Having an ongoing argument about this, opponents claim that objective reality doesn't exist. I can't wrap my head around how that would begin to work. My assumption is that it's a platitude to allow for everyone's ideas to be accepted and we can all live happily and have no kind of discourse.
Do any scholars of merit advocate for this idea?
>>474999
Time to start with good ol' Hume.
I don't understand
you want philosophers who have argued for idealism?
just google it
>My assumption is that it's a platitude to allow for everyone's ideas to be accepted and we can all live happily and have no kind of discourse.
I don't know what this means
you are saying people don't really believe in idealism?
>>474999
I can only believe that there are objective truths myself.
But i am no philosopher
>>474999
>My assumption
I assume that you mom was in my bed last night
Objective/Subjective is so silly
>>474999
Oh just tell him that his bell jar is leaking again and that the scientist will be around shortly to tighten the seal, after which the subjective delusion of his consciousness will end, then spin 720 degrees, tip your fedora, and moonwalk away.
>>475066
One opponent identifies as female you shitlord, learn to pronoun.
>>474999
> I can't wrap my head around how that would begin to work.
All you experience are your sense data. Radical empiricism leads to empirical idealism. There is no such thing as "matter", just chunks of shit you're experiencing by your senses.
Unless you're some ooga booga where my mystical properties at, you'd be a subjective idealist as well and accept that all of reality is subjective.
>>475073
I get what you're saying, but my point is that where subjective reality intersects is objective reality, which encompasses most tangible things. Sure everything is experienced subjectively, but it's crazy to say that none of it is shared.
>>475058
In an infinite number of modally real universes I am your mum, and I fucked you last night.
>>475077
>it's crazy to say that none of it is shared
Intersubjectivity is not quite the same, though.
At best you can say that you believe there would be a reality absent any perception of it.
What do you think about the possibility that as we separate the sensual pleasures from the intellectual pleasures we become in tune with the more pure nature of absolute objectivity as far as maximizing the hedons for each individual person in the society?
Chasing after that Platonic 'good'?
>>474999
>Sure everything is experienced subjectively, but it's crazy to say that none of it is shared.
Everything being subjective does not result in people not having the same experiences.
>>475082
Oh yea? Well in an infinite number of modally real universes I fucked your waifu. And she loved it.
>>475106
I am ur waifu and I love you.
>>475069
Subjectively female :D. Unless you Object to my broached Subject of emoticons on 4Chan, in which case I may be objectively living in t subjectively I'm dead to you.
we all have a radically unique and subjective experience of a shared and objective world
>>474999
If objective reality DID exist how would you even fucking prove perceive. Literally your entire existence is a subjective experience. This will be the case for every person you talk to. What the hell is "objective" reality anyway when every possible perspective on anything is going to be subjective?
>>478437
"Objective reality" is that reality you interpret subjectively.
There is no "subjective" without "objective".
>>478527
pls all we know exist are subjective experiences. We have no reason to think something exist if it isn't experienced.
>>478534
That's merely reactionary. There has to be something to react to in order to experience.
Reality doesn't conform, we do (or do not(.
>>478534
Well many people can describe the same experience independantly, over time and space, without interacting with one another, thats strongly in favor of objective reality, especially seeing how numerous we are.
>>478669
And all swans are white.
>>478669
Subjectivists will split hairs and say "b-but it's not EXACTLY the same!!!"
Subjective reality doesn't exist.
Reality is by default objective.
A cube is a cube, regardless of what perspective it is seen. You might think it's a pyramid or a square depending from where you look it from, but it's a fucking cube.
>>478680
Of course, it's not the same for everyone, because our senses aren't perfect, and we can't absorb every information, but if you get 1000 tourists who went to Paris, and describe the Eiffel Tower to them, most of them will be able to tell you what it is, if not all.
>>478702
m8 you realize when someone isn't a realist, that doesn't necessarily means he's a junky who claims the fucking Eiffel Tower isn't there, don't you?
>>478678
The swan thing doesn't have anything to do with this, it's just an example used in logic
A human being seeing and reporting a swan doesn't make it suddenly appear and exist or disappear from reality. The only place it can suddenly appear to is our conciousness. The swan exists whether someone is there to perceive it or not, and claiming that all swans are white is therefore just false, even if it were held as truth because of lacking information.
>>478678
That's more a linguistic issue than anything. All swans are white, but not everyone may have white as a concept.
>>478721
>dualism
I'll let someone else mop this up.
>>478688
Thank you, this
Reality is objective, but the way it is percieved by us is subjective because we aren't magical mr. robottomachines that can see, remember and associate things perfectly to reflect the information without flaws or biases
>>478726
How is it dualism?
>>478551
>There has to be something to react to in order to experience.
No, there hasn't, that's what the debate is about; materialists will claim there us something "beyond" out minds, something beyond our sensations. Some sort of "stuff" that's just there that everything is made out of.
>>478669
>Well many people can describe the same experience independantly, over time and space, without interacting with one another, thats strongly in favor of objective reality
No, it isn't in favour of an objective reality (ontologically objective, not epistemologically objective) because everything being lasting can be explained outside of materialism. We know that something if it's perceived. We know minds exist. And we know that the world seems fairly stable; a table won't pop out of existence just because I leave the room.
Instead of trying to explain it by some mystical materialism that we can't justify nor take part of, it's easier to imagine that there's always something perceiving reality.
>>478726
Tha swan "appearing in your conciousness" wasn't literal. The fact that our brains reacts to f.ex. visual stimulus isn't dualism.
>>478742
>some mystical materialism that we can't justify nor take part of
I don't understand what you mean by that. I mean I understand the words, but I don't see what can possibly be mystical about materialism.
>it's easier to imagine that there's always something perceiving reality.
Is light enough for that?
>>478742
>Instead of trying to explain it by some mystical materialism that we can't justify nor take part of, it's easier to imagine that there's always something perceiving reality.
So when a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, it still makes a sound because there is some magical mind always around to hear it, as opposed to the silly idea that "trees" & "falling" &"forests" & "sounds" "exist." The latter is just insane mysticism, the former grounded reason.
7/10, sensible chuckle.
>>478742
So people ask; if something happens in the forest and no one is there to see it, have it really happen?
And to that I respond; silly heretics, God is everywhere!
>>478742
I... I don't know whether you're high or if you just wrote in a very incoherent way.
>materialists will claim there us something "beyond" out minds
>mystical materialism
Materialists claim that our mind an consciousness too are by nature material, so what the fuck do you mean?
>>478762
Are you one of those people who think consciousness is breaking the wave function of quantum particles?
I asked /sci/ one day why it was called observation (a term that mislead into intuitively thinking consciousness is the "observer"). What it really is is interaction. Light is sufficient to break a wave function. The tree in the forest is already entangled, of course it makes a noise.
Something to do with german translation I've been told.
>>478780
Blame Copenhagen interpretation.
Copenhagen is a positivist tyrannical nonsense that kept introducing confusion into the mind of the public, pupils and even professors for the last century.
>>478762
>the being of an entity is not itself another entity but being is always the being of an entity
the being or "existence" of a tree or forest cannot be explained or grounded by another entity such as human beings, consciousness, or a perceiver.
>>478804
Are you seriously arguing unobserved tables pop out of existence?
>>478848
No. Unobserved tables are made from matter that on a macroscopic level doesn't particularly care whether it is being observed or not.
>>478860
It's late I guess.
>>478848
Unobserved tables vanish into nothingness and randomly emerge out of nothingness at the right times to give the illusion of a coherent external world. The exact mechanisms for this are currently unknown but science is working on it.
>>478924
Go back to /x/
>>478804
>invoked a mystical superconciousness that is magically observing all of reality at once
Don't knock Berkeley, his system is internally valid and his premises are hard to assail.
>>478928
Then that definition of "true" has no function. We might as well redefine "true" to mean "as accurate as possible within the bounds of the universe" and then we're right back to where we started.
>>478953
>that definition of "true" has no function
incorrect
I stipulated clearly that clear and distinct knowledge of the ""physical"" world is impossible.
Truisms like A is A are self evidently true, math also is itself unaffected by the inherent uncertainty relating to the problem of perception as it pertains to accord with reality.
>>478970
>Truisms like A is A are self evidently true,
They are self-evidently true to the human mind organ. There is no reason to believe such a relationship is "true."
>math also is itself unaffected by the inherent uncertainty relating to the problem of perception as it pertains to accord with reality.
Same thing here. Calculations are done through the human mind organ, problems are communicated by a constructed language and received by way of sensory organs, etc. If the brain can't be trusted to catalogue physical data, why shouldn't be trusted with anything else? How is "truth" possible in any sense?
>>478945
Well you just proved that you're a faggot
>>478804
It's a mind observing everything, and as oppose to matter we know minds exist, while materialism is just "well it's there but we can't taste it, nor feel it, nor see it, but it's there I promise you m8".
>>478993
We know matter exists because of the observations we perform on it. Yes, in some sense you are correct in that we have never observed unobserved matter, but the idea that matter exists independent of any particular instant of observation is more coherent than some mind constantly keeping tabs on every single galaxy to make sure they still get affected by gravity and don't crash into each other.
>>478976
>There is no reason to believe such a relationship is "true."
are you shitting me?
>How is "truth" possible in any sense?
Because truth exists independent of man. Truth exists, whether we happen to know it or not. A single man ignorant of mathematics does not disqualify it's inherent truth. We are not the source of truth, we only discover it.
>>478979
>hurr
>>479011
Why does it have to be one or the other exactly again?
>>479014
>are you shitting me?
No, I'm not. The statement "A is A" was produced by a human mind, communicated by language, interpreted through sensory organs, formed a perception and so on. Why are these barriers to "true" physical knowledge of the universe, but not barriers otherwise?
>Because truth exists independent of man. Truth exists, whether we happen to know it or not. A single man ignorant of mathematics does not disqualify it's inherent truth. We are not the source of truth, we only discover it.
Then "truth" here is just a synonym for "external objective reality" which all these people were denying existed in the first place.
>>479030
What is your proposed middle ground? Matter and physics exists in one half of the universe, whereas some poor sap needs to constantly check the motion of Galaxy 87658075 and Galaxy 7899665 to keep them from mucking up?
>>479038
Cool story bro. Tell me how you discovered all of this without logic and reason. Also, give me a logical proof that A is not A.
>>479044
Not that anon, but maybe something like objective reality exists but our perception of it can never be disassociated from subjective aspects.
>>479044
>What is your proposed middle ground?
I'm not proposing a middle ground, I'm proposing there isn't such a thing as objective reality, or if there is it doesn't change anything. Quantum field theory is already very abstract and I have a hard time calling operators "real objects" in the first place. And then maybe one day everyone will switch to string theory or quantum fruity loops or whatever other lower-order theory. And then there will be a problem with that too so some other eggheads will keep diving lower.
And at this point it won't matter to any of our experience.
As far as I'm concerned, it could be "turtles all the way down". We don't need "The Truth" to say important and useful things about the world. It's just not needed.
>>479038
>"A is A" was produced by a human mind
An apple is an apple, whether or not you know it to be true or not.
>interpreted through sensory organs, formed a perception
lol the perception is secondary to the thought
>Why are these barriers to "true" physical knowledge of the universe, but not barriers otherwise?
Because I can have certain knowledge that, if nothing else I am perceiving perceptions. This is a fundamental truth and cannot be denied.
>which all these people were denying existed in the first place
Well they're stupid cause they need to use an objective statement ("objective truth does not exist, and this statement is not objectively true") to deny the existence of objectivity.
>>479044
Matter and physics are the result of that poor sap constantly checking to keep them muck free.
>>479051
>Also, give me a logical proof that A is not A.
Any logical proof that A is or is not A would be the subject of minds communicating, yes? So if you accept that a logical proof that A is A is even worth pursuing, you acknowledge that the communication barriers (use of sensory organs, etc) do not actually prevent the transmission of "true" knowledge. In that case, why say that those barriers do prevent the transmission of "true" knowledge when it concerns the universe? That's my argument, that the concerns listed in >>478928 aren't as daunting as they may initially appear.
>>479061
>An apple is an apple
What the fuck is that meaningless statement.
Like, it literally has no meaning. It says nothing about the world.
>>479066
>It says nothing about the world.
It doesn't have to say anything to be completely true. It's literally just 1=1.
It's the Law of Identity.
>>478732
But can't you turn subjective truths into objective?
For example: this being perceives the universe this way. that is objective. it doesn't matter how the being perceives it. how can truth not be fact?
>>479061
The apple may be an apple, but you only figured that out empirically by investigating that such a thing as "apples" even existed.
So maybe the problem here is the multiple definitions of truth. There is Truth if an independent external reality exists, and models of that reality can be more or less true depending on their accuracy. The truth of a given piece of knowledge can approach Truth, but never actually intersects. Is that a better characterization of what you were saying?
>>479063
There's nothing logically necessary about your existence, so my request would not entail that I am communicating with anyone other than myself. I don't know why you would doubt A = A but not doubt your flawed inductive reasoning, and not realize the self-implosion in all of this.
>>479073
It's a tautology which tells you nothing about the world, so why invoke it? What is it supposed to show?
>>479080
I'm not doubting "A is A". I am asking why "A is A" is not doubted to the same degree that "magnetism exists" is, given the similar limitations inherent to the production of each. If empirical data can't be trusted because sensory organs can be fooled, why can't sensory organs be fooled when transmitting "A is A"? Why trust one and not the other?
>>479081
That truth exists, objectively independent of and primary to the physical.
Something that should be self evident, but apparently is not.
>>479076
>you only figured that out empirically by investigating that such a thing as "apples" even existed.
dude listen
you can literally substitute anything for "A" or "Apple" or "1" or "Square Circle.
The logical structure of the statement remains the same, and is A Priori necessarily true regardless of whether or not Apples or Unicorns exist.
It has literally nothing to do with "actual" objects.
>>479091
Because the former is a necessary truth and the latter is contingent, and you were only able to learn about and make sense of the latter through logic. I have an intuitive a priori understanding of A = A, it doesn't matter if my sensory organs fool me into reading the second A as a B, I would simply then read it as A = B and it would be a different proposition.
>>479115
Okay, bad example. But the fundamental objection remains.
>and is A Priori necessarily true
Why? Again, this is a statement in human language received by sensory organs etc. You keep on saying it is self-evidently true, but it is subject to all the same limitations originally outlined for statements about reality derived empirically. Why do those limitations "count" for one but not for the other?
A: "There is no truth"
B: "The above statement is not true"
You can have B without A, but not A without B btw.
>>479132
>derived empirically.
Really? What does A = A smell like? Did you observe it under a microscope?
>>479132
Not only that but "A" is an abstraction. The letter is a man made thing. It could just as easily be a random squiggly line from the perspective of another being, a line that might be indistinguishable from "B". So for them "A is B" would seem self-evident.
>>479141
>Really?
Yes. I either heard it with ears, read it with eyes or felt it with fingers if I were blind. Even if someone were to sit in a quiet room their entire lives and come up with it themselves, it would still be a perception constructed from human language, not an objective external "truth".
>>479132
>this is a statement in human language received by sensory organs etc
no, human language stems from this law. Words would have no meaning otherwise.
It's not derived empirically or via induction, the process is called deduction and it is this process alone that has the possibility of deriving certain knowledge.
Problem of induction is what leads so many people to say "lol truth is subjective".
>>479153
So where is it, and what does it smell like? And how did this knowledge magically become implanted into the first humans prior to written language? How do you know there is no objective external truth? Did you smell that one too?
>>479143
You're assuming they know what = means.
Assuming they are familiar with the concept, they would know that "*) = >k" as equality implied between distinct symbols isn't necessarily true.
But they would know that *) = *)
>>479160
>So where is it, and what does it smell like?
You can look up the phonemes to what it sounds like in any dictionary you would like.
>implanted into the first humans prior to written language?
Aural language, most likely. Before that, hand signs.
>How do you know there is no objective external truth? Did you smell that one too?
Never said there was or wasn't an external objective truth. Only thst if we are saying "you can't trust it because human sense organs are flawed and easily tricked" then it should be applied uniformly.
>>479172
>You can look up the phonemes to what it sounds like in any dictionary you would like.
Meanings don't have sounds or smells.
>Aural language, most likely. Before that, hand signs.
Sentences aren't propositions.
>Never said there was or wasn't an external objective truth.
You are making claims about reality and passing them off as objective truths. If you're not, why are you still talking to me? I look forward to seeing your empirical proofs of self evident analytic truths. It will truly be ground breaking.
>>479172
>Before that, hand signs
And before that?
You're gonna hit thought eventually, you're just kicking the can down the road.
>>479177
>Meanings don't have sounds or smells.
If you want to go down one level of abstraction, then "meanings" have electrical organizations I guess.
>Sentences aren't propositions.
Sentences and propositions are communicated through languages.
>You are making claims about reality
Not really. I am telling you to apply your statements about reality more equally, in a way that appears to be upsetting you.
>>479185
If there existed a language before hand signs, it was communicated through that. Before that, an abstract like "a is a" was probably not explicitly convieveable.
>>479199
>language predates abstract conception
get out
>>479221
Co-development rather than predating, really. Even if s vague sense of "things are what they are" could not be the explicit Law of Identity without at least a rudimentary language.
>>479194
>Sentences and propositions are communicated through languages
Communication only happens in the first place because there's something to communicate, otherwise there would be nothing to communicate and you're just making meaningless noises. Give me a plausible account of how the intuitive understanding that objects are identical to themselves was implanted into the first humans. Was it magick? Did they smell this self evident analytic truth in nature?
>I am telling you to apply your statements about reality more equally
I'm telling you why you're incoherent.
>>479230
A rose by any other name.
>>479232
>Give me a plausible account of how the intuitive understanding that objects are identical to themselves was implanted into the first humans.
Probably around the time simple tools were being made. When a "rock" became an "axe head" and remained an "axe head" rather than spontaneously returning to being a "rock." Or how a piece of obsidian was just a piece of obsidian until it became a knife, and remained a knife until something changed it back into just a piece of obsidian. Specific objects had specific properties characteristic of them but uncharacteristic of not-them, even when not-them was extremely similar. But all these were empirical observations that we have already agreed aren't relative to the construction itself. The construction itself, as an isolated proposition, is still a piece of language communicated by sense organs and thus still subject to failure.
>>479256
>Probably around the time simple tools were being made
So how did this happen before even knowing that objects are identical to themselves? Was this tool making knowledge magically implanted into them?
>>479270
>So how did this happen before even knowing that objects are identical to themselves?
It didn't, probably. The insight that objects can be manipulated for a purpose was probably concurrent with the idea that "purposes" existed, "properties" existed, etc. Then that intentional manipulation bloomed into something else.
>>479127
I'm curious why we believe our brains to be able to hold knowledge if we don't trust their ability to analyze sensory input. Maybe logic is just another flawed tool that we use to survive.
Seriously why?
>>479352
is subjective truth objectively subjective? Is that objectively true?
btw if the guy who is posting about how we lack fundamental certainty about the internal validity of logic due to the inherent nature of the mind and it's physical correlate is still lurking
please take some time and come up with a formal and coherent objection to the stance that we can be certain that "A = A" cause I'm interested in what sophistry you realize.
>>481255
I'm raising these questions in hopes of understanding epistemology better.
"A = A" is a claim. It seems to me that it's considered true only because it's overwhelmingly obvious. So is that how we determine truth?
>>481388
>"A = A" is a claim. It seems to me that it's considered true only because it's overwhelmingly obvious.
Tautologies are just word games. They have no explanatory power at all.
Read some Wittgenstein m8.
>>481405
>Tautologies are just word games
Tautologies are logical tools, though I agree that they don't explain anything.
>>481255
>btw if the guy who is posting about how we lack fundamental certainty about the internal validity of logic due to the inherent nature of the mind and it's physical correlate is still lurking
That's not what anyone argued.
