Essentially, in an Objective Reality the following holds true: “A=A”. Pretty easily understood, right? Well, humanity judges everything. Judgement is to formulate an opinion through the means of the mind. Humanity cannot judge objectively, since things which are objective are independent of man’s mind and/or wishes.
How can humanity know the existence of an objective reality without the use of one’s mind to judge said reality? How can we know what “A” is without using our mind to abstract it? i.e. How can we know what we perceive is what it is?
Reality is only what we perceive. This metaphysical tripe about an objective reality is nonsense, to use words used elsewhere; since it does not influence us it does not exist.
Given that reality is and only is completely subjective any information we receive (real or imaginary, doesnt matter) are actual facts about reality. Hence if it seems reasonable that A=A then it is so.
Neitzsche thought this was kinda optimistic, but logic is really and unfortunately we have no other tool at our disposal being rational beings not on mind altering drugs (well, maybe a bit of weed or horse tranqs ).
This view is Relatavistic IMO since it relies on the total acceptance of subjectivism. And ethics is still relativistic so there.
Judging ‘objectively’ and the ‘objective world’ are equivocations if exchanged one for the other.
A = A is nonsense. It seems to presume two objects to consider one. We refer to A, and A refers to itself. We erronously take the references of A to be A itself. There is so much more wrong with it. The equals sign is not a sign of identity, but a sign of equivalent arrangements. Or, it pretends that an unknown object sends forth its own image to which the object is identical.
Its not a question of ‘can we know A in itself’. Without an independent means of identifying what we are talking about, to ask ‘what is A’ is to ask 'what is $%*".
To ask what something ‘really is’ is spurious. It means you place an object in a new, unnamed paradigm.
You dont have to use the term subjective at all. Subjective sets up an opposition which you do not name. The opposition may be ‘objective’, though there is absolutely no connection between objective and subjective. The words look the same, thats all. You also used the term ‘perception’ which indicates perception of something ‘out there’, objective.
But how can one tell if two lines are parallel or not? It would be necessary to follow the two until they end, which, since we speak of lines and not line-segments, would be impossible. One line could be unnoticeably off by a fraction of a degree, but it would still be perceived as parallel. Would it be parallel?
However, how do we not know that what we perceive is not products of our mind?
No, I worded it funny(da*n linguistics!). Allow me to give it another shot: how do we not know what we see, taste, feel, etc. is not actually created artificially by our minds?
doesnt matter if reality is ‘artificial’ or whatever. As long as it acts exactly like reality there is no problem whatsoever (and that means it can act like anything at all as long as we dont experience something other than it).
Also, no parallel lines exist ever, so how does that help?
John Jones,
I get not your problem with A=A. It means A is identical to A, or a thing is itself, no more no less. Be A a value, object, arrangement, etc.
aye, im using ‘subjective’ & ‘objective’ rather sloppily but the concepts are most definitely linked. I meant objective reality as that which exist beyond our perception. This i take to be a fallacy as nothing exists beyond perception.
Perception does not, i argue, require an object (nor should we desire one), only a perception of such (this is the previous question, how can we know that what we perceive is actually objective rather than a fabrication?).
Analogy: For a computer to work correctly it doesnt matter what the input was provided by, only that it is provided and processed correctly.
[/quote]
By ‘created by our minds’ are you referring to a physical structure? For to say that the idea is artificial implies some material substrate against which artificiality can be measured.
It would not make sense if by ‘mind’ you were referring to what we call consciousness or idea as creating the world. For it would not be clear what sort of world is created above and beyond the idea we call the world.
For example I am hit by a rock, how would I not know that the sensation of pain from that rock was not created by my mind, as well as the image of that rock?
‘A = A’ is a confusing way of saying ‘A’. The equals sign is being mis-used as a sign that qualifies identity, as well as being a sign for substitution.
Subjective and objective are not opposed or related. There is no common framework which can represent them. Objective is a paradigm of ‘material objects’. The fact that there are no material objects within materialism will not be pursued here. Subjective is a term that should properly mean only ideas that are conveyed, but it is often erronously supposed that there is an objective object if we assume there is subjectivity.
Perception is always perception ‘of’. This is commonly assumed to be ‘material objects’.
A computer is said to work correctly if our task is completed. There is no other sense of ‘working correctly’. There are no inherently correct processes.
My argument is that the law of non-contradiciton does not allow anyone to make the statement “there is no absolute truth”…Relativism is irrefutably contradictory on the premise that:
truth = fact
“There is no absolute truth” would be an absolute truth that you’re trying to portray.
You would be as smart as an animal would be because man would not be the measure of truth. Everyone would have the same amount of truth whether animal or human.
You would not have to learn or read books because you already have all truth because you make truth.
Also, if there is no absolute truth, then I can refute you by saying that there is absolute truth and you could not argue back to me that there was because I would be the one that makes the truth in my world, and you do not.
As a matter of fact, why wuold you be posting this view if you did not see this as absolute. You cannot argue with anyone who refutes you because technically they make their own truth. You see, even you believe there is absolute truth, proved by your actions of posting your veiw as “truth”.
You see, there isn’t even a connecting between the two statements “there is absolute truth” and “truth can be measured” as shown here below…
Perceiving is always presented as ‘I perceive this’. But we do not perceive our own idea. Perception suggests the stance of objectivity.
A computer does not itself decide whether or not it is working correctly. Also, it means nothing to ask whether a computer is workingcorrectly. The criteria for correctness is the accomplishment of our task.
I know what the word suggests, and im saying it shouldn’t. Of course, the difference is purely linguistic, just that what you call a perceived object, i call a perception. It may indeed be my own idea, but that doesnt change a thing.
Yes, i agree, i agreed the first time (except of course, computers can indeed decide whether they are working correctly because our criteria of judgement is programmed into them.)
What are you maundering about? How does this have any connection between truth=fact and a=a?
Not necessarily so, perception implies objectivity but it does not require it. I perceive to be listening to Bach, but it could be Vivaldi; of course, there could be no music whatsoever and I just perceive to hear it. Would that not be a creation of my mind? Likewise how would I not know that everything is not a creation of my mind?
But first, one must realize there is no computer I’m sorry, that was schmaltsy. But my point remains, there is no way for us to ever know if that computer exists to have itself decide anything, if it could.
I am approaching it from an epistemological viewpoint that we can never know metaphysics, you see. Not from a metaphysical persepective to challenge metaphysics.
Not necessarily so, perception implies objectivity but it does not require it. I perceive to be listening to Bach, but it could be Vivaldi;
But first, one must realize there is no computer I’m sorry, that was schmaltsy. But my point remains, there is no way for us to ever know if that computer exists to have itself decide anything, if it could.
I am approaching it from an epistemological viewpoint that we can never know metaphysics, you see. Not from a metaphysical persepective to challenge metaphysics.
[/quote]
How do you perceive hearing or listening to something? You simply listen to music, you hear music, but you would not ordinarily say that you perceive your hearing, or your listening.
We can easily say the computer exists if the criteria for the computers existence is to be a tool necessary for the accomplishing of our task.
).
I’m sorry, that was schmaltsy. But my point remains, there is no way for us to ever know if that computer exists to have itself decide anything, if it could.