is reality subjective?

what is your opinion on this? I've been looking at reality as subjective lately. Not only in the sense that all the different species on earth experience a variety of different perceptions but just in gerneral. Like 4 people sitting in a car all in a conversation, each one is coming from his or her own perception in life and bringing ideas from their exoperience to the conversation. Like were all just a different point in the whole experience. i dont know kind of weird i guess.

 

i agree, reality is subjective, a personal thing to the individual, and each reality is equally valid

i don't think reality being subjective is weird - what i do find weird or amazing is the fact that all of our subjective realities merge at some point so we can get along together - that's what boggles my mind!

 

yup, i was watching this doors dvd last night, ray manzerak said thats what a good rock concert can do. haha i think hes right.

i dont think its weird, its just when i bring these things up with other friends its like they dont care they just push me off kinda...

deep south huh? where at? im in tennessee

 

Yep totally, reality is subjective, and thus meaning and value is also subjective.

We can have ideas and morals, they may appear the same on the surface, but really it's unique to the individual no matter how similar they appear. Like some of us might agree that killing is wrong, but our reasons surrounding that shape that value/moral uniquely. Our interpretations are unique to each individual even though we can find common ground.

I don't think anything has any meaning, no higher meaning at least, other than what we choose to give to it. Everything (objects/phenomena) is in flux, everything is interconected, and ultimately objects flow into each other and are thus 'empty'. Paradoxically they are 'one' but even this 'oneness' is in constant state of flux so it's erroneous to describe it as 'one', because you can't pin any 'oneness' down.
Our mind sees most objects as being seperate, that's what it does. It also gives a set of meanings and values to the object it's preceiving. But these meanings are formed from a unique interpretation based on unique factors such as previous experiences (memories) as well as physiological factors, emotions etc. So they are always unique and thus subjective.

Buddhism, taoism, existentialism and absurdism I think all touch on this and share similar views.

Also I think the old riddle is appropriate; "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?"

 

also "if a person is forgotten did they really exist? honestly. and i can't say whether or not the tree makes a sound. this reminds me of robert anton wilson on agnosticism.

 

Of course reality is subjective. The only way to view the world in a truly objective way is to have a new, fresh mind with no experience. Kind of like a baby, except that a baby has already had world experience in it's mother's womb. Perhaps we can catch glimpses of reality in an objective way, but not truly. Our past experiences shape what we see right now. Subjectivity exists only in our minds. Our perception fools us. The world is objective; our perception of it is skewed and therefore subjective.

 

It is impossible to know whether or not reality is subjective or not, this is because it is impossible to know what it is like to experience something from someone else's perspective. For example imagine I wanted to know if this pen is objectively 'black', meaning it is 'black' regardless of how or who looks at it, how would I find out? If I look at it all I can prove is that it is 'black' when I look at it. Suppose then that I ask other people if it is 'black' and they tell me it is, does this proves the pen is indeed black? The problem however is that its possible they experience what I would call 'white' but they have just learned to call it 'black', but then again its possible they do see exactly what I see and that the pen is indeed objectively 'black'. My point however is that it's impossible to tell.

 

Haha, "enter name here" just gave the exact same reply as I was going to =)

The whole, "Is it red? Yeah. But whats red?" deal.

My brain swirls in confusion, I like subjectivity, creates more variety and interest, itd be very dull if we all saw it the same after all.

Woop, loop, boop, shhoop a noop coop doop yoop. Byebye sky high nye fly buy why?

 

there is no reality, only perception.

 

Real perception? Perception of the real?

 

How can reality be subjective - there is an objective reality but we cannot know what that looks like since we can only examine it through a particular perspective that is a subjective view of the world.

If you say "that's a good painting". You are not stating an objective reality about the painting. Infact you are saying more about yourself than the painting - but this works for everything in the world - because it is dificult to see how any sentence can be stated that would remain true for all observers. For example - everything that you state as a fact can be prefixed with the statement "as I see it"

As I see it, the sky is what I call "blue" - not everyone will see exactly the same as you do and even if they did we cannot be sure that they see the colour blue exactly as you do.

I was thinking this very thing just the other day and cannot make a sentence which is true that begins "No-one can disagree" - but then we are talking about the world of objects this is not the case for such things as mathematics where a high degree of objectivity is obtained - yes there is an objective world but not in the way you think it exists and its not physically objective but mentally objective

In other words - mathematics attains objectivity - other subjects which rely on deduction are objective. But inductively attained data is exactly what is subjective. Anything which exists and can only be known about by induction has an objective reality that we cannot know, but we know of its existence in a subjective way - so yes reality is objective but no we cannot see what an objective reality looks like - unless its deduced rather than an inductive process

So if we have one apple in a basket and add another apple to it - then objectively there are two apples - that much will be known about reality - but if we have to state anything that cannot be deduced - that is about the qualitative nature of the apples or the way in which they appear then that is subjective to us

 

oh i see, reality is objective, our perception is subjective. i agree. makes much more sense. i think that has something to do with maya in hiduism, i might be wrong.

 

That's an interesting way of putting it. This means that you can have something objective which is inherently mental. I mean, there is no such thing as a '2' or a '3' out there. There aren't really things like '+' and 'x' or any of the other rules and relations of mathematics. What makes them objective? Isn't it that we all seem to come to the same conclusions on these things? Maybe it's that we can't imagine mathematics working out any other way. It's strange that, no matter how you cut it, it's still something completely mental. Maybe objectivity is really a special case of subjectivity, not an opposite.

 

Reality involves subjective, inter-subjective, and objective aspects. If reality were totally subjective, then little sense can be made of the term "reality." Properly speaking, there would be no "reality," only many, potentially very different, realities. So, it cannot be the case that reality is totally subjective.

In order to represent objects outside myself, there must be an external world, which is objective because it houses these outter objects of experience.

It is not difficult to imagine what another person is perceiving in her visual field. In fact, we do it all the time, and acts like pointing are tools we use to help us do so. If there were no objective reality, then some methods of communication, such as ostension, would be impossible, there would be no objects apart from sense-data, and language, in general, would break down, because all names would fail to refer.

 

I don't know about that. Words can refer to things within our own mental worlds. I can refer to "my thoughts" or "my feelings". I can even refer to my sensory experience like "my visual perceptions", "the warmth I feel", "the loudness I hear", and so on. If the entire universe was subjective, we might still be fooled into thinking of it as having an objective existence and thereby refer to it and the things therein, but we would in fact be refering to our own experiences of it. This doesn't constitute a breakdown in ostension, it just reconfigures it.

 

There is, of course, no logical contradiction in what you've said. But there is, I think, a semantic mistake. This has to do with what, exactly, it means to refer.

First, if the world is purely subjective, then it is quite a coincidence that I can talk about the same objects as you. If subjectivism is the case, then this world is my world, some world is your world, and the two shall never meet. Insofar as your world is concerned, I can say nothing.

Now, you are quite right that propositions such as "I feel warmth right now," and "I hear loudness right now," could be nothing more than my private, subjective impressions, and that what feels warm to me might feel cool to another. But this is not what I mean by "refering."

By "refering," I mean picking out an object in space and time, such as tables, chairs, and coffee mugs. You can see that this quite different from speaking of first-person, present-tense, mental states. Concerning space, there is only one space; and when we speak of different spaces, we mean only parts of the one, all-embracing space. The same can be said of time. The objects within space and time are the world, and there can be only one world.

Anything within space and time can, in principle, be given a proper name. Let's call this the act of "ostensive naming." As it so happens, we give very few objects proper names, but this is just a contingent feature of ordinary language. But, concerning the objects we do, in practice, give proper names to, they include, persons, pets, works of art, and heavenly bodies.

The form of the act of ostensive naming is, "This is a," where "a" is a proper name. To perform an act of ostensive naming, certain conditions are requisite. First and foremost, the object named must be extended in space and must endure in time. As there is only one space and only one time, to which we all have access, the object named is objective. The properties of the object, such as warmness and loudness, are quite irrelevant to ostensive naming, and can vary from subject to subject, without affecting the success of the act of ostensive naming. In this way, we can guarantee the existence of the objective world.

 

I think what I need to get across about my view is that it even applies to how we experience space and time. A subjectivist - especially a radical one - will take anything you refer to and call it a mental experience. I can do this with space and time - they are mental experiences. In fact, I know the neurological facts that back this idea up. You can locate neural circuits in the brain whose function it is to perceive 3D space, and other circuits that give rise to our sense of time. When you look at the brain as a whole, you eventually come to see that for anything and everything you can refer to in the real world, it has a neural corolate in the brain. To be aware of it is for it to be mental. There's two things that this shows us: 1) That each of us is living in his/her own universe - each one a 4D spacetime continuum full of matter and energy in flux. 2) That "mental life", if we can call it that, can take on way more forms and qualities than we thought. Mind can be matter and energy, space and time.

True, but given what I said above, we can still do this even though the "objective world" exists in virtue of our greater subjective experiences. That there is an objective world is due to the fact that we experience an objective world. My central claim is that its realness is rooted in the essence of the experience of it, not somewhere beyond it. My view doesn't change the fact that it's real or that it's "out there" - it says that "out there" is really just a form of "in here", and that reality is not independent of perception and experience. It's a difficult concept to grasp, I understand, which is why it requires a rethinking of what it means for something to be "mental".

 

I agree with sentient. There is, in some Ultimate Realm of Truth, an objective reality. However, we are limited by our human perceptions, desires, psychologicl blocks, etc., from being able to perceive this reality with any degree of accuracy.

I would add that there are so many forces acting in the Universe and, as a consequence, on our own minds (I'm talking about spiritual forces), that even among those powers which exceed that of our mere human powers, there are differnent interpretations of reality based on their different perspectives, ideals, and so forth. As an example, I personally don't find the God of the Bible to hold the final key to absolute truth. If the descent of Lucifer from heaven is real, and not mere mythology, I wouldn't doubt that Lucifer simply had a viewpoint that was valid from his own perspective, but that "God" merely disagreed.

So, in addition to the limitations of our own human perceptions, we are confused by receiving different spiritual influences, from all over the Universe. So it is indeed amazing that we humans function and even get along on occasion. My personal belief is that there is something in the human spirit itself that, when permitted to express itself and not be repressed or denied, is capable of rising up and doing just what is needed--although history shows us that we also tend to wait until the very last moment in doing so.

Ah, but I digress.

 

But how do you know for sure there is an ultimate realm of truth/objective reality if you can't percieve or experience this? Isn't that a contradiction? Surely if there was an objective reality somewhere it would be seperate and independent from an otherwise interconnected universe (where all objects and phenomena are unique and in constant flux) and therefore findable?

 

We know nothing.