natural Law (Aquinas' teleological ethics from "Summa contra Gentiles" -- book III). In a sense, Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness can be taken as a concluding chapter to these 2 works, refining and correcting those 2 previous arguments into something that can be completely validated. See that work for the requisite reasoning.

An example value to aim action at -- true for everyone, always & everywhere -- is a healthy self-esteem. A universal reason for this to be an "always, everywhere" value is that, without it, no action is taken (a being completely devoid of it would merely sit down and wait to die -- which requires no action). As morality is something that -- always & everywhere -- aims at action (it is a code of action, to guide behavior), and esteem is required by a being in order to "take" any action -- a any "morality of no esteem" is a contradiction in terms.

Chew on that.

Ed

[pumped up now]

"put a definition for 'Skepticists' onto Wikipaedia"-done

Ed's picture

"Philosophical skepticism, or pyrrhonism, is a philosophical position that refrains from making truth claims."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic

Hmph!

Ed

[scratching his beard (and flexing his hypertrophied muscles)]

Hi Duncan, Reality conforms

Frizzy's picture

Hi Duncan,

Reality conforms to what the majority of people think, average normal people have about the same amount of influence as each other, but famous people have a more significant influence.
When Oprah declares that she likes eating double layer chocolate cake, the average weight of americans increased and there is now an obesity epidemic. The implication that people are supposed to overeat causes people to think that way if they are exposed to the suggestion.
There are so many StarTrek fans out there that they have influenced reality in its core premises, and recently scientists have been able to transport a photon, trials have begun on electrons.
The hubble constant is starting to change because there are too many dense people on the planet.

I say that there is evidence of a subjective reality, if you can get your mind outside of the objective reality paradigm long enough to look for the clues you will see them everywhere. Admittedly they are there just as much as the ones for objective reality. But that conforms to what I said above, it just means that lots of people tend to think along that line of thought and the subjective reality is attempting to also conform to objective reality.

2000 years ago there were so few people on the planet that a highly charasmatic and famous individual with a lot of clever thinking was able to percieve reality in 'perfect harmony' with how it works, such that he could work miracles. There is documented evidence.

I say that for you to convince me of an objective reality, you will need more than just clever banter, and a nice haircut Smiling

Have you ever successfully been able to convince people that something exists when they keep telling you that they have never seen it?

If there is an objective reality, and you are currently percieving it, surely then you should be able to percieve an objective morality? or perhaps be able to give an example of one, but I am not sure how that can be done without prejudice for your own political or religous inclinations, if there is indeed a subjective reality.

Hello Ed.

Frizzy's picture

Hello Ed,

Ok, so, um, yeah... nice beard, does it tickle yet?

Can you please put a definition for "Skepticists" onto Wikipaedia.
Thanks, ta, lovely Smiling

Is your opinion really that there are no arguments?

"All arguments are futile, you will be waffled at" - Ed (misquote?)

Ed, great to see you back ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... & on form, flexing your muscles as befits the SOLO Fitness Leader! Smiling

Something I recently wrote elsewhere ...

Ed's picture

Skepticists (the philosophical kind) can’t REALLY form an argument — because “an argument” presumes the known, objective existence of 2 or more rational agents. The very fact that there is someone to argue with[,] constitutes “knowledge” — so they’ve conceded their position at the moment that they [start to] argue for it!

Nevertheless, mediocre-minded folks still champion skepticism. Go figure.

Ed

The scary thing is ...

Duncan Bayne's picture

... I read that post and thought "good heavens, that sounds like Jesse" - it's that unique mix of serious investigation & hearty chain-yanking I've come to know & love Smiling

Ignoring the ass-biting for the moment (I know it's one of your favourite topics, but it's somewhat distant from the thread topic Eye) let's focus on the more fundamental aspects of your query ...

You ask whether there is proof of an objective reality. The easiest way of answering this is: does reality conform to subjective expectations of it? No - as Rand put it, "wishing won't make it so."

If you want something of reality, you have to learn enough about reality to make it possible. If you want a steam train, you have to learn enough about the laws of physics, engineering, etc. to design and build one.

If reality were really subjective, one could obtain a steam train without any attempt to study the objective nature of reality; one could simply wish for a train, or wish for reality to be such that steam trains are naturally in abundance.

Now, it's still possible to be very wrong about a particular aspect of reality. E.g. for years people thought we could predict any behaviour on the basis of Newtonian physics - because our senses & our tools of measurement were insufficiently precise to give us any idea of the truly microscopic universe. As soon as we started to learn about the nature of atoms, we realised that there was more to it than first met the eye (literally and figuratively).

But, and this is an important but (so don't bite it just yet): that in no way invalidates the fact of an objective reality; it just means that our understanding of that reality was (and is) incomplete.

Perhaps I would do well to finish with a question of my own: have you any evidence whatsoever that reality is in fact subjective? Furthermore - if reality is subjective, how can one judge the veracity of that evidence? Evidence presupposes objectivity.

Edit: W.r.t. the axiom that "existence exists": it's axiomatic because you can't refute it without existing. Any attempt to refute it in fact supports it.

Hi Jody, I disagree that

Frizzy's picture

Hi Jody,

I disagree that subjectivism is bad, but I guess you could tell me that is my point of view Smiling
I think subjectivism is good as long as you have people agreeing with you, the more people the better your point of view. Just look at President Bush. Hes in for another term, whahoo Smiling
So who here argues that there are some bad laws and goes out and tries to change them? If you take no action then all you have is a point of view, sounds like subjectivity to me.
Maybe I am biting your figurative ass right now? what is your point of view on this? hehe Smiling

Hi Ciro, I think you

Frizzy's picture

Hi Ciro,

I think you understand what I am asking about, as I see what I'm asking reflected in your question back to me. "how can you convince me that there is an objective reality"

So, although I can see how it can be possible for there to be an objective reality, how can I communicate any such opinion to another person conclusively, such that they cannot misinterpret or misunderstand, because as soon as a comment leaves my mind, going out my fingers (email) or out my lips (discussion), what I say is entirely subjective and relies on the perceptional abilities of the mind it enters.

So, I would say that if a person does not believe for themselves in an objective reality, that there is no way to force them to see that there is an objective reality, because that point of view requires the belief it is right, rather than being conclusively provable using logic and reason.
When I say 'belief' in the above scentence, I mean in the religous sense, but having say 'There is an objective reality' as the core axiom like a religous person might have 'There is a God' as their core axiom.

Anyway, so that is my point of view at the moment, I dont claim to be infalible, which is why I am here discussing this, trying to understand the objective reality concept correctly, so can you or anyone else please have a go at either showing a contradiction in my statements, or more directly by showing me that there is an objective reality?

I guess the other alternative is to show that my point of view is logically outside the concept of objective reality, such that what I've said so far is "neither here or there".

Ok, so I hope that gives you some material to respond to Smiling

Frizzy:.Understandably

Ciro D Agostino's picture

Frizzy:.Understandably people don't like giving up their figurative security blanket, so the question I have is, how can you convince me that there is an objective reality.

Frizzy,(Excuse me for not being friend to you by answering this way) my suggestion

to you for such question would be; Keep your security blanket, and see what happens.

Ciro D'Agostino

"Objectivism is only an

Jody Gomez's picture

"Objectivism is only an intellectual concept that exists in minds, and that there is no objective reality, only a common medium for limited communication"

Is that statement a fact of reality, or subjective whim? Subjectivism always ends up logically biting itself in the ass.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.