Theory: Objectivism vs. Relativism

[zarc]

Now why do I attribute having "no picture" as being meaningless. What does color mean to a person who was born blind? What does sound mean to a person who was born completely deaf? They have never experienced these relative sensory experiences, therefore they have no perception of them. They are meaningless concepts to them, because they don't exist within their relative reality.

I've been meaning to start a thread on blindess/perception and that was of great help on relative sensory experience. Now whether I get around to posting it...

If we define "true knowledge" as those things we believe that are objectively true, then true knowledge is both true and a belief we hold. Hopefully, you see that as a tautology.

What do we know to be true knowledge?

We can claim that logic and mathematics fit this category, but we know that such systems are always founded on some axioms or postulates that have to be accepted without proof.

It is certainly true that there are more things that are true than can be proven. However, the more I study the foundations of logic and mathematics, the more it seems true that the intuitionists were right.

Granted, the mental constructs can be (and often are) targeted towards understanding the "deep nature of existence," but the success largely depends on proper choice of axioms to model reality.

What about science?
First off, almost every scientist knows that scientific laws cannot be "proven," or "justified," but only have mounting evidence in its favor.

What about the "existence" of scientific phenomenon? It is true that DNA exists, we've seen examples of it in high power microscopes. It is true that atoms exist, we've seen them with Atomic Force Microscopy).

So this is only a short hop from the existence of more easily accessible reality.

What about the existence of things in easily accessible reality? The chair I am siting on, the keyboard, I am typing on, etc.

To me these are the existence of these things are what I have the most confidence in being actually true. I don't believe they go away when I stop perceiving them.

I like you. But is it because I perceive you to be so likable to me or are you in fact just likable? If your writing goes away from my objective sight, will I stop liking you? Let's take a 180 degree rule spin, or is it angle?, on "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" and "In time your heart will heal..." and maybe they could cross the line to "Inseparability makes the heart shrink in averse" and "Just kill the dude and forget about it"

I kept editing this post to find a different point but I found myself spinning my head. And after reading the 180 degree rule for editing, it made me wonder how close the marriage between relativity and objecitity was....okay, every now and then they bickered on who was right or better but the memory of them still goes on through the thoughts of their grandchildren's favouritism or fondness of both or neither!

I like both because I'd feel bad if I hurt either's feelings

First off, almost every scientist knows that scientific laws cannot be "proven," or "justified," but only have mounting evidence in its favor.

I take it back. I really like you. Same thing apply as before?

What about the "existence" of scientific phenomenon? It is true that DNA exists, we've seen examples of it in high power microscopes. It is true that atoms exist, we've seen them with Atomic Force Microscopy).

So this is only a short hop from the existence of more easily accessible reality.

And to add, though you may correct me, even mounting evidence touted as true are not initially accepted and then after acceptance are then sometimes retracted or expounded on to make further proof of evidence or retraction from evidence oiii

Science is a pursuit in eternity, perhaps. We may come and go but it is forever immortal with its claims. I relavitely perceive it to be so beautiful though I have limited understanding of its objective evidence but to others---okie... tautological relative perceptions of objective reality

Yes, I am absurd and enjoy doing so. Now am I or do I because....

 

[Rohsiph]

We can only percieve the objective universe through relative means. It isn't just "largely based" but completely. There are no perceptions we can make outside of our relatively defined objective measures or our relative perceptions. Our entire conception of reality is in our heads, as a result of relative perceptions of the universe that come from relative sensory experiences. We have no picture of objective reality outside of our relative reality.

Alright . . . to start, I'll grant you human perception.

Now why do I attribute having "no picture" as being meaningless. What does color mean to a person who was born blind? What does sound mean to a person who was born completely deaf? They have never experienced these relative sensory experiences, therefore they have no perception of them. They are meaningless concepts to them, because they don't exist within their relative reality.

Yet, I would expect that, given enough experience (what I have in mind is basically developing mental faculties enough to understand, at least, basic philosophical arguments), a blind person would find their being withheld from having color experience to be meaningful--that is, I would think that coming across testimony & anecdotal accounts of color experience would influence persons lacking in certain sense faculties (in this case: sight) to understand something meaningful about the faculties even without having them directly.

It is important to point out that such meaning will be relative, but the nature of meaningfulness, as a kind of thing individuals can understand, is relative.

I am willing to grant that every immediate perception-experience, every sense-experience, every account of what could conceivably be experience of objective reality comes from the relative mental existences unique to every individual. However, using such experiences, as well as faculties that influence our directions in speculative areas, to try and grasp absolutes that cannot be known without doubt is meaningful--in a relative way, still, but it should be clear that there exists the strong possibility that humans can find meaning from pursuing information about objective reality.

What troubles me about your view is that you remain adamant in claiming that if we do not have something, it can have no meaning within us. Yet, there are plenty of things that I do not have--and, indeed, many things that I cannot, or at least will not ever, have--yet, I often think about these things in a way that should suggest I find them meaningful.

Silly example: I do not have a womb. I cannot experience having a womb in a first-hand way. Yet, I can think of several things that my not having a womb means for me--for one, that I will never give birth. The way I am currently understanding your argument, you would necessarily have to claim that wombs are meaningless for me.

And that is largely what I meant by saying that objective reality is meaningless to us. We can't percieve the objective reality, only the relative one. Understanding our relative reality is extremely important, because it is based on objective realty, but objective reality exists completely outside our conception and therefore has no meaning for us.

This is how I read your argument:
1. Relatives (here: shorthand for relative experiences/perceptions/faculties/etc) can be known, and are therefore necessarily important
2. Our relatives are based on the objective
3. Yet, the objective cannot be known specifically by us, therefore has no meaning for us.

Within the conclusion: what we cannot know must necessarily be meaningless for us.

That doesn't sound right to me . . . easy example: we cannot know the divine, yet many find enough meaning to focus their entire lives by pursuing the divine. Is any life that is spent pursuing the divine fundamentally meaningless?

Also, if you grant that the objective is most likely that which our relatives (as understood above) are based upon, then how can you assert there is zero meaning for us to the objective?

I would think that such an intimate relationship (the relative with the objective) would necessarily entail, even for beings who are fully relative creatures, there is at least something meaningful about the objective (even if this thing happens to be trivial).

Ygolo:

I'm having trouble figuring out how/why you were quoting me in your last post . . . the way you started seemed to suggest to me that you wanted to show how one might apply relativism in epistemology and/or metaphysics, but it didn't seem to me like that's what you did.

I am aware of the problem you pose at the end of your post, but then I think it's necessary for anyone with the most basic understandings of epistemology to be aware of that problem. It forces a choice in epistemology: either accept that knowledge must be absolute, and therefore accept a form of skepticism; or accept a looser definition of knowledge in order to defeat skeptical problems.

As such, at the highest level of my thinking I consider myself to be an epistemic absolutist (and, therefore, a skeptic) . . . but have found pursuing philosophy following non-absolutist understandings of knowledge to be important, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

 

[Kiddo]

Yet, I would expect that, given enough experience (what I have in mind is basically developing mental faculties enough to understand, at least, basic philosophical arguments), a blind person would find their being withheld from having color experience to be meaningful--that is, I would think that coming across testimony & anecdotal accounts of color experience would influence persons lacking in certain sense faculties (in this case: sight) to understand something meaningful about the faculties even without having them directly.

Ok, I'll give you a shot. Imagine I'm a blind person who has never seen and never will see color. Now describe "red" to me.

It is important to point out that such meaning will be relative, but the nature of meaningfulness, as a kind of thing individuals can understand, is relative.

Meaning is relative. I agree.

I am willing to grant that every immediate perception-experience, every sense-experience, every account of what could conceivably be experience of objective reality comes from the relative mental existences unique to every individual. However, using such experiences, as well as faculties that influence our directions in speculative areas, to try and grasp absolutes that cannot be known without doubt is meaningful--in a relative way, still, but it should be clear that there exists the strong possibility that humans can find meaning from pursuing information about objective reality.

I disagree in the sense that it is only what we can percieve that ultimately has meaning to us. Therefore we take our relative perception of objective reality to be extremely important. For example, science and philosophy.

What troubles me about your view is that you remain adamant in claiming that if we do not have something, it can have no meaning within us. Yet, there are plenty of things that I do not have--and, indeed, many things that I cannot, or at least will not ever, have--yet, I often think about these things in a way that should suggest I find them meaningful.

I never said it isn't what we have, but what we can't percieve that is meaningless. Can you tell me one thing you can't percieve that you find meaningful?

Silly example: I do not have a womb. I cannot experience having a womb in a first-hand way. Yet, I can think of several things that my not having a womb means for me--for one, that I will never give birth. The way I am currently understanding your argument, you would necessarily have to claim that wombs are meaningless for me.

Then you misunderstand my argument, because there is a difference between the perception of the womb (knowing that it exists) and not having a womb. True, you can't percieve being pregnant as a women would percieve it, so it meaningless to you what that experience is like to a woman. You can relate to nausea, pain, and other feelings encountered by women who are pregnant, but the entirety of the experience is something you will never know or understand from the woman's perspective.

This is how I read your argument:
1. Relatives (here: shorthand for relative experiences/perceptions/faculties/etc) can be perceived, and are therefore necessarily important
2. Our relatives are based on the objective
3. Yet, the objective cannot be perceived specifically by us, therefore has no meaning for us.

One correction. There is a difference between "knowing" and "perceiving".

Within the conclusion: what we cannot know must necessarily be meaningless for us.

That doesn't sound right to me . . . easy example: we cannot know the divine, yet many find enough meaning to focus their entire lives by pursuing the divine. Is any life that is spent pursuing the divine fundamentally meaningless?

Because we can percieve the divine, therefore it has meaning to us.

Also, if you grant that the objective is most likely that which our relatives (as understood above) are based upon, then how can you assert there is zero meaning for us to the objective?

As you said, meaning is relative, but I don't see the significance in things we cannot percieve. I'll await to see if you can make the concept of "red" meaningful to a blind person to see if this holds true.

I would think that such an intimate relationship (the relative with the objective) would necessarily entail, even for beings who are fully relative creatures, there is at least something meaningful about the objective (even if this thing happens to be trivial).

I can think of only one. "I think therefore I am" -Descartes. I can't dismiss the meaning of this observation. The very fact that we have perceptions entails that there is something we base those perceptions on. Therefore, the only meaning I can attribute to the objective reality is that of our existence. Whether or not you can consider that trivial is relative.

 

[zarc]

Because we can percieve the divine, therefore it has meaning to us.

I'd like to add onto that. It's not that people perceive the divine. Rather, they perceive what they believe to be the divine which has meaning to them.

This may sound silly to compare but I did it in a thread of "Is the brain a computer?". To sum up the correlations:

Hardrive = brain
Router = perception/receiving info (as in we use our eyes/senses to perceive info) and it relays to the hardrive-brain
Internet (which is infinite and 'invisible') = consciousness (which is infinite and 'invisible') which is perceived via router-perception and relayed to hardrive-brain

Hope that made sense...To note, I've just created those comparisons a day or so ago so I'm still researching to make sure it fits, however that is a mere sum and I expounded heavily in the other thread. I can snatch what I wrote if needed.

So, in other words, I believe in the collective consciousness as stated by Jung. It can explain how relativity is differently perceived in different cultures due to the different objective environments they are in. What is seen as 'sacred', for instance, to an Indian (ex. cow) is not the same to a Native American (ex. eagle). When people of all (primitive and recent--)cultures 'created' "gods" ala anthropomorphism, they found the animals which attributes they liked/believed special from their environments.

So, to comment on blindness, a blind person cannot perceive the colour red but they can understand that it's something "important" (a belief of importance) to others. I found this insightful what a blind person, on youtube, explained:

My fellow vlogger Oscar Serna asked whether cross-cultural blindness is the same as cultural shock. They are different in that blindness is like oblivion whereas shock is like awareness.

So, what is perceived and believed important to those with sight is not important to a blind person. They can understand the value of colour or images to others with sight, but as they cannot experience it, it's of no personal value. However, they may believe that sight itself is important, whether they learn to accept that they are merely different or not. I think the same applies to a deaf person/any one "different" of the norm.

 

[Rohsiph]

Ok, I'll give you a shot. Imagine I'm a blind person who has never seen and never will see color. Now describe "red" to me.

Red is what is lacking when you look at this image--also, the color of certain roses, and apples, and fire-trucks. It is not a grey, or whatever color "red" actually looks like to you . . . rather, it is a distinct shade with many symbols. In the case of the painting linked above, it gives the background a hint of hellishness, all the while the lighter reds in the woman's skin amplify the brightness of the figure.

I am not trying to argue that the color-blind person will perceive things the same as the not-color-blind person . . . but, with enough experience, I would be surprised if he/she didn't at least realize others appear to be seeing things that he/she cannot.

I disagree in the sense that it is only what we can percieve that ultimately has meaning to us. Therefore we take our relative perception of objective reality to be extremely important. For example, science and philosophy.

Perhaps we don't disagree . . . I'll get to this below.

Because we can percieve the divine, therefore it has meaning to us.

. . . what? Perhaps I should have defined "divine" more clearly . . . as I understand it, it is something humans (living, on earth) cannot perceive. Intimately connected with spirituality, "the divine" includes things that, primarily, are transcendental in their nature. Transcendental--beyond our understanding, beyond our grasp, beyond clear perceptions if not all perceptions.

I can think of only one. "I think therefore I am" -Descartes. I can't dismiss the meaning of this observation. The very fact that we have perceptions entails that there is something we base those perceptions on. Therefore, the only meaning I can attribute to the objective reality is that of our existence. Whether or not you can consider that trivial is relative.

There is still a part of your argument that I seem to be missing . . . as I understood it, you were taking a position that would preclude you from accepting that anything objective can be meaningful for humans. I'm no longer entirely sure that is the case, but I'm still not sure what part of your argument I'm missing.

To return to something above--particularly, about the part of your quote that I bolded:

what I want to convince you of is that humans occasionally strive for understanding objective reality, and that they find meaning in so doing--even though it is impossible to prove, indubitably, anything when using an absolutist definition of knowledge. Based on the quote above, it appears that you might accept this . . . but that you want to claim this striving to know about the objective (and failing) can only be attributed in relative ways. I think it's unfair to claim objective reality to be meaningless if some of us consciously strive to find out about it.

sidenote -- this reminds me of the problem for the absolutist skeptic: if you accept that to have knowledge requires there to be no possibility of doubt, and discover that you can doubt everything, does this allow the paradoxical assertion "I know that I cannot have knowledge of anything?" But that's a different topic . . .

The argument I should have better-stated previously underlying my examples: in being aware of being unable to perceive something, we can discover meaningful things about our existence as humans--limited in our abilities to acquire knowledge--thanks to our great doubts about ever achieving a significantly provable account of objective reality.

That is, in the case of the color-blind: the color-blind person's inability to perceive a certain color is in itself meaningful--the color is beside the point, with the point being that "I know I lack the ability to perceive this thing." This knowledge of being precluded from other kinds of knowledge can reveal insights about our positions existing wherever, however, whenever we happen to exist.

I am trying to make an abstract concept that is clear to me concrete through words here . . . my Ni knows the strength of my argument, but I am having trouble defining every certain point. Hopefully I'm not failing too miserably

 

[Kiddo]

Red is what is lacking when you look at this image--also, the color of certain roses, and apples, and fire-trucks. It is not a grey, or whatever color "red" actually looks like to you . . . rather, it is a distinct shade with many symbols. In the case of the painting linked above, it gives the background a hint of hellishness, all the while the lighter reds in the woman's skin amplify the brightness of the figure.

I am not trying to argue that the color-blind person will perceive things the same as the not-color-blind person . . . but, with enough experience, I would be surprised if he/she didn't at least realize others appear to be seeing things that he/she cannot.

Dude, you misunderstood. I didn't say color blind, I said born blind. Describe "red" to somebody who has never seen any color. Who has never seen anything. While you are at it, describe "sight" itself to this person. Explain this perception they have never had in a way they can percieve or understand.

...what? Perhaps I should have defined "divine" more clearly...as I understand it, it is something humans (living, on earth) cannot perceive. Intimately connected with spirituality, "the divine" includes things that, primarily, are transcendental in their nature. Transcendental--beyond our understanding, beyond our grasp, beyond clear perceptions if not all perceptions.

You just described what divine is, therefore you can percieve it. Even if you can't percieve it with your senses, you can percieve it cognitively.

There is still a part of your argument that I seem to be missing...as I understood it, you were taking a position that would preclude you from accepting that anything objective can be meaningful for humans. I'm no longer entirely sure that is the case, but I'm still not sure what part of your argument I'm missing.

Let me know when you figure it out.

what I want to convince you of is that humans occasionally strive for understanding objective reality, and that they find meaning in so doing--even though it is impossible to prove, indubitably, anything when using an absolutist definition of knowledge. Based on the quote above, it appears that you might accept this...but that you want to claim this striving to know about the objective (and failing) can only be attributed in relative ways. I think it's unfair to claim objective reality to be meaningless if some of us consciously strive to find out about it.

What humans are striving for isn't an understanding of objective reality, but an objective understanding of their relative reality. Simply because they can't percieve objective reality and it is therefore meaningless to them.

The argument I should have better-stated previously underlying my examples: in being aware of being unable to perceive something, we can discover meaningful things about our existence as humans--limited in our abilities to acquire knowledge--thanks to our great doubts about ever achieving a significantly provable account of objective reality.

That is, in the case of the color-blind: the color-blind person's inability to perceive a certain color is in itself meaningful--the color is beside the point, with the point being that "I know I lack the ability to perceive this thing." This knowledge of being precluded from other kinds of knowledge can reveal insights about our positions existing wherever, however, whenever we happen to exist.

And yet color is relative, and is merely our perception of some facet of objective reality. Color is merely the sensory interpretation and subsequent perception of a wavelength of light. Therefore, it's something that has importance in relative reality, not objective reality.

I am trying to make an abstract concept that is clear to me concrete through words here . . . my Ni knows the strength of my argument, but I am having trouble defining every certain point. Hopefully I'm not failing too miserably

I'm afraid your case isn't too strong at the moment. I would say you are in the illusion that science and other such pursuits are a quest to understand the objective reality, when they are merely an objective (as in the parameters are defined) attempt to understand our relative reality. Thankfully, much of our relative reality is based on objective reality, so we do attain minute portions of truth in a way we can understand.

Not to make your case for you, but this might be along the lines of what you are trying to express.
1. We know there is an objective reality and we know we can't percieve it.
2. Even though we can't percieve it, we can use the understanding that we can't percieve it to make it meaningful.

This is arguing the same concept I presented back on the first page with a vase analogy. Space being the "absence" that makes something of existence, "meaningful".

Imagine a clay vase. What defines it as a vase and not a lump of clay? It has a structure, which contains an empty space. The vase isn't defined simply by the clay that makes it up, but also, the space within the clay. It's simultaneously defined by both existence and non existence.

Another way of saying it is the vase is defined by both what makes it up, the clay, and what doesn't, the space within it. If the space wasn't there, it wouldn't be a vase.

Is that along the lines of what you are trying to express?

However, the problem is, that there is no sense in trying to understand objective reality. It would be like trying to understand space without matter. Hold up your fingers and look at the space between them. Now remove your fingers and try to percieve the same space. It only has relevance when we can percieve it, and we can only do so relatively. In the case of space, we have to have matter to use as reference. In the case of objective reality, we have to have our perceptions as reference.

 

[zarc]

That is, in the case of the color-blind: the color-blind person's inability to perceive a certain color is in itself meaningful--the color is beside the point, with the point being that "I know I lack the ability to perceive this thing." This knowledge of being precluded from other kinds of knowledge can reveal insights about our positions existing wherever, however, whenever we happen to exist.
:

In my post above yours, I say something similiar about meaning for a blind person and others with 'differences' from our own. I somewhat touched on the "value" they may place on something they can't experience and I agree with you on that inability to experience itself (sight/hearing/etc) can be seen as meaningful too. However, I wouldn't make that an absolute claim b/c every blind person/etc is unique and what is perceived meaningful to them varies. A blind person may or may not care for sight (I know that seems strange, but one never knows). What they experience allows them a whole difference in perception, and if they've overcome the "handicap" of blindess, they may come to cherish having a different or 'unique' spin on perception. I suspect most laugh on the follies of humans who take sight for granted and can't live peaceful lives with others different than themselves...

How likely is it for a blind person to be racist? Unless, of course, they've been raised by others with sight who instilled their beliefs onto them of how deficient another culture is. But, how could they ever know the difference? And if they were told after speaking to someone of a different culture and found out it's one they were taught to discrimate against, they'd seem more likely to discount what they were taught IMO. What is racial ethnicity to them when they cannot see the colour of their own skin? As for culture, they can at least experience that by certain customs, such as greetings with hands or bowing of heads, etc.

Also, as people who are regularly misunderstood and discriminated against, I'd find it likely they'd understand most people and differences of them but I know that will never be 100% the case (due to different personal histories). They were once never, from my knowledge of that, allowed to hold jobs and were deemed so handicapped. With advancements in technology, they've entered the workforce with varying careers. The inability which may have had value for them due to being inaccessible has now transcended that as they now have the ability to do something they were never allowed before.

There are also differences with blind people. Not all are completely blind or even partially so or some were born with sight but had it removed after birth due to cancers. There are degrees if not completely blind. Maybe one blind person cannot see red but another can see what little they've been told is "red" and see an entirely different red than you or I would.

What of people who once had sight well into adulthood but through accident or illness, lost it? It can then be that the lack of sight is important to them more than would have been to someone who has never had it or partially has it.

 

[Rohsiph]

Dude, you misunderstood. I didn't say color blind, I said born blind. Describe "red" to somebody who has never seen any color. Who has never seen anything. While you are at it, describe "sight" itself to this person. Explain this perception they have never had in a way they can percieve or understand.

Indeed, I misunderstood . . . but I actually think DeliriousDisposition highlights what I wanted to point out as it can occur for someone who is blind in the post above.

You just described what divine is, therefore you can percieve it. Even if you can't percieve it with your senses, you can percieve it cognitively.

Doesn't this invalidate what you've been saying in regards to persons who have never experienced certain senses? Why are such persons precluded from "perceiving it cognitively?" Please explain the difference between cognitive perception and sense perception such that it makes things we cannot perceive meaningless.

Let me know when you figure it out.

Thanks for the help :rolli: .

What humans are striving for isn't an understanding of objective reality, but an objective understanding of their relative reality. Simply because they can't percieve objective reality and it is therefore meaningless to them.

There is something missing between the inability to perceive the thing and the thing being meaningless. How can I cognitively perceive the divine, yet fail to cognitively perceive objective reality? I would find your argument at this point easier to accept if you can grant that we cannot perceive the divine in a meaningful way.

And yet color is relative, and is merely our perception of some facet of objective reality. Color is merely the sensory interpretation and subsequent perception of a wavelength of light. Therefore, it's something that has importance in relative reality, not objective reality.

Its fundamental basis, that is its existence as some facet of objective reality, is necessarily lacking importance?

I'm afraid your case isn't too strong at the moment. I would say you are in the illusion that science and other such pursuits are a quest to understand the objective reality, when they are merely an objective (as in the parameters are defined) attempt to understand our relative reality. Thankfully, much of our relative reality is based on objective reality, so we do attain minute portions of truth in a way we can understand.

This is what I'm not understanding in your continuing rebuttals: you say that we "do attain minute portions of truth in a way we can understand" here, and I can't see how this isn't admitting that pieces of objective reality make it through to our relative perceptions in some way. For your argument to retain both its necessity and sufficiency, there can be absolutely no meaning for us in anything actually objective. I am having trouble seeing how you can make any claims in regards to "truth" following this.

Not to make your case for you, but this might be along the lines of what you are trying to express.
1. We know there is an objective reality and we know we can't percieve it.
2. Even though we can't percieve it, we can use the understanding that we can't percieve it to make it meaningful.

1 is right. I would modify 2 a little bit: how about "Even though we can't perceive it, we can understand the things we can perceive relative to us to occasionally stem from the objective." Leading to 3: We can find meaning from objective reality.

This is arguing the same concept I presented back on the first page with a vase analogy. Space being the "absence" that makes something of existence, "meaningful".

<example>

Is that along the lines of what you are trying to express?

Not entirely, but some facets therein seem to line up.

However, the problem is, that there is no sense in trying to understand objective reality. It would be like trying to understand space without matter. Hold up your fingers and look at the space between them. Now remove your fingers and try to percieve the same space. It only has relevance when we can percieve it, and we can only do so relatively. In the case of space, we have to have matter to use as reference. In the case of objective reality, we have to have our perceptions as reference.

Yet trying to understand space without matter can lead us to insights that we would otherwise be kept from if we never tried to do so. I fail to see how such insights are necessarily meaningless.

DeliriousDisposition:

I think you're following me correctly, except that I don't mean to argue for an absolute claim about the normative meaningfulness of objective reality. All I need is one example where objective reality succeeds as being meaningful for a human to prove my point. I'm not looking to claim that objective reality is of great meaning, but just that we need to give objective reality a little credit for leading us to certain things in certain ways.

 

[Kiddo]

Let's take a different tact here. Clearly we have a different conception of what meaningful means. So before we continue, would you please provide your definition. To me, meaningful means tangible and significant.

Your point about the divine is interesting. People can't percieve the divine with their senses so everyone tends to have a different conception of it in their minds. Somebody then writes a book which provides a tangible conception of the divine, and still people can have greatly varied cognitive perceptions of the divine. Therefore the perception of the divine is highly relative.

 

[zarc]

DeliriousDisposition:

I think you're following me correctly, except that I don't mean to argue for an absolute claim about the normative meaningfulness of objective reality. All I need is one example where objective reality succeeds as being meaningful for a human to prove my point. I'm not looking to claim that objective reality is of great meaning, but just that we need to give objective reality a little credit for leading us to certain things in certain ways.

I'm following you, eh? I don't recall when Kiddo, if that's whom you want proving it to you, stated that objective reality wasn't meaningful to humans. I think he means that it is paired with relativity, they both work together? I made an analogy some post before about the two being a marriage and we the grandchildren fighting to prove who's the most favourite lol

Objective reality IS meaningful. We are 'objectively' existing with bodies. We can relatively understand that. Because you exist on the other side of the world and I can't perceive you relatively, does not mean you do not exist to me or that it isn't meaningful. I'm just unaware of your existence, I can't perceive what I cannot see so at the moment, you are not meaningful to me, but again, it does not mean you don't exist. It's the same for when humans began travelling to ascertain 'what was out there' and expecting the worst. You could say their ignorance to different ethnicities was because they'd never perceived them before (objectively). Now we live in a time where we know humans exist in all shapes, sizes etc, but it isn't less meaningful because we can't see every single one. It's meaningful in itself, for some people, just knowing there are others out there. For others, it's not meaningful. That's where relativity comes in. And it could be meaningful in other ways not understood yet. Say, when a country you didn't know of or didn't care of decides to invade your own. They're objectively in your space now and become a different kind of meaning for you.

Physicists claim we are energy seemingly soldified into mass as all things are (and other people, in Asia, believed thousands of years prior that we are energy working it out through zones known as Chakras)

If we retained only our consciousness w/o having a body, objective reality would become meaningless for us. We know that the sun's energy nourishes the Earth yet we don't see it. It's still meaningful to us though we we aren't relatively seeing a ton of rays showering the Earth which would probably blind us lol

It's as when we dream. Our consciousness, you could say, has 'tuned' into another station and we 'see' our dreams yet it is not happening in objective reality. It is 100% relative to the dreamer.

Kiddo: It's as I said when I altered what you err said:

I'd like to add onto that. It's not that people perceive the divine. Rather, they perceive what they believe to be the divine which has meaning to them.

 

[Kiddo]

Okay, so we don't have contention with these four points. Let me try to reword the 5th.

1. There is an objective reality.
2. The objective reality can only be observed through relative means (sensory experiences, human cognition, measurement, etc.) and therefore it can only be known relatively.
3. Our relative understanding of the objective universe (science, philosophy, etc.) is based upon standardized relative measurements (time, length, mass, etc.) and is therefore limited to certain parameters we have defined.
4. Therefore, there is also a relative reality based upon human perception of the objective reality.

5. The objective reality only has relative meaning to us.

6. Every individual experiences the relative reality differently.

Does that work better? Because I want to make the following charges.

1. Reason is only an objective means of interpreting relative reality.

Since reason is limited to understandings and experiences based on perception, it cannot be utilized to understand objective reality.

2. We cannot extrapolate absolute or universal truths from the objective reality.

We can extrapolate absolute or universal truths in relative reality. However, those truths are limited to the parameters by which they were derived. It is only true under all the conditions by which they were defined.

 

[Rohsiph]

Let's take a different tact here. Clearly we have a different conception of what meaningful means. So before we continue, would you please provide your definition. To me, meaningful means tangible and significant.

This is actually an excellent idea

as, it turns out, I disagree that meaningful must necessarily be tangible. Significant is an excellent word to use, though.

This isn't offering a detailed account of my conception of what meaningful means, but I'm gonna cop out completely this time and leave it as it is for the moment. If you'd like, I could probably make an attempt sometime tomorrow night, but can't warrant the time and effort to do so at this moment.

Your point about the divine is interesting. People can't percieve the divine with their senses so everyone tends to have a different conception of it in their minds. Somebody then writes a book which provides a tangible conception of the divine, and still people can have greatly varied cognitive perceptions of the divine. Therefore the perception of the divine is highly relative.

Following this example, would you deny that I could theoretically provide a tangible conception of objective reality, while people could still have greatly varied cognitive perceptions of objective reality? I'd like to go along with you here, as I think there's a nice compromise we could reach here between our views.

DeliriousDisposition:

I think you continue giving an excellent account of a place inbetween the argument Kiddo and I have been at, showing important facets of both extremes we've been digging into.

Then following Kiddo's most recent post:

I can accept your reformulated argument. The major issue I had before was your insistence that objective reality (or "the objective," if we might consider an objective existence different from pure "reality") is meaningless. I'm still a bit disappointed that you appear to continue denying the possibility for us reaching insights from the objective in a way that would lead to the objective being largely meaningful, but I think you've found a nice way to solve the primary problem I had with your previous argument.

I'm actually sympathetic to most of your argument as far as relativity of perceptions (among other internal faculties) is concerned, but can't give up my strong intuition that it's irresponsible to make an absolute claim about the objective being meaningless to us especially if you're going to accept the claim that much of what we perceive can most likely be traced back to the objective. I have a feeling that the actual meaningfulness that can truly be traced back to the objective (if we were to pursue this argument with greater ferocity) might amount only to trivial things, but trivial things are enough to discount absolutes.

Interesting discussion. (Note: this isn't to say I'm abandoning the topic if there's more to say )

 

[zarc]

DeliriousDisposition:

I think you continue giving an excellent account of a place inbetween the argument Kiddo and I have been at, showing important facets of both extremes we've been digging into.

Why stuck inbetween like limbo? I have no place of my own?! So I haven't yet brought greater insight?

Seriously, though, I felt largely insignificant to what you both were saying lol So I'm glad I somewhat bridged "you both", at least, for you. Ha.

Interesting discussion. (Note: this isn't to say I'm abandoning the topic if there's more to say )

Now....if you'd both just listen to me and perpetuated my belief that we relatively perceive the objective reality around us and through our beliefs on what was/is perceived make it significant and valuable and meaningful or not, then we'd all be happy and sleep better at night

Oh. And if we were pure consciousness w/o a body then we wouldn't perceive objective reality anymore only a relative one

 

[zarc]

Absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand is my wanting to know what anime that Avatar is from as I keep thinking it's Kira from GS/D with a hot flash-- (Edit: hot flash as I keep perceiving his cheeks as pink--no clue why lol)

Carry on the discussion...

*hides again*

 

[Kiddo]

I'm actually sympathetic to most of your argument as far as relativity of perceptions (among other internal faculties) is concerned, but can't give up my strong intuition that it's irresponsible to make an absolute claim about the objective being meaningless to us especially if you're going to accept the claim that much of what we perceive can most likely be traced back to the objective. I have a feeling that the actual meaningfulness that can truly be traced back to the objective (if we were to pursue this argument with greater ferocity) might amount only to trivial things, but trivial things are enough to discount absolutes.

Interesting discussion. (Note: this isn't to say I'm abandoning the topic if there's more to say )

Well the essence of my argument is that we don't know exactly what is from the objective reality and what isn't. I made this case as a rational argument against Randism. So far, it seems very effective. My intuition is very adverse to that "rational" philosophy. I think that hag should have been hung for developing a religion that has corrupted countless intelligent people.

Why stuck inbetween like limbo? I have no place of my own?! So I haven't yet brought greater insight?

Seriously, though, I felt largely insignificant to what you both were saying lol So I'm glad I somewhat bridged "you both", at least, for you. Ha.



Now....if you'd both just listen to me and perpetuated my belief that we relatively perceive the objective reality around us and through our beliefs on what was/is perceived make it significant and valuable and meaningful or not, then we'd all be happy and sleep better at night

Oh. And if we were pure consciousness w/o a body then we wouldn't perceive objective reality anymore only a relative one

Don't sell yourself short. You play your part. If I didn't have a particular goal in mind then I would be far more open to tangents as far as my model is concerned. However, I am listening and taking stock of what you say. And as Roh said, you have bridged the gap between us a lot throughout the thread, providing great insight.

 

[Kiddo]

Absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand is my wanting to know what anime that Avatar is from as I keep thinking it's Kira from GS/D with a hot flash-- (Edit: hot flash as I keep perceiving his cheeks as pink--no clue why lol)

Carry on the discussion...

*hides again*

I honestly have no idea. I only picked him because he has brown hair and brown eyes like me.

 

[zarc]

Well the essence of my argument is that we don't know exactly what is from the objective reality and what isn't. I made this case as a rational argument against Randism. So far, it seems very effective. My intuition is very adverse to that "rational" philosophy. I think that hag should have been hung for developing a religion that has corrupted countless intelligent people.

I'd never heard of Rand lol but knew of objectivism. That's rather rude, calling her a hag, what did she ever do to you?!

Rand's Objectivism uses the term in a new way: it treats knowledge and values as neither subjective, nor intrinsic in existence (the traditional meaning of "objective") but rather as the factual identification, by Man's mind, of what exists.

That seems somewhat contrary, doesn't it? Not subjective but "factual identification" based on Man's mind of what exists? Wouldn't that indicate it being subjective to the "individual's perception of mind"?

Yo...reading a bit about her she seems VERY CONTRARY. She advocated the political freedom and equality for homosexuals even though she disliked it even so much as to call the gay rights movement "hideous" and homosexuality itself was too repuslive/loathsome/immoral to put into words. And that she wouldn't like to see in print her thoughts about it as it's too base a language. etc etc etc she's dead so no more etc. But why grant them 'equality' when they'd flaunt their immoral and disgusting ways in her face? :yim_rolling_on_the_

Methinks someone a masochist closet lesbian! Methinks it's okay to rescind you from calling her a hag! It is not strong enough, though, you weakling. I shall come up with a stronger word suitable for her disposition and character. Just remind me if I forget to tell you. Shit happens--It happens.

Don't sell yourself short. You play your part. If I didn't have a particular goal in mind then I would be far more open to tangents as far as my model is concerned. However, I am listening and taking stock of what you say. And as Roh said, you have bridged the gap between us a lot throughout the thread, providing great insight.

I play a part! blush: Thanks ) I feel like the kid stuck between arguing parents, though lol

And! It's not as fun as when others argue and I don't get to be attacked! Then again, it's probably masochistic of me to want that. OMGosh I've become so used to people fighting me viciously w/o rational opinions on topics it's what thrills me now!

I honestly have no idea. I only picked him because he has brown hair and brown eyes like me.

Damnit! I wanna know! It's just as aelan's Avatar, they both capture my attention all the time! Yours though...seems innocently sinister...as though you are somehow foreshadowing others with your true nature...as if to say "You feel for it, fools!!" when your true nature rears itself to the public!

INFJs = Conspiracist

Now let us await Rohsiph to contribute as I will undoubtedly offer no new insights unless I see you both go another round. Hmmmmmm

 

[hommefatal]

Relative is better. Objective just considers established facts while relative considers everything.