Theory: Objectivism vs. Relativism

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I'm largely an objectivist. I just wish that someone a little less insufferable than Ayn Rand were the poster child for objectivism.

 

[GZA]

I pretty much agree with you, Kiddo (didn't read the rest of the thread, but I will).

Even objectivity is a choice made after subjective analysis of the word. And subjectivity is also impossible without external, independent variables in the word. The two depend on one another to exist and balance needs to exist.

Mankind can not exist without collectivism, but the individual can not exist without egoism and self-interest. The collective is in turn an external, independant variable and the ways of self-interest are a subjective choice of opinion. Funny how these things come together

That said, I'm definitely a relativist or whatever you called it (I've always thought of it as "subjectivity" myself). I beleive the economy exist for us, as a way to fund our social programs and keep the country (and consequently the world) in good shape. I believe that we need to help others in need.

But I also beleive in individualism, I believe people should guide their life on self interest. The way I see it, what the vast majority of people would end up doing is going to contribute to the whole anyway. There are always the right people to go in and fill demand because there are all kinds of people who naturally gravitate to different feilds, so if you let them act in self interest, they will. As Ayn Rand said, ebing "selfish" isn't a bad thing, it's acting for your own interest. I think selfishness is only bad when it stops other people from accomplishing what they need/deserve. I beleive in individualism, and that everyone deserves equal opportunity to develop their individual niche and thrive in it and that it is wrong to put yourself ahead to get far by shutting others down. and at that point, everyone is once again just a guinea pig in the collective The way this all comes back

Yep, I'm one more peice of evidence that F=relativist.

 

[Kiddo]

I'm largely an objectivist. I just wish that someone a little less insufferable than Ayn Rand were the poster child for objectivism.

Yes, she rejected the relative and thus doomed her philosophy. You can't accept only one side of a coin.

I pretty much agree with you, Kiddo (didn't read the rest of the thread, but I will).

Even objectivity is a choice made after subjective analysis of the word. And subjectivity is also impossible without external, independent variables in the word. The two depend on one another to exist and balance needs to exist.

Mankind can not exist without collectivism, but the individual can not exist without egoism and self-interest. The collective is in turn an external, independant variable and the ways of self-interest are a subjective choice of opinion. Funny how these things come together

Thank you. Although I do prefer the word "relative" to "subjective". Subjective relates to taking place within the individual mind as in being influenced by personal opinion, whereas relative is the argument against the absolute since it is defined to being related to circumstances or extremal conditions. However, relativity is subjectively defined because it can only be interpreted within the mind. But as you seemed to express, objectivity is relative (subjective) and relativity (subjectivity) is objective. You seem to have also captured the idea that they are inseparable, and coexist.

A professor once made this argument of the relative nature of objectivity.

If you were an alien, living on a different planet at a different point in the universe, then all the human objective observations of the universe would probably be non existent to you. The parameters by which we percieve the universe could be completely different to aliens on another planet. For example, we percieve time the way we do because of the speed we are moving, however if our planet were moving faster, then we would experience time slower than we actually do.

A scientist by the name of Einstein noticed this concept and deemed it the theory of relativity. All the measurements by which we understand time, (days, minutes, seconds) are based upon increments of how long it takes our planet to move around the sun. They are relative measurements, by which we make objective observations. In essence, every objective observation is based upon a relative measurement. Even our senses are relative experiences.

If you were an alien who interpreted a higher wavelength of light, then concepts such as "red" and "green" would probably be nonexistant to you. These are interpretations of light relative to human beings. We can even observe this on our own planet? What does "red" and "green" mean to a colorblind person? They of course, interpret these colors differently and have no conception of how others perceive those colors. More proof of the relative nature of our sensory experiences.

 

[ygolo]

(Warning: Long post. But I hope it is sufficently partitioned for your to jump to the sections you find worth reading)

The earlier part of your post made a lot of sense to me. To really be (as close to) objective (as we can get) we need to examine things from many points of view.

But...

A professor once made this argument of the relative nature of objectivity.

It is this sort of thing that I think takes "relativity" too far. Since I believe I understood what you were saying, I will attempt to make plain one so-called objectivist's objection to relativity when taken to this extent.

Central to the counter-point is the notion of a "transformation".
We'll start off simple with Newtonian mechanics, which is still considered a great appoximation for what we currently believe to be true.

Let's say we are thinking about a completely inelastic collision (i.e. the bodies stick to each other). What direction are the velocities of the bodies? What are the speeds of the bodies? What about the kinetic energies of the bodies? All these answers change based of the refenrence frame.

But the fact remains you are still describing the same collision. There will be well defined transformations of descriptions from various reference frames to the others.

In addition, if you chose intertial reference frames, you will find that the law of conservation of momentum still holds.

If you choose, non-inertial reference frames, there will be the existance of unacounted forces (which indicate that one is working from a non-intertial refence frame). But these are "artifacts" of the reference frame, "illusions" if you will.

This is the second part of the counter point. How does a relativist distiguish illusion from reality?

It seems like as extreme relativist position essentially says everything is an illusion. That, I think, is untenable (though I don't think many people take that extreme a position).

If you were an alien, living on a different planet at a different point in the universe, then all the human objective observations of the universe would probably be non existent to you.

You don't need to resort to alien life forms for this analogy. We know that fish and frogs and other animals percieve the world differently from human beings at a fundamental level.

But these different perceptions still don't change the underlying reality.

We can be fooled by optical illusions, but just because we percieve something doesn't make it real.

Stare at something red for a long time, then look at a white wall and you will see a "negative" of the object you were staring at, but that doesn't make the negative real.

Similarily, if you are anesthesized when someone kills you, you still die.

A color blind person once argued with me that a particular countainer was not blue but black, but I told him he was color-blind. He refused to believe me, but I had to get other people to coroborate the "blueness" of the container.

His perception of the equivelence of blue to black is an artifact, an illusion of his different perception. Not a different reality.

The parameters by which we percieve the universe could be completely different to aliens on another planet. For example, we percieve time the way we do because of the speed we are moving, however if our planet were moving faster, then we would experience time slower than we actually do.

A scientist by the name of Einstein noticed this concept and deemed it the theory of relativity.

Again this is a matter of "transformations." Length contraction was actually something that came up in the Michelson Morley experiment when they tried to measure the speed of light through the ether.

These types of weirdnesses (length contraction, time expansion, etc) were then captured by the Lorentz transformation

Einstein actually made the philosophical leap to move our perceptions-of-space-and-time to the realm of "artifact" of reference frame, and speed-of-light-through-a-vaccum as a fundamental constant independent of reference frame (and of course gave us E=mc^2*(Lorentz Factor))

Now to really test how much of a relativist vs. objectivist you are (I doubt anyone is that extreme):

We have probably heard about the fact that if we leave earth at near the speed of light and come back at the speed of light, the people on earth will have aged.

Consider this other situation:

We have two spaceships in the middle of space. Bob is on one, Sarah is on the other. One of the spaceships takes off near the speed of light away from the other and comes back near the speed of light.

From the reference frame of either Bob or Sarah's space ship, the other spaceship took of at the speed of light and came back.

So who aged more when the meet up again? Is it that Bob aged from Sarah's perspective, but Sarah aged from Bob's? Is it just relative?

No. One of them only had the illusion that the other went away and came back, but actually went away and came back himself/herself.

There will be other artifacts that the actually travelling ship will also observe however, which would tim him/her off that his/her spaceship was in reality the one moving away and comming back.

Twin paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, it seemed like what you were saying Kiddo, could have been misconstrued by some to mean that everything is an illusion, not that we percieve through things suceptable to illusion.

I hope what I wrote made sense, though it was long.

 

[Kiddo]

Anyway, it seemed like what you were saying Kiddo, could have been misconstrued by some to mean that everything is an illusion, not that we percieve through things suceptable to illusion.

I hope what I wrote made sense, though it was long.

Wow, you really thought all this through.

I don't think its an illusion, but I have come to the following conclusions about the nature of the universe.

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 only reality that has meaning to humans is the relative one, since if we did not exist, there would be no one to percieve the objective one. Whereas the relative reality would cease to exist with us.

And this is the tough one.

6. Every individual experiences the relative reality differently.

Now if you have any contention with any of those points then let me know.

 

[ygolo]

Now if you have any contention with any of those points then let me know.

We're pretty much in agreement on those points. Barring that I leave open the posibility of other entities (like God(s), or pets, or ...aliens) who could percieve things that could still be meaningful to humans.

 

[Kiddo]

We're pretty much in agreement on those points. Barring that I leave open the posibility of other entities (like God(s), or pets, or ...aliens) who could percieve things that could still be meaningful to humans.

Very good. Now I have a fairly logical basis to disagree with the Ayn Rand followers. Tell me what you think of my disagreements of Rand's primary principles.

Reality exists as an objective absolute-facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

That true. There exists an objective reality, but no human being will ever be able to percieve it.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

That isn't true because man's reason is a relative means of understanding the universe because it is based upon relative perceptions which come from relative sensory experiences. Man can only know the relative reality.

And since all the rest of Ayn Rands moral/ethical/political/economic ideas are based on those principles, the objectivists have no grounding for arguing absolutist beliefs.

 

[ygolo]

Very good. Now I have a fairly logical basis to disagree with the Ayn Rand followers. Tell me what you think of my disagreements of Rand's primary principles.

Reality exists as an objective absolute-facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

That true. There exists an objective reality, but no human being will ever be able to percieve it.

Unfortunately, say "no human being will ever be able to percieve [objective reality]" is to bold a claim. In a way, it disproves itself.

However, I would look at anyone who claims to have percieved absolute reality with a hefty dose of skepticism.

This is similar to the idea Nocturne puts forth regarding criticalism vs. justificationism.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

That isn't true because man's reason is a relative means of understanding the universe because it is based upon relative perceptions which come from relative sensory experiences. Man can only know the relative reality.

Although, I agree with you, I wouldn't actually claim it as logical. It is similar to the belief in God. One cannot prove these things in one direction or another.

Like the existence of objective reality, human-kind's limit on being able to percieve it is something with mounting evidence on one-side.

Still, some day, someone may be able to discover objective truth and prove humans can discover it (I think it unlikely)...
or someday, someone may be able to "prove" there is no objective reality (but that still seems like a self-contradiction to me).

And since all the rest of Ayn Rands moral/ethical/political/economic ideas are based on those principles, the objectivists have no grounding for arguing absolutist beliefs.

I really dislike Ayn Rand's brand of objectivism. I find it overly simplistic, and often seems to require followers (and often others) to have inhuman (as in impossible for humans to exhibit) levels of rationality.

"Homo-economicus" is another fallacy used by free-market promoters, with similarily irrational expectations of rationality.

Still, there are some good things to keep in mind with regards to these things. I don't think they even make good "approximations" to the truth. But they are "impressionistic" of it.

(That particular subtlety is something I have thought about a lot but not something I've really though about expressing. But if people are intersted, I can try to see if I can put the ideas into words)

 

[Kiddo]

Somehow I doubt people will be able to discover objective truth. But if they do it certainly won't be within our lifetimes. And it definitely won't have anything to do with human values, morals, or ethics as Rand is trying to suggest.

 

[ygolo]

Somehow I doubt people will be able to discover objective truth. But if they do it certainly won't be within our lifetimes. And it definitely won't have anything to do with human values, morals, or ethics as Rand is trying to suggest.

I'm inclined to agree. It is clearer to me to say that we may discover objective truth, but never be certain that we found it.

I also agree that finding objective truths having to do with human values, morals, or ethics are much harder than things having to do with unconcious objects in the world.

But I want to live forever so that remak about "in our lifetimes"....

 

[heart]

Theory: Objectivism vs. Relativism

Gads, what a scary, rigid dichotomy to be forced to consider a choice between.

 

[Kiddo]

Theory: Objectivism vs. Relativism

Gads, what a scary, rigid dichotomy to be forced to consider a choice between.

Well this is the summary of the conclusion we have finally tentatively agreed upon.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/128547-post25.html

 

[Mort Belfry]

I admit having come late to this thread, but to throw my oar in I'll say that I value Objectivism over Relativism.

That isn't to say that I practise it exclusively but I don't think anybody does. Like most I believe in an objective reality, but I believe we are so far away from it in our tiny miniscule perceptions. Every so often somebody will come along and chip away a chunk of objectivism, like Albert Einstein and his ironically titled, Theory of Relativity, but these people are few and far between.

I always try to be objective as possible, but I only have the same brand of brain as every other schmoe on this hurtling rock. The same brain that has evolved over time to meet standards of relativism to survive. Objectivism doesn't help you survive. In fact people that have put objectivism over relativism have been put in danger over the centuries. For example, Galileo.

I'm proud to say I don't have a social conscious, but even to assert that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm spreading objectivism. I could just be being destructively anti-relativism of which I know I have at times been guilty.

I can't see any holes in your conclusion, Kiddo, but staring into the wide encapsulating eyes of your avatar often leaves me without rebuttal.

 

[Kiddo]

I admit having come late to this thread, but to throw my oar in I'll say that I value Objectivism over Relativism.

That isn't to say that I practise it exclusively but I don't think anybody does. Like most I believe in an objective reality, but I believe we are so far away from it in our tiny miniscule perceptions. Every so often somebody will come along and chip away a chunk of objectivism, like Albert Einstein and his ironically titled, Theory of Relativity, but these people are few and far between.

I always try to be objective as possible, but I only have the same brand of brain as every other schmoe on this hurtling rock. The same brain that has evolved over time to meet standards of relativism to survive. Objectivism doesn't help you survive. In fact people that have put objectivism over relativism have been put in danger over the centuries. For example, Galileo.

I'm proud to say I don't have a social conscious, but even to assert that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm spreading objectivism. I could just be being destructively anti-relativism of which I know I have at times been guilty.

I can't see any holes in your conclusion, Kiddo, but staring into the wide encapsulating eyes of your avatar often leaves me without rebuttal.

Actually it could be argued that Galileo was also a relativist. He went against what was considered the objective truth of the time, the church. It's easy to assume that he is an objectivist because he tried to understand the universe as it is, but it's far more obvious that he was a balance of the two. Somebody who would challenge the universal truth of the time, while looking for new universal truths about the nature of the universe.

 

[zarc]

6. Every individual experiences the relative reality differently

I hate to jump in so late too but here's a tiny spin on it. So, I agree it's both objectivism and relativism. I believe in the collective consciousness stated as by Jung.

Specific and similiar experiences have been documented whether in writing or on tablets reaching thousands of years ago all over the world. Certain 'figures' or archetypes which seem similiar but with a different spin. Why? Well, an Indian who had mostly cows around them will find cows more sacred than an Kenyan who sees leopards all the time and then considers that sacred or an Native American who thinks the 'beaver spirit' animal is sacred. So, use that for religion. Similiarites in holy texts (they pretty much stole/adopted at a later point but not in the beginning...I digress...) but different 'beings' who are important to the society at hand.

Incubus/Succubus/Old Hag myths which is really something now known as Sleep Paralysis. They had different names throughout all of human history but they described the exact same 'sensations'/hallucinatory visions both auditory/visual. It's been in literature from as far as ancient China and Greece to later eras with Romeo and Juliet to Moby Dick and so on to this day. They called it 'demons' 'devils' because it was perceived as real fear/threat to them, especially as they were afraid of darkness. (a lot of dichotimies can be explained that way. dark vs light = evil vs good.). Today, we're not really afraid of the dark b/c of artificial light.

So, it's changed now. With the advent of horror movies and 'alien' movies, now people describe the same Sleep Paralysis symptoms except now they say it's "aliens" abducting them etc. Archetypes/fears change over time as we adopt new fears or suspicions.

Now that we have access to more 'knowledge' and have become more objective we are less affected by it but by no means can they stop perceiving relatively. It's just new objective information perceived them. A math prof might have dreams now of numbers instead of a lepprechaun etc

So our collective experiences evolve over time continously and we adapt and adopt them. Hope I made some semblance of sense as I rushed this. I went way more in depth on another thread.

 

[Totenkindly]

So our collective experiences evolve over time continously and we adapt and adopt them. Hope I made some semblance of sense as I rushed this...

Sure... and it is the same thing that Sagan suggested in "The Demon-Haunted World." So it's not like you are alone on this.

 

[zarc]

Sure... and it is the same thing that Sagan suggested in "The Demon-Haunted World." So it's not like you are alone on this.

Thanks, I'd never heard of him but I'm interested in his work now! lol Though, I'm saddened he passed away as research on Sleep Paralysis is a mostly new one by scientific standards (10-15-20 years, I think) but it's come to a point where info is accessible to the public. Especially online, though not all info is valid...

One researcher is a prof at my former university who has been undertaking a study on Sleep Paralysis for which I participated about 2-3 years from age 15. I know from intense personal experience how SP can induce people to believe in w/e they see. I've seen 'demons' to 'goblins' to 'handsome men' to "aliens", had prodding to poking to fucking to 'pulling me out' and taking me away to 'places'. Not all was horrific, some were unspeakably beautiful and led to other insightful experiences.

It's one of the reasons I believe in the 'collective conciousness' as when an SP sufferer 'awakens' (during REM dubbed REM HHE/Hypnagogic + Hypnopompic Experiences) the person is 100% conscious. All from vivid visual/auditory/sensate hallucinations to simply lying in bed with eyes open and without incident.

There is far too much information on such occurances to write off or as to absolutely define with confidence what humans experience or understand just yet. We'll keep evolving and adopting and adapting so long as we sustain reign on this planet (unless wiped out..). We are at a point where knowledge + science coupled with openmindness can explore and recover the roots of ancient understandings on topics such as religion. Explain why it is not only unnecessary but completely destructive and catastrophic to our society in this new era.

Objectivism will offer concrete explanations or theories and relativitism will distort them if not handled delicately and led astray by The Great Mob Mentality--- of whichever group deigns to speak the loudest yet again.

 

[Rohsiph]

I challenge

5. The only reality that has meaning to humans is the relative one, since if we did not exist, there would be no one to percieve the objective one. Whereas the relative reality would cease to exist with us.

on the basis that speculative inquiry, particularly following philosophical principles, into the nature of objective reality is a meaningful pursuit for humans.

Granted, such inquiry will be made largely through the relative perceptions & individual experience-influenced mental faculties of philosophers, I assert that it is wrong to say "the only reality that has meaning to humans is the relative one."

I see relativism-enabling philosophies to be extremely limiting--in and of how they necessarily run away from pursuing the critical "Truth" that is at the heart of what "Philosophy" necessarily tries to discover.

That said, relativistic measures outside of philosophy are both useful and necessary. In the day-to-day, we live with individual values fed by opinions and subjective perceptions of the things we come into contact with (both internally and externally). This is to say I don't mean to discredit all relativity, and in fact have a great appreciation for what is necessarily relative in human existence, but that I have trouble understanding how one can find strength in applying relativism to, particularly, epistemology, and also, although less so, to metaphysics.

 

[Kiddo]

I challenge



on the basis that speculative inquiry, particularly following philosophical principles, into the nature of objective reality is a meaningful pursuit for humans.

Granted, such inquiry will be made largely through the relative perceptions & individual experience-influenced mental faculties of philosophers, I assert that it is wrong to say "the only reality that has meaning to humans is the relative one."

I see relativism-enabling philosophies to be extremely limiting--in and of how they necessarily run away from pursuing the critical "Truth" that is at the heart of what "Philosophy" necessarily tries to discover.

That said, relativistic measures outside of philosophy are both useful and necessary. In the day-to-day, we live with individual values fed by opinions and subjective perceptions of the things we come into contact with (both internally and externally). This is to say I don't mean to discredit all relativity, and in fact have a great appreciation for what is necessarily relative in human existence, but that I have trouble understanding how one can find strength in applying relativism to, particularly, epistemology, and also, although less so, to metaphysics.

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.

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.

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.

 

[ygolo]

[...] I have trouble understanding how one can find strength in applying relativism to, particularly, epistemology, and also, although less so, to metaphysics.

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.

Still, I have yet to see an argument asserting the existence of the material world that doesn't beg the question. To some people, these things are actually illusions. Some people claim to be nihilists, and such arguments fail, for who they claim to be. (There is a case to be made for the idealist view point, in that most objects are actually composed of smaller objects (and space) and that the object itself is not that object without a perceiver. Would a chair be a chair to a gaseous entity that only interacts by absorbing and decomposing matter? For some idealists, at the base of these decompositions rests "mind" only, but that is another long discussion)

Consider a statement of the form:
"It is true that my belief, A, is objectively true."

Has anyone ever proved such a statement true?