Marlowe

I am seeking information on philosophical arguments for or against the Objectivity or Subjectivity of Reality. I'd be curious to know where various posters stand and why. Any philosopher's arguments that you wish to summarize would be appreciated as well to help guide my further research.

Thanks.

Theli

Well, we live in both a subjective and an objective reality. The subjective reality objectivly exists in our brains, and "objective reality" is a subjective concept that also objectivly exists in our brains.

Mustard?

jpbrooks

I too believe that reality is both subjective and objective. This is more of an assertion than an argument, but without objectivity, subjectivity couldn't confirm or verify beliefs (about reality), and without subjectivity, neither objective nor subjective reality can be known. The "subject/object distinction" cannot be totally illusory. (Illusions, to be known as such, require knowledge of what reality is "supposed to be like" beyond the illusions. So, any [alleged] "knowledge" that the "subject/object distinction" were illusory would only "confirm" its reality.)

Marlowe

How do we know the subjective reality objectively exists in our brains if our brain's experience is entirely subjective? And if objective reality is merely a subjective concept, then what do we do with objectively verifiable facts such as those determined by science that are clearly repeatable and measurable by several different subjective agents?

Can you say more about this? If illusions require knowledge of what reality is supposed to be like - what is this knowledge of what reality is 'supposed' to be like, and where does it arise from? This has been a problem for me since I read Plato's Republic and his assertions about ideal forms. Where'd we get the idea that there was something 'better' or 'more ideal' than the reality we observe? I mean, it obviously exists as part of the human model of reality for we see it in much of philosophy and religion (the very concept of Nirvana or Heaven), but why? Is it simply part of our imaginative faculty?

jpbrooks

Sorry for the late post, Marlowe. I've been trying to catch up on my reading and I forgot to check this thread for replies.

Normally, our knowledge of reality is acquired (in the case of objects in the real world) via sense data that is/are assessed by, and stored in, our brains before we judge some subsequent perception to be illusory. We can't cogently claim to have knowledge that a phenomenon is an illusion without some "background" knowledge of what the reality that the illusion is misrepresenting is "supposed to (but doesn't) look like". I used quotes because what I'm saying about sense data that are associated with objects in the world might also be true for our "internal sense data" or "inner experiences" associated with the information that is stored in our brains, some of which may not be a part of our brain's conscious content. But a more detailed elaboration on the latter type of experiences would take us into Psychology and outside the scope of the present discussion.


Well, if I'm not mistaken, Plato provides an argument (from "imperfection", I think) for the existence of "Forms" in his Phaedo work that is similar to the one that I used above concerning illusion. Paraphrasing his argument, he points out that we cannot judge a thing to be "imperfect" unless we have the idea of "perfection" already in our minds. Thus, the pure "perfected" "Form" of the thing exists even when the "perfect" thing itself doesn't. The difference (if it is really a difference) between Plato's argument and "mine" (an argument that I borrowed from someone else who may have been influenced by Plato) is that there is independent sensory evidence for the existence of particular things in the real world that we don't have for "Forms". However, if you're not an Empiricist of some kind, you may not see that as a real difference in the two arguments.

Yes. Plato suggests that the "Forms" have always existed and come to be "known" (or according to Plato, "remembered") by us through the particular objects that we encounter in the world. Again I'm interpreting Plato to mean that the pure ideal "Forms" "exist" as intersubjective "ideas", and not as real objects having objective existence. If my interpretation is correct, then it seems likely (to me, at least), considering the evidence that you suggest of the widespread appearance of ideals in philosophies and religions around the world, that they are an inborn part of our thinking processes. Now, whether our ability to engage in "idealization" can be shown to be entirely the result of "cognitive" brain processes is an issue that is beyond the scope of my knowledge at this time.

I'll be back in a few hours.

Christopher13

I don't mean to be cruel, but the terms you have used--subjectivity and objectivity--have assumed different meanings in modern times. In Thomist philosophy, for example, based on Plato and Aristotle mainly, individual things are subjects and have subjective existence in and of themselves whereas they exist objectively in the mind. It is a real form of existence, as an idea if you will, but not as perfect as their own subjective reality.
The confusion arises from the popular reversal of these concepts so that one's private thoughts are subjective when really objective reality is solely intellectual with no reality of its own outside the mind. I hope this suggests a path for you, Marlowe. Read Aquinas or his modern commentators for better explanations. This approach is usually known as philosophical realism (an ancient rival of Plato's idealsim for one).

The_Ist

It would seem to me that reality itself is objective. Reality is what it is; it can't be anything else. It can be argued that our perceptions of reality are subjective, however.

ghiangelo

aside from the possible existence of God this has to be one of the most argued philosophical topics since the development of language. still haven't seen or read the answer. ontologically, reality is a subjective experience. it's existence is totally dependant on the experience of an independant agent holding or generating the reality experience. determining 'true' objective existences OUTSIDE of the experience of reality is a difficult one. understand that to say something is 'real' is not the same as saying something is a 'necessary universal existence'.

i notice no one has yet brought up the wonderful concept of solipsism.

ghi

jpbrooks

The issue of Solipsism is certainly an interesting one that raises questions about the "self's" own existence. (Sorry I missed this reply.) For instance, if we say that "reality" can only be a subjective experience, then the "self" can only exist when it is the subject of its own experiences. But since it is certainly not the case that the "self" is always the subject of its own experiences, that raises the question of how it could have ever come to be the subject of its own experiences, when in order to have any experiences at all, it must first be a real entity.

I'm leaving for home. I'll be back online later.

Ol' Vic

Let me introduce a word that has not yet entered the discussion: truth.

When we are very young, we never question the objective nature of reality, and truth is a simple concept. The opposite of "truth" is "lie." Later we learn to incorporate the concept of "error," which complicates our lives quite a bit, but still is manageable. To wit, those who disagree with us either are lying or in error.

Eventually, though, we run into cognitive dissonance -- two or more of our cherished "truths" come into conflict. How we handle that dissonance is the basis for our ideas about objectivity and subjectivity.

Some are able to ignore the dissonance and barge right ahead. We call those people adolescents, psychopaths, ideologues, idiots, and President of the United States of America.

Most people will just accept the idea that they are capable of error, readjust their thinking somewhat, and go on more or less as before. They are the lucky ones.

Some, like you and me, become philosophers, and genuinely enjoy thinking about whether it is possible to know anything at all. Most fun of all is to formulate our own theoretical construct and give it a fancy name. I call mine the "catoptric synesthesia hypothesis," and I think some of those who read and post here will be amused. You will find it
here.