Are we better off not being objective?

[guesswho]

I recently read the "what is reality?" thread and it made me wonder what an objective reality would be like.
So, I saved 2 pictures of mugs ( I don't know if that's the right word...we call them cans in romania) to prove my point.

So, the first one:

It's your average default mug, nothing special about it.

The second one, a valentines day mug, this one stops being default, you probably won't have the same reaction to this mug, as you had to the default mug. Mainly because of it's significance.

So one might like Valentine's day mugs, because he might have pleasant Valentine's day memories, or maybe he hates those mugs, because they're fucking stupid.


In an objective reality the first mug would be pretty equal to the second mug. The second mug won't have any attached meaning to it, it would be just a mug, with different colors and heart shaped things on it. No big deal. An alien mug, since the heart shaped handles and the bright colors would make no sense.

So all the things we love or hate, would pretty much be nonsense, if we were actually objective. Many things would be stripped of their meaning.
There would be no beautiful/ugly people, no meaningful songs, no art, nothing human actually.
There would be no good things resulting from love, and no bad things resulting from hate, since these things would cease to exist.

 

[EcK]

Plato made that same 'mistake'. Basically classifying properties and 'essences' as being made of 'different stuff'.

You might, say that the 'mug' is defined by its function so that everything that isn't directly necessary to its function is secondary. But the 'quality' of it having fluffy things on it also has functions, such as activating our pleasure centers more than the plain one, being more stimulating, satisfying the human race's relative love of novelty, satisfy the need for differenciation promoted by society and making sense from the perspective of biological antropology.
Everything you describe as 'subjective' is ruled by the same principles as the things you call 'objective' and there's nothing but statistics and memes to indicate that a mug is to be defined as primarily *something you put liquids you intend to drink in, preferably hot drinks*. The function you associate as relevant to the 'mugness' of the mug and wether it's a 'plain mug' or not IS subjective.

 

[guesswho]

That's why I said the second mug wouldn't exist in an objective reality. (well I didn't say it, I just thought of it) And if we would come to live in such reality we would stop being human.

 

[EcK]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you may have misunderstood what I said. I said that your defining the mug by its 'receptacle for generally hot drinks' doesn't have any objective claim to be considered as the only relevant function for the mug. It all depends on the level of analysis. You'll get a very different mean answer to the question 'Why did you help this homeless person' from a biological antropologist, a very empathetic person etc. even if you saw a video and all of these people seemed to have done the exact same thing. And then there's no reason to discard 'functions' just because people aren't conscious of them but they've been evolutionarily selected because of the reproductive advantage they represented in our ancestors.
For example, from a large scale evolutionary perspective you can say that the function of ANYTHING you do is to reproduce. But you can 'zoom in' and find many sub function in the same 'vein', or you can change levels, and then mix them etc. because obviously all the different categorizations are artificial as the system in itself is tangled (every bit of information is interdependant)

 

[guesswho]

Well, I also excluded pleasure when I imagined that objective reality. But without pleasure, there's no point in existing right?!

See without pleasure, objects would only serve their functional purposes. But...there wouldn't be anyone to use them.

 

[Qlip]

I see what you're saying here. I see objectivity as the ability to flip 'up' the different filters and contexts that we view things through temporarily. I see it as a skill and not a state of being.

 

[Such Irony]

Well, I also excluded pleasure when I imagined that objective reality. But without pleasure, there's no point in existing right?!

What about about living things without any sort of nervous system such as plants? Is there any point in them existing? Well they do serve pleasure seeking animals either as food or shelter. If you look the course of evolution of living things you'll find that animals with the ability to feel pleasure came along much later in the timeline.

As humans, it's hard to imagine life with no pleasure at all because we are wired to seek things that give us pleasure and avoid the things that don't. There may a point in living without pleasure from a pure utilitarian perspective but the question is, would we want to? I don't think too many humans would be up for that. Life would be very boring indeed.

This got me to thinking about the T/F preference in the MBTI. Maybe we should just throw out the T/F preference because when you think of it, aren't humans ultimately ruled by feeling on a fundamental level? Seek pleasure and avoid pain. Oftentimes the "logical" decision is really the one that causes the most pleasure and avoids the most pain in the long run for the most people. But isn't that just ultimately making a feeling based decision?

See without pleasure, objects would only serve their functional purposes. But...there wouldn't be anyone to use them.

Well people do use some objects for purely utilitarian reasons. As far as coffee mugs go, I don't care if its plain white or not. I just want it to serve the purpose of drinking coffee. Then again, the object is serving as a means to pleasure. In this case, the pleasure of drinking coffee. So objects can be perfectly utilitarian in themselves but why would be using the object in the first place if we weren't doing it to obtain something pleasureable to us?

Interesting points, Guess Who.

 

[Athenian200]

Yes, probably.

I've been more objective than I really care to be. I have this way of thinking where the first mug is equivalent to the second one. It doesn't evoke a different reaction in me, although I know what reaction it is supposed to evoke.

What's strange about me, is that it always feels like I see things in an objective manner, but constantly try to behave according to the ways that other people see things. Like I'm a mirror. When I don't have any other people to mirror, I find myself becoming very apathetic and unmotivated... I get very close to being like an inanimate object except for a vague curiosity, and a desire to avoid pain/death.

This objectivity doesn't feel like something I want, though, so much as something I'm stuck with against my will. Like I'm stuck with awareness of something I might be better off not knowing.

 

[Rail Tracer]

Life is subjective.

 

[guesswho]

I don't know, is pleasure a feeling? I think it is though.

I don't see how we could function without feelings. We'd be surrounded by all these cold thoughts of some unreachable reason...

Thought seems to guide us...but feelings animate us.

 

[Rail Tracer]

I don't know, is pleasure a feeling?

Do you feel pleased?

 

[Athenian200]

Life is subjective.

You mean, when a doctor pronounces someone dead, it's subjective? There is no objective difference between a living person and a dead body? No objective difference in status?

I don't buy that.

 

[Qlip]

You mean, when a doctor pronounces someone dead, it's subjective? There is no objective difference between a living person and a dead body? No objective difference in status?

I don't buy that.

It's not either or. Biological death is objective, what it means to you is subjective. Is it Hitler or your Mom?

 

[guesswho]

Death can have an infinity of subjective meanings, but only one objective meaning.

 

[Athenian200]

It's not either or. Biological death is objective, what it means to you is subjective. Is it Hitler or your Mom?

That wasn't the statement, though. Whether it's Hitler or my Mom, we can say objectively whether the person is dead or not.

And of course, how you feel about the death of Hitler would be subjective. A lot of Germans were probably upset when he died, even though the Allies were happy. The most obvious difference between the subjective and the objective, is that everyone tends to share the same objective perceptions. They're not negotiable/debatable. But the subjective ones differ between groups, and sometimes even individuals.

 

[Qlip]

That wasn't the statement, though. Whether it's Hitler or my Mom, we can say objectively whether the person is dead or not.

And of course, how you feel about the death of Hitler would be subjective. A lot of Germans were probably upset when he died, even though the Allies were happy. The most obvious difference between the subjective and the objective, is that everyone tends to share the same objective perceptions. They're not negotiable/debatable. But the subjective ones differ between groups, and sometimes even individuals.

Yup, I agree with you. But in the end, it's all ego-centric, subjective. Objectively things happen, subjectively we care or don't care.

 

[guesswho]

2 people looking at a glass of water, one sees it's half empty side, one sees the half full side

 

[Qlip]

Or trees falling in the forest.

 

[Athenian200]

Yup, I agree with you. But in the end, it's all ego-centric, subjective. Objectively things happen, subjectively we care or don't care.

That's true. But I think that some people are better at noticing the difference between what is actually happening objectively, and the way caring about it or not caring about it makes it seem subjectively. And this awareness can make life much more complicated, leading to a tendency towards over-analysis and dissatisfaction.

2 people looking at a glass of water, one sees it's half empty side, one sees the half full side

But both of them could agree that the glass is holding an amount of water equal to 50% of its capacity. And they could both determine exactly how much water is in the glass, if they choose.

Although that's a far less interesting question, isn't it?

 

[nolla]

I think that everything's subjective means that we choose the things we see of the objective world. Of course when we are clearly looking at the same thing, it is highly probable that we see it in a same way, but still, we can't know that. How could we tell if my perception of green is not slightly different from your perception? To me it seems like objectivity is invented, while subjectivity is the only way we see the world.