The reality is our bodies are subject to nature's laws but our minds are free to create ideas contrary to nature. "Reality" is relative to the receiver of it
Convinced? Definitely not. “All BELIEFS are either TRUE or FALSE” is _not_ something a relativist would endorse so you're basically only preaching to those who are already convinced. Regarding the “The Sequoia is the most MASSIVE tree on Earth” example, the question is not that of whether there exists on Earth a tree more massive than the sequoia, it is that of whether there objectively exist such things as sequoias or trees or the Earth in the first place, and here, the “three orange dots world” objection holds.
So you set out to defend the existence of an objective reality, by starting with the premise that "a belief is true when it says reality is a certain way, and reality is in fact that way". I'm sorry, but that premise assumes the existence of an objective reality... In a world in which there is no objective reality, and where reality is socially constructed, a belief is true when a consensus emerges that this belief is true (consensus theory of truth); or when it works under the particular circumstances of the time, for that particular person or society (pragmatist theory of truth). Thus, from the very beginning of your video, your argument could be summed up as such: there is an objective reality, because I make the assumption that there is an objective reality... For a channel that calls itself "let's get logical", you display a singular lack of logic!
@@nicolasjanvier8617 Thanks for dropping in to the channel. Let me surprise you by granting the point immediately: there is definitely a constant risk of circular reasoning (or begging the question) on these matters! I'd only add in my defense that when it comes to the literature on truth, I think you'll find that it's hard for _all sides_ to get any purchase without coming close to making the mistake you're raising; that is, leaning on premises that are in turn dependent on the truth of the conclusion. In fact, this line of objection raises a lot of questions about what exactly the fallacy of begging the question amounts to. If the conclusion of all valid reasoning is already in a sense embedded in the premises (which is why it can be drawn out through valid reasoning), then what makes the difference between a legitimate valid argument and one that begs the question? As Roderick Chisholm once quipped, "I seem to stand accused of the fallacy of affirming the consequent." There is a rich vein of questions in this vicinity that I've long been interested in. In any case, the video is really more of a critique of a certain kind of argument _against_ objectivity. And although I've granted your point in a sense, I hope it's fair to say the video does a lot more than just blatantly beg the question: there is a whole string of examples and arguments and objections related to the truth and objectivity. I hope at least one or two of them made you think, or helped clarify where you stand. Cheers.
@@LetsGetLogical Hey, first of all let me praise you for being the bigger man here and not rising to my cheap insult (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist it; the relative impersonality of the internet brings out the worse in me). I must confess I stopped watching the video after I got annoyed around the 2 mins mark. So, with your first point (a belief is either true or false), I'm afraid I could not agree with this statement in the absence of an objective reality. The best I could grant you is that a belief may be either logically valid or not (and logical axioms are truth by definition, not objective truths). But in the absence of an objective reality, a belief maybe be true for one person, and false for another... In other words, it may be both true and false. You then carry one with "it's our job as truth seekers to make sure our belief is tethered to reality"... Well, same thing, this also assumes the existence of an objective reality. If I carry on with the video, you go on to make the assertion that "reality is ontologically objective"... Well, all I can say is that this statement comes back to the initial assumption you make: you still have in no way proven it. "If all of us went extinct tomorrow, the vast majority of reality would just keep on being"... same basic assumption. You then carry on with "we use language to describe reality". Same basic assumption, and what is more, to think that language is somehow tethered to some objective reality would raise a lot of objections from most linguists... Words are tethered to other words, not to the things themselves (the old arbitrariness of the sign). If you point out a tree to me and say the word 'tree', how in god's name do I know what you are referring to? You could be meaning a tree trunk, a branch, a leaf, the field behind the tree... etc. You will need to call upon other words (which are equally not tethered to reality) in order to point at the object (and again, assuming there is even an object). The video proceeds like this from what I can see, although I ended up losing patience with it again around the 9 mins mark. Bear in mind I am not saying that it is unreasonable to assume there is an objective reality outside of ourselves, but it remains an assumption which you will struggle to prove. Moreover, why would you give primacy to that objective reality (I am assuming here, you are a materialist; correct me if I am wrong)? The one thing I am sure of (assuming there is even such a thing as 'I'), is my conscious experience... but whether it is a conscious experience of an objective reality, or whether it is a purely subjective phenomenon, that I really cannot affirm. So the interesting question here is: why do you feel this need for an objective reality to even exist (let alone us having access to it!)? Is it really so unsettling and discomforting to stick with the phenomenal?
I think you are mixing up the terms "Reality" and "Truth". If pressed on it, I would say that truth is subjective, but I don't believe that reality is subjective or that "reality is the stories we tell ourselves" or whatever. I agree with you when you say that "reality is a certain way," and that reality is that way regardless of what you think of it. The problem is, I don't think that people who say that truth is subjective think that reality is subjective. I don't think that there are people who believe that actual reality is socially constructed, like you say at 7:40. The reason I say I would only call truth subjective if pressed on it, is because I think the terms "subjective" and "objective" are useless and only serve to muddy the waters to make things less clear. Let's replace them with mind-dependent and mind-independent, and see what happens to the question about if truth is subjective or objective. Is truth mind-independent? In your example, whether you say that there are 3, 7 or 4 objects in that mini world depends on how you define your terms, but once you have defined those terms, there are correct and incorrect ways to apply them. It would be incoherent for somebody who uses your first definition of an object to declare that there are 7 objects. If they have that definiton, then they would by necessity have to believe that there are 3 objects. There are certain conditions under which beliefs about the world would have to be accepted or rejected. A true belief is a belief that you have to accept, and a false belief is one that you have to reject. But, that makes truth a property of the coherence of the beliefs in a mind and a certain set of norms for rejecting and accepting beliefs. The beliefs certainly seem mind-dependent, but are those norms mind-dependent too? That's the question you really have to answer to get to the bottom of this. Is logic discovered, or invented? Your video doesn't really get there. You seem to just assume that if something make logical sense, then it is objective, and therefor mind-independent. And even IF logic is discovered and IF that means that it is mind independent, since truth seems to be a combination of mind-dependent beliefs and mind-independent logic, does that make truth mind-dependent, not, or both?
Agreed! The terms "objective" and "subjective" often just muddy the waters. Let's take your suggestion and speak in terms of mind-dependence and mind-independence. The problem with truth as _coherence_ is that it leaves truth unrelated to mind-independent reality. On a coherence model, I can believe P and P counts as _true_ as long as it fits my other beliefs without contradiction... even if the actual mind-independent reality _is in fact not-P._ Thanks for the thoughtful comment! I doubt I've answered to your satisfaction but that's roughly how I would go about trying to answer an objection along the lines you presented.
Set "X" = ""X" is an instantiation of the category "Some set containing only total lack of shared limitation"". If this set "X" were our collective existence(Our world) then our world would contain "Only total lack of shared limitation". However, if multiple people exist in our world, while this world is "X", then everyone shall necessarily be limited though the law of identity to be self-equal to some world sharing the intrinsic and extrinsic property of containing "Only total lack of shared limitation". This is contradictory. This is contradictory because the collective and individual existence of "Total lack of shared limitation" would itself be a shared limitation, insofar as it is wholly true of our world, it cannot possibly be wholly false. Therefore, it is limited to its whole self and its whole self only. But this is still a limitation, and it is extrinsically shared. Therefore, because "X" is contradictory, it cannot instantiate. Therefore, All sets of distinct being must be contain some shared set of limitations between them. Therefore, objective intersubjective reality exists (At least partially, full objectivity is not proven).
I was agreeing before this video as well that there is an objective reality. And also, when there are two conflicting opinions, at least one of them has to be wrong. They aren't true _for a certain person._ A statement is either true for everybody or for nobody. I do think however that there is something true about saying that races, genders, or for example nations are "social constructs". When you look at a geographical map with mountains and seas that is different in a way than a political map with nation borders. The mountains and seas would exist without humans but nations wouldn't exist. I would then ask myself the question which practical differences this distinction makes? I _wouldn't_ say that nations are unimportant, because they are "socially constructed". I suppose, for example when somebody in nation A wanted to help somebody in nation B, but they don't because they think that people should cooperate only within nations, it would make sense to remind them that nation borders were decided arbitrarily. Nation borders are a kind of heuristic - they aren't objectively true, they are just helpful thinking shortcuts. To summarize: I think there is a difference between geographical maps and political maps and "socially constructed" could be a term describing this difference. On the other hand there has to be a practical consequence of this difference. If a word (like socially constructed) isn't _useful,_ it shouldn't be used. I'm not totally sure what this practical difference is. Another example , a scene from Star Trek (2:10) th-cam.com/video/AcBTOU7RvbU/w-d-xo.html . The society of the aliens is split up in people who randomly are assigned to either "team green" or "team purple". Sometimes they fight. There is no good reason for them to fight and a quick way to prove that is by showing that the green class and the purple class are "socially constructed". You could prove that the fights are bad without this concept, but with it, it's faster. In that example there is no reason to have these two classes at all, but there could be reasons that make sense. Humans are categorized by their birthday, for practical, schooling reasons but a child one day before it's sixth birthday isn't "objectively", biologically different from a child one day after it's sixth (or 18th) birthday. I get why a birthday and age is objective in a sense, but still, there is also a sense where it's exact birthday or it's nationality is different from the fact which mountain is the tallest.
Hi, Let’s Get Logical, Thank you for this video. Time 1:30 You state: It will help to start afresh and begin with some basics. All beliefs are either true or false. My comment: I would start with the statement, “Everything is energy, and that is all there is to it.” With that true understanding or belief, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound? There is energy because everything is energy, but is there sound? As the ocean moves and no one is around, does it roar? When you look at a mountain, do you see the mountain? The observer effect the observed. Without an observer, there is only energy. Your eyes see nothing. The eyes’ function is to transmit information as wavelengths of energy. No trees are going down the optic nerve. No oceans going down the optic nerve. There are no mountains going down the optic nerve. There is only data in the form of electromagnetic and chemical signals that move down the optic nerve. That raw data is meaningless and chaotic till the mind interprets it. It is not the eyes that see. It is the mind that sees. It is the mind that interprets the chaotic data presented by the input data from the sensory organs. Without the observer and without the mind to interpret, all is energy and meaningless. There are no trees. There is no ocean. There are no mountains. There is only energy. There’s no time and no space, only energy. There are no beliefs, true or false. All is energy. Peace. Mike
I like abstract things, and movies, and good food... but this video topped them all... I've never been so hooked by any video... I'm so grateful to have found your channel and to have been enriched with this knowledge. And to see objective reality more clearly. In which you are a great youtuber "for me" :)
And how does one see objective reality more clearly? If there is no experience of objective reality, then does it matter whether it exists or not? How can anything objective be known when there is no objective experience?
Great video! Do you have any academic books on this subject? I have been looking for serious contemporary academic resources regarding objective/subjective reality.
You would assume our objective reality stems from objective truth, since our "reality" is nothing more then what we perceive. Our objective reality is based on our subjective truth in any moment.
Jon D, it's interesting that you put "reality" in scare quotes. I suspect that's because you realize at some level that that perception does not equal reality. Yes, perception is _our_ "reality". But making it relative to _us_ makes it subjective. So, yes, perception provides our subjective "reality". But it's not truly reality. That's why we had to use scare quotes. Reality-the genuine, objective kind-does not depend on us (in the way described in the video.)
@@LetsGetLogical Our perception does equal reality, we are limited to our subjective perception.....objective reality therefore can only exist as a concept we use to account for anything outside of that.
@@spunkyspyder11 On your view, what is it we are perceiving? On my view, the answer is obvious: "Objective reality". Now, of course, I'm not claiming that our perception perfectly captures objective reality or even that it captures the truth of objective reality at all. Only that there _is_ an objective reality. There has to be a _way things are_ and that's objective reality. Or perhaps you meant to say, "Perception equals _experienced_ reality." This is undeniably true. But not terribly interesting since it's just kind of definitional. To perceive is to have mental representations of the world (or something like that).
All I know is experience. I do not exist as an egoic entity separate from experience. Objective?, subjective?, What is this duality of which you speak? Namaste.
But how are we to tell when our beliefs "match" reality and when they don't? Aren't we always under the impression that our beliefs "match" reality, and yet, don't we also reserve the right to change our mind? Yes, it sure seems like there is a "reality independent of humans," but the point is that this reality has nothing to do with epistemology: We don't believe as we do BECAUSE those beliefs are "objective," but rather BECAUSE we find those beliefs justified by way of our experience. So the critique is not so much that "objective reality can be carved up in different ways," but rather the realization that its just a pretense that we can tell the difference between an "objective" belief and a "subjective" belief, which is why difference doesn't matter.
The observer and the observed are one, there being something outside of yourself is a thought. Now how can you prove that any pattern in the mind represents reality outside of the mind?
Nothing can be objectively true. Things can't exist without something to percieve them. That experience can only be subjective to the being that experienced it. Even if observed that observation is subjective to the observer.
@@Kevin-lv9qi Yes, the universe (as it is known and can only be known by subjective experience) would vanish as it only appears in experience, and all experience appears to be subjective. Conceptualized objective reality is only ever experienced or known through our subjective perspectives. That said, I think our differences in perspectives may come down to semantics.
@@paulwilligan I agree that I think our disagreement is simply semantics based. However, I still would argue that your position is an unnecessary one to hold. If I'm understanding you correctly, we can reduce your position to: our PERCEPTION of the objective universe would disappear if all minds disappeared. And to that I say: well, duh. Our PERCEPTION of the universe and the objective universe should not be conflated, though. The objective universe will continue to exist even if all minds stopped existing -- it does not need to be perceived to exist.
Thank you for the video! Actually, I can’t understand how we, people, who are by default subjective can claim that something perceived by us can be objective - I mean there’s no way to check that objectivity because every time we are checking we are putting this evidence through the subjective lense of our subjective consciousness “If we all were to become extinct at once, the mountains would still be there and so on…” But how is it possible to validate if that statement is true and get 100% evidence if no one with the conscious mind would be there to actually check how that experiment goes?
@@LetsGetLogical, thank you I was wondering what’s your take on that skeptical statement above? Not to put labels here, it’s just that my impression is that you lean towards metaphysical realism (based on your path of thoughts in the video), is that so? If yes, I’m curious to hear what place this default subjectivity of our consciousness takes in your objective reality formula? How doesn’t it impede the perception?
@@nataliak782 I take the more or less common view in contemporary analytic philosophy that we access the objective external world _fallibly_ through our subjective experience. On this view, there's not much at all about the contingent external world that we can know with certainty. But we sometimes have _enough_ justification such that our belief amounts to knowledge. Justification of this sort is a messy affair-experience, inductive reasoning, inference to the best explanation-but it gets the job done. However, an overall stance of epistemic humility is on order, especially when the problem of disagreement is considered. If interested, you can see my video: th-cam.com/video/nxFJCaPJNn0/w-d-xo.html.
@@LetsGetLogical, appreciate your detailed explanation 🙏🏻 And it seems I got the wrong impression about your leaning towards mataphysical realism 100% with you on the approach of balancing between the applied knowledge and epistemic humility! All theories that get enough justification to be useful in the determined range of cases are great to use as the frame of reference to get the job done. At the same time, it’s also important to remember of the fallibility to avoid fanatical clinging onto some viewpoint when it fails to explain a phenomenon out of the range of applicable ones. And, of course, epistemic humility is especially constructive and rewarding when it comes to the problem of disagreement Again, enjoyed our conversation and your videos! Looking forward to the new ones ✨
It's not that there is no way to check objectivity, it is that the concept of "objectivity" only exists within subjective mind. If actual objective reality exists, subjective mind can't know it. Try to think of an Apple objectively. Any thought of said apple revolves around subjective properties (color, taste, texture, smell, size, image, etc.) Human mind does not conceptualize objectively. It is kinda like trying to think of the infinite when all thought is finite (it won't fit).
Is this not impossible to prove? I don't know many metaphysical arguments, but I thought idealism seemed both unprovable and undisprovable.@@LetsGetLogical
Observation: Joe has a headache. The headache itself is subjective in that if Joe doesn’t experience it, then there can be no headache. An unfelt headache is like an unthought thought., an unfelt feeling. But the statement “Joe has a headache” is a statement of objective reality. Joe in fact is experiencing a headache. Material for another video?
Further statements of objective reality: Joe's headache started this morning, went away this afternoon, and was caused by stress. P.S. I had a friend in grad school who swore there could be such a thing as an unfelt pain. "The pain is there, you just don't feel it!" he would say. But I'm with you: pain _just is_ the feeling.
Is the difference that you were thinking of re: race/gender that they are, at least partially, ontologically subjective? Also, there might be a deeper worry here. Somewhat might concede, that, sure, linguistic ambiguity doesn't bear on what obtains in reality, BUT, as it turns out, we have no extra-conceptual/linguistic/perceptial/social way of *getting at* reality. So, in the mini-world example, we have no way of "stepping outside" of our concepts or language to see if we're really capturing something. Of course...this kind of dispute takes place at a pretty fundamental level, and leaves most of our thinking and discourse untouched (or at least I think so)...and I often reject it when I see people trying to dispel an "issue" via definition or something like that.
Three quick things about race/gender: (1) I wasn't sure what to say b/c I'm still working through it myself, so I wasn't hinting in the vid as much as genuinely asking!😄(2) Linguistic ambiguity is often at play in race/gender discussions and I suspect clarity at that level would dissolve a lot of the problems, (3) I raised race/gender _together_ and you and I have literally been typing them together as a single issue, but but of course they're different and don't actually map on to each other very well. They'd need to be treated separately (and probably, in my view, with different results on this question.) As to your deeper worry, about not being able to "step outside" our concepts or language: isn't that just an epistemological problem? Even if that epistemological thesis were true, how would it lead to a metaphysical conclusion about the nature of reality? (If you happen see this and have time, would value hearing your responses! This is an area where I'm learning and reaching conclusions tentatively.)
@@LetsGetLogical yeah the metaphysics of race and gender are definitely...a whole thing. As for the epistemological point...i think at its heart its a skeptical worry, that there are no metaphysical conclusions to be had. It's also one of the reasons why I'm skeptical of "truth" as a component of the JTB account of knowledge. I just don't know how to make sense of a notion of "truth" independent of justification.
@@CasualPhilosophy Fascinating! That probably drives you to something like coherentism... or maybe Williamson's Knowledge First approach? BTW, don't beat me to the punch on a Williamson video... I've got one planned! 😂 Thanks for the brief exchange. You helped me see more clearly where some might be coming from.
The sentence „I believe that apples exist“ is true but it’s truth doesn’t depend on a mind independent reality. But truth always depends on being and is therefore absolute. „I“ can mean different beings depending on who is using it. But I don’t care about words, I care about meaning. If Person A says „I believe that apples exist“ and person B says „Person A believes that apples exist“ then the two sentences are identical in meaning. The truth value of „the apple tastes good“ is indeterminate as long as it is not clear to whom it tastes good because it would otherwise not refer to anything that exists. It would lack a truthmaker. I think it is impossible for two sentences that are identical in meaning to have different truth values. With absolute truth I mean that a belief is true independent of who believes it. I think that we have good reasons to believe that there is a world independent of the Human mind but that doesn’t mean that there is actually a mind independent world. We base truth on being, this can of curse include an external world but it doesn’t collapse without it. I don’t think that the duality of objective and subjective truth is something important as long as both are absolute.
@@LetsGetLogical Do I have an understanding of „subjective truth“ that deviates from how most people use it? If I hade to define objective and subjective truth I would make it dependent on if the truthmaker is mind dependent or mind independent. But maybe it deviates to much from how most people use it.
I've wondered if we're better off ditching the notion of subjective truth. Because it's just a confusing way of saying _what seems true from the first person point of view._ But we all know that what _seems_ true isn't always true! Borrowing from your previous example: Person A says, "Mint chocolate chip is the best!“ and person B says, "Person A likes mint chocolate chip the best." We'd typically call the first sentence _subjective_ . What about the second sentence? The truth of the second sentence also depends on Person A's mind (i.e. subjective preference for mint chip).
What is a table? How many legs must it have? How long or short must it be? What is its best purpose? Which angle represent a table the best? Which language represents a table the best? When I think about subatomic particles, and I visualize the table made up of these subatomic particles, am I visualizing the same thing as you? Who is more correct? We can ask these questions and doubt each other in each others answers until the end of time. None of us know what a table is, and that is objective truth. It is also true that objectively we must agree that it is a table to work with it and get on with our day. However, I think about and interpret this mind experiment subjectively. The two are inextricably linked, however, subjectively comes first. It must or I would else be dead.
My own view is that the objective truth is this: _there are no tables._ I'm a compositional nihilist. Only elementary particles exists. So it's not a table, it's particles-arranged-table-wise. But you're right to say that, practically, we have to simply call it a "table" to go about our day.
To me objective reality is simply the rules of the game. We must look at a table objectively as particles and as a compositional whole. The interpretation remains entirely subjective though and for that reason subjectivity takes the drivers seat position. Objectivity sits passenger side reading the map to us…if that makes sense.
How does subjectivity come first? Subjectivity is our perception OF objective reality, so objective reality must come first. The interpretation of what constitutes a table is not entirely subjective, as you claim. It's only subjective WITHIN the ambiguity of the definition of a table. Some things, like a spider or the sun, are so removed from the meaning of the word that someone who claims such things were tables would be objectively wrong.
Subjectivity overrides objectivity. If you could truly be objective you’d understand the world in some godlike way. Which you can’t. You’re confined to your own capacity to perceive.
Why are new generations (I’m generalizing here‼️)so inclined to subjective believe? I’m 51,my daughter is 20.No matter what we discuss or talk about,we inevitably end up with her saying my beliefs are all subjective.I am willing,If I make an effort to agree for instance about my Christian Faith.But then we talk about communism vs A free market society and subjectivism can’t work here.I tend to believe that perhaps she has a whole life in front of her,therefore a sea of possibilities of change and transformation. Facts Matter.
I think it comes from society's progression out of more /exclusionary/ times. The younger generation has been told that they must accept ALL perspectives in order to be inclusive.
you need to look at consciousness and its role in creating reality. Experience can only exist with awareness, and experience is reality, nothing exists without it being observed
Watch out for deep holes and sharp objects! EDIT: In case this needs explanation, there may be a deep hole or a sharp objection in your proximity that _nobody in the world is aware of_ -including you. But that doesn't change the _reality_ of the danger it poses for you. Holes and sharp objects teach hard lessons about the mind-independent world.
@@LetsGetLogical But nevertheless those are ideas, yes they are sustainable to believe so we can quantify experience into categories and forms to use as guides, eg: hole would be, in the context you used, a good idea to use when being cautious of are saftey, but is this hole an essential thing independent of experience/awareness outside our use of the idea in the given context? I dont think it's justified in saying so because it is the activity and context which differentiates the holes' mechanism and function which makes it a hole in the first place, and if we took away the interactive meaning / the function, there would be no differentiation which gave it form in the first place.
@@juliesuegordon Mechanism? Function? Category and form? Look, a hole is just not that complicated. It's a just hole- an empty space in the ground. And empty spaces in the ground existed _way_ before there were conscious creatures around to create language about holes or ideas about holes or imagine the function or context of holes. There are billions of holes out there in the cosmos that literally no conscious being has ever experienced.
You CAN see it with your eyes. The fact eyes are an imperfect tool don't allow you to see objective reality perfectly doesn't mean you aren't observing it.
Don't disagree that this is difficult ground. What counts as "real" is itself a thorny issue. FWIW, I learned a lot from David Chalmers' recent book _Reality+_ . Highly recommend if you're interested.
No there is only 7…object because the other one didn’t see all the possibilities but if he sees it as it really is he will see 7object a bikini 👙 is one object made of 2 but no one says it’s 2object therefore the dude thinking there is 3object is on the wrong
“My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense.” -Wittgenstein Heads-up, there's a lot of disguised nonsense out there.
@@israelcastro4366 In the chapter this video is largely based on, van Inwagen gives as an example this sentence he found in a piece of philosophy: "The world is a progressively self-realizing community of interpretation.” If you've seen my video on fact vs. opinion, you'll know that I think a lot of talk about _facts_ and _opinions_ is disguised nonsense. Sometimes a few careful questions is enough to expose the nonsense.
You define truth through reference to reality. It seems like you take reality as more basic than truth. So you have no way to evaluate this statement: There's no such thing as reality. It doesn't say anything about things within reality. Even worse. You need it to be the case that: There is such thing as reality. But you cannot say it is true because it doesn't correspond to reality. For me, this is one of the many reasons why reality is not a thing, just nosense. I am a nihilist about truth. This means i believe there is no truth at all. Do i believe this to be truth? yes and no. Contradiction? When i seem to both assert and deny it, do i really caim it to be true? I seem to claim nothing, right? Nihilism.
Some good thoughts here, Georg. Thanks for chiming in. Two things to think about: (1) If you deny the existence of truth, then you can't have any beliefs. Because a belief just is _taking something to be true_ . So you can't _believe_ there is no truth. (2) When you tell me, "There is no such thing as reality," aren't you trying to help me see the way things _really_ are? And isn't "the way things really are" just another way of saying "reality"? On the other hand, if you're _not_ trying to describe the way things really are, then why should anyone care about what you say? 🙂 Thanks for watching.
@@LetsGetLogical Hi :-D It's just a game. I think from your position it's best to say that your philosophy of truth is close to common sense and that my position contradicts it. (1) You point out that i'm contradicting myself. (2) You claim that i'm committing a performative contradiction in "explaining my position". You are right, but a nihilist about truth is also nihilist about logic. You are either believe truth is meaningful or you don't. I didn't ever encounter any approach/method/theory/explanation/definition of truth that would succeed at its own purposes. So personally, i'm a nihilist philosophically. And practically, i restrict myself to "truth" within some limited interpretation that is of course supposed to fail when scrutinized or pushed too far. BTW, there exist paraconsistent logics. It's an active area of philosophy and mathematics. There's a position called Dialetheism that suspects some contradictions could be necessary and advocates to accept them. The motivations for paraconsistency is basically that it is unavoidable for certain goals. "(1) If you deny the existence of truth..." I think you didn't argue from my premiss so that reductio doesn't work. If there is no truth, who cares about "contradictions" Nihilism is ineffable and contradictory (when you still try to analyze it from some framework). But if you spend some time analyzing how every concept and every theory fails, you will realize that we engage in nonsense all the time.
@@LetsGetLogical Cool! Thanks. Maybe such extreme possitions, even when ultimately rejected, can enrich our perspectives on meaning, truth and knowledge.
Interesting that you chose pain as an example. Because pain is subjective; i.e., without a an internal, first-person point of view- _your_ point of view-their would be no pain. Still, your point is well taken: the world is full of brick walls, cliffs, hammers and other objectively real objects that must be safely navigated in order to live well.
Convinced? Let me know what you think!
The reality is our bodies are subject to nature's laws but our minds are free to create ideas contrary to nature. "Reality" is relative to the receiver of it
Convinced? Definitely not.
“All BELIEFS are either TRUE or FALSE” is _not_ something a relativist would endorse so you're basically only preaching to those who are already convinced. Regarding the “The Sequoia is the most MASSIVE tree on Earth” example, the question is not that of whether there exists on Earth a tree more massive than the sequoia, it is that of whether there objectively exist such things as sequoias or trees or the Earth in the first place, and here, the “three orange dots world” objection holds.
So you set out to defend the existence of an objective reality, by starting with the premise that "a belief is true when it says reality is a certain way, and reality is in fact that way". I'm sorry, but that premise assumes the existence of an objective reality... In a world in which there is no objective reality, and where reality is socially constructed, a belief is true when a consensus emerges that this belief is true (consensus theory of truth); or when it works under the particular circumstances of the time, for that particular person or society (pragmatist theory of truth). Thus, from the very beginning of your video, your argument could be summed up as such: there is an objective reality, because I make the assumption that there is an objective reality... For a channel that calls itself "let's get logical", you display a singular lack of logic!
@@nicolasjanvier8617 Thanks for dropping in to the channel. Let me surprise you by granting the point immediately: there is definitely a constant risk of circular reasoning (or begging the question) on these matters! I'd only add in my defense that when it comes to the literature on truth, I think you'll find that it's hard for _all sides_ to get any purchase without coming close to making the mistake you're raising; that is, leaning on premises that are in turn dependent on the truth of the conclusion. In fact, this line of objection raises a lot of questions about what exactly the fallacy of begging the question amounts to. If the conclusion of all valid reasoning is already in a sense embedded in the premises (which is why it can be drawn out through valid reasoning), then what makes the difference between a legitimate valid argument and one that begs the question? As Roderick Chisholm once quipped, "I seem to stand accused of the fallacy of affirming the consequent." There is a rich vein of questions in this vicinity that I've long been interested in.
In any case, the video is really more of a critique of a certain kind of argument _against_ objectivity. And although I've granted your point in a sense, I hope it's fair to say the video does a lot more than just blatantly beg the question: there is a whole string of examples and arguments and objections related to the truth and objectivity. I hope at least one or two of them made you think, or helped clarify where you stand. Cheers.
@@LetsGetLogical Hey, first of all let me praise you for being the bigger man here and not rising to my cheap insult (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist it; the relative impersonality of the internet brings out the worse in me). I must confess I stopped watching the video after I got annoyed around the 2 mins mark. So, with your first point (a belief is either true or false), I'm afraid I could not agree with this statement in the absence of an objective reality. The best I could grant you is that a belief may be either logically valid or not (and logical axioms are truth by definition, not objective truths). But in the absence of an objective reality, a belief maybe be true for one person, and false for another... In other words, it may be both true and false. You then carry one with "it's our job as truth seekers to make sure our belief is tethered to reality"... Well, same thing, this also assumes the existence of an objective reality. If I carry on with the video, you go on to make the assertion that "reality is ontologically objective"... Well, all I can say is that this statement comes back to the initial assumption you make: you still have in no way proven it. "If all of us went extinct tomorrow, the vast majority of reality would just keep on being"... same basic assumption. You then carry on with "we use language to describe reality". Same basic assumption, and what is more, to think that language is somehow tethered to some objective reality would raise a lot of objections from most linguists... Words are tethered to other words, not to the things themselves (the old arbitrariness of the sign). If you point out a tree to me and say the word 'tree', how in god's name do I know what you are referring to? You could be meaning a tree trunk, a branch, a leaf, the field behind the tree... etc. You will need to call upon other words (which are equally not tethered to reality) in order to point at the object (and again, assuming there is even an object). The video proceeds like this from what I can see, although I ended up losing patience with it again around the 9 mins mark. Bear in mind I am not saying that it is unreasonable to assume there is an objective reality outside of ourselves, but it remains an assumption which you will struggle to prove. Moreover, why would you give primacy to that objective reality (I am assuming here, you are a materialist; correct me if I am wrong)? The one thing I am sure of (assuming there is even such a thing as 'I'), is my conscious experience... but whether it is a conscious experience of an objective reality, or whether it is a purely subjective phenomenon, that I really cannot affirm. So the interesting question here is: why do you feel this need for an objective reality to even exist (let alone us having access to it!)? Is it really so unsettling and discomforting to stick with the phenomenal?
I think you are mixing up the terms "Reality" and "Truth".
If pressed on it, I would say that truth is subjective, but I don't believe that reality is subjective or that "reality is the stories we tell ourselves" or whatever. I agree with you when you say that "reality is a certain way," and that reality is that way regardless of what you think of it.
The problem is, I don't think that people who say that truth is subjective think that reality is subjective. I don't think that there are people who believe that actual reality is socially constructed, like you say at 7:40.
The reason I say I would only call truth subjective if pressed on it, is because I think the terms "subjective" and "objective" are useless and only serve to muddy the waters to make things less clear.
Let's replace them with mind-dependent and mind-independent, and see what happens to the question about if truth is subjective or objective.
Is truth mind-independent?
In your example, whether you say that there are 3, 7 or 4 objects in that mini world depends on how you define your terms, but once you have defined those terms, there are correct and incorrect ways to apply them. It would be incoherent for somebody who uses your first definition of an object to declare that there are 7 objects. If they have that definiton, then they would by necessity have to believe that there are 3 objects.
There are certain conditions under which beliefs about the world would have to be accepted or rejected. A true belief is a belief that you have to accept, and a false belief is one that you have to reject.
But, that makes truth a property of the coherence of the beliefs in a mind and a certain set of norms for rejecting and accepting beliefs. The beliefs certainly seem mind-dependent, but are those norms mind-dependent too?
That's the question you really have to answer to get to the bottom of this. Is logic discovered, or invented? Your video doesn't really get there. You seem to just assume that if something make logical sense, then it is objective, and therefor mind-independent.
And even IF logic is discovered and IF that means that it is mind independent, since truth seems to be a combination of mind-dependent beliefs and mind-independent logic, does that make truth mind-dependent, not, or both?
Agreed! The terms "objective" and "subjective" often just muddy the waters. Let's take your suggestion and speak in terms of mind-dependence and mind-independence.
The problem with truth as _coherence_ is that it leaves truth unrelated to mind-independent reality. On a coherence model, I can believe P and P counts as _true_ as long as it fits my other beliefs without contradiction... even if the actual mind-independent reality _is in fact not-P._
Thanks for the thoughtful comment! I doubt I've answered to your satisfaction but that's roughly how I would go about trying to answer an objection along the lines you presented.
White people cannot deal with reality being subjective I’ve noticed.
Great video! I had to laugh in the beginning as I thought to myself: "Aren't there 8 objects when you include the background?" 🤣🤣
Set "X" = ""X" is an instantiation of the category "Some set containing only total lack of shared limitation"".
If this set "X" were our collective existence(Our world) then our world would contain "Only total lack of shared limitation".
However, if multiple people exist in our world, while this world is "X", then everyone shall necessarily be limited though the law of identity to be self-equal to some world sharing the intrinsic and extrinsic property of containing "Only total lack of shared limitation". This is contradictory. This is contradictory because the collective and individual existence of "Total lack of shared limitation" would itself be a shared limitation, insofar as it is wholly true of our world, it cannot possibly be wholly false. Therefore, it is limited to its whole self and its whole self only. But this is still a limitation, and it is extrinsically shared. Therefore, because "X" is contradictory, it cannot instantiate. Therefore, All sets of distinct being must be contain some shared set of limitations between them. Therefore, objective intersubjective reality exists (At least partially, full objectivity is not proven).
I was agreeing before this video as well that there is an objective reality. And also, when there are two conflicting opinions, at least one of them has to be wrong. They aren't true _for a certain person._ A statement is either true for everybody or for nobody.
I do think however that there is something true about saying that races, genders, or for example nations are "social constructs". When you look at a geographical map with mountains and seas that is different in a way than a political map with nation borders. The mountains and seas would exist without humans but nations wouldn't exist. I would then ask myself the question which practical differences this distinction makes?
I _wouldn't_ say that nations are unimportant, because they are "socially constructed". I suppose, for example when somebody in nation A wanted to help somebody in nation B, but they don't because they think that people should cooperate only within nations, it would make sense to remind them that nation borders were decided arbitrarily. Nation borders are a kind of heuristic - they aren't objectively true, they are just helpful thinking shortcuts.
To summarize: I think there is a difference between geographical maps and political maps and "socially constructed" could be a term describing this difference. On the other hand there has to be a practical consequence of this difference. If a word (like socially constructed) isn't _useful,_ it shouldn't be used. I'm not totally sure what this practical difference is.
Another example , a scene from Star Trek (2:10) th-cam.com/video/AcBTOU7RvbU/w-d-xo.html . The society of the aliens is split up in people who randomly are assigned to either "team green" or "team purple". Sometimes they fight. There is no good reason for them to fight and a quick way to prove that is by showing that the green class and the purple class are "socially constructed". You could prove that the fights are bad without this concept, but with it, it's faster. In that example there is no reason to have these two classes at all, but there could be reasons that make sense. Humans are categorized by their birthday, for practical, schooling reasons but a child one day before it's sixth birthday isn't "objectively", biologically different from a child one day after it's sixth (or 18th) birthday. I get why a birthday and age is objective in a sense, but still, there is also a sense where it's exact birthday or it's nationality is different from the fact which mountain is the tallest.
Hi, Let’s Get Logical,
Thank you for this video.
Time 1:30
You state: It will help to start afresh and begin with some basics. All beliefs are either true or false.
My comment: I would start with the statement, “Everything is energy, and that is all there is to it.” With that true understanding or belief, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound? There is energy because everything is energy, but is there sound? As the ocean moves and no one is around, does it roar? When you look at a mountain, do you see the mountain?
The observer effect the observed. Without an observer, there is only energy.
Your eyes see nothing. The eyes’ function is to transmit information as wavelengths of energy. No trees are going down the optic nerve. No oceans going down the optic nerve. There are no mountains going down the optic nerve. There is only data in the form of electromagnetic and chemical signals that move down the optic nerve. That raw data is meaningless and chaotic till the mind interprets it. It is not the eyes that see. It is the mind that sees. It is the mind that interprets the chaotic data presented by the input data from the sensory organs.
Without the observer and without the mind to interpret, all is energy and meaningless. There are no trees. There is no ocean. There are no mountains. There is only energy. There’s no time and no space, only energy. There are no beliefs, true or false. All is energy.
Peace.
Mike
the observer and the observed are one
What is this "energy" you speak of? Can you prove that it exists absent observers?
I like abstract things, and movies, and good food... but this video topped them all... I've never been so hooked by any video... I'm so grateful to have found your channel and to have been enriched with this knowledge.
And to see objective reality more clearly. In which you are a great youtuber "for me" :)
And how does one see objective reality more clearly? If there is no experience of objective reality, then does it matter whether it exists or not? How can anything objective be known when there is no objective experience?
"reality" is a paradox that should be experienced hands-on
Great video! Do you have any academic books on this subject? I have been looking for serious contemporary academic resources regarding objective/subjective reality.
I mentioned a few resources in the 'Further Reading' section of the video description. Maybe start there. Good luck in your intellectual pursuits!
Freewill and objective truth are under scrutiny
You would assume our objective reality stems from objective truth, since our "reality" is nothing more then what we perceive. Our objective reality is based on our subjective truth in any moment.
Jon D, it's interesting that you put "reality" in scare quotes. I suspect that's because you realize at some level that that perception does not equal reality. Yes, perception is _our_ "reality". But making it relative to _us_ makes it subjective. So, yes, perception provides our subjective "reality". But it's not truly reality. That's why we had to use scare quotes. Reality-the genuine, objective kind-does not depend on us (in the way described in the video.)
@@LetsGetLogical Our perception does equal reality, we are limited to our subjective perception.....objective reality therefore can only exist as a concept we use to account for anything outside of that.
@@spunkyspyder11 On your view, what is it we are perceiving? On my view, the answer is obvious: "Objective reality". Now, of course, I'm not claiming that our perception perfectly captures objective reality or even that it captures the truth of objective reality at all. Only that there _is_ an objective reality. There has to be a _way things are_ and that's objective reality.
Or perhaps you meant to say, "Perception equals _experienced_ reality." This is undeniably true. But not terribly interesting since it's just kind of definitional. To perceive is to have mental representations of the world (or something like that).
All I know is experience. I do not exist as an egoic entity separate from experience. Objective?, subjective?, What is this duality of which you speak? Namaste.
But how are we to tell when our beliefs "match" reality and when they don't? Aren't we always under the impression that our beliefs "match" reality, and yet, don't we also reserve the right to change our mind? Yes, it sure seems like there is a "reality independent of humans," but the point is that this reality has nothing to do with epistemology: We don't believe as we do BECAUSE those beliefs are "objective," but rather BECAUSE we find those beliefs justified by way of our experience. So the critique is not so much that "objective reality can be carved up in different ways," but rather the realization that its just a pretense that we can tell the difference between an "objective" belief and a "subjective" belief, which is why difference doesn't matter.
The observer and the observed are one, there being something outside of yourself is a thought. Now how can you prove that any pattern in the mind represents reality outside of the mind?
Prove? No. Reason to be unlikely? Yes.
Nothing can be objectively true. Things can't exist without something to percieve them. That experience can only be subjective to the being that experienced it. Even if observed that observation is subjective to the observer.
So you're saying observers came BEFORE the big bang? If all organisms ceased to exist immediately, you believe the universe would vanish?
@@Kevin-lv9qi Yes, the universe (as it is known and can only be known by subjective experience) would vanish as it only appears in experience, and all experience appears to be subjective. Conceptualized objective reality is only ever experienced or known through our subjective perspectives. That said, I think our differences in perspectives may come down to semantics.
@@paulwilligan I agree that I think our disagreement is simply semantics based. However, I still would argue that your position is an unnecessary one to hold. If I'm understanding you correctly, we can reduce your position to: our PERCEPTION of the objective universe would disappear if all minds disappeared. And to that I say: well, duh. Our PERCEPTION of the universe and the objective universe should not be conflated, though. The objective universe will continue to exist even if all minds stopped existing -- it does not need to be perceived to exist.
Thank you for the video!
Actually, I can’t understand how we, people, who are by default subjective can claim that something perceived by us can be objective - I mean there’s no way to check that objectivity because every time we are checking we are putting this evidence through the subjective lense of our subjective consciousness
“If we all were to become extinct at once, the mountains would still be there and so on…” But how is it possible to validate if that statement is true and get 100% evidence if no one with the conscious mind would be there to actually check how that experiment goes?
You've nicely expressed the philosophical problem of skepticism.
@@LetsGetLogical, thank you
I was wondering what’s your take on that skeptical statement above?
Not to put labels here, it’s just that my impression is that you lean towards metaphysical realism (based on your path of thoughts in the video), is that so?
If yes, I’m curious to hear what place this default subjectivity of our consciousness takes in your objective reality formula? How doesn’t it impede the perception?
@@nataliak782 I take the more or less common view in contemporary analytic philosophy that we access the objective external world _fallibly_ through our subjective experience. On this view, there's not much at all about the contingent external world that we can know with certainty. But we sometimes have _enough_ justification such that our belief amounts to knowledge. Justification of this sort is a messy affair-experience, inductive reasoning, inference to the best explanation-but it gets the job done. However, an overall stance of epistemic humility is on order, especially when the problem of disagreement is considered. If interested, you can see my video: th-cam.com/video/nxFJCaPJNn0/w-d-xo.html.
@@LetsGetLogical, appreciate your detailed explanation 🙏🏻
And it seems I got the wrong impression about your leaning towards mataphysical realism
100% with you on the approach of balancing between the applied knowledge and epistemic humility!
All theories that get enough justification to be useful in the determined range of cases are great to use as the frame of reference to get the job done.
At the same time, it’s also important to remember of the fallibility to avoid fanatical clinging onto some viewpoint when it fails to explain a phenomenon out of the range of applicable ones.
And, of course, epistemic humility is especially constructive and rewarding when it comes to the problem of disagreement
Again, enjoyed our conversation and your videos! Looking forward to the new ones ✨
It's not that there is no way to check objectivity, it is that the concept of "objectivity" only exists within subjective mind. If actual objective reality exists, subjective mind can't know it. Try to think of an Apple objectively. Any thought of said apple revolves around subjective properties (color, taste, texture, smell, size, image, etc.) Human mind does not conceptualize objectively. It is kinda like trying to think of the infinite when all thought is finite (it won't fit).
You will never know so long as you are stuck in thought.
This does not address the difficulty. Does the moon exist when nobody is perceiving it? There is the problem. It is not a matter of opinions.
_"Does the moon exist when nobody is perceiving it?"_
Yes.
@@LetsGetLogical .obviously u don't not understand the problem
@@ivrz It ain’t obvious what’s obvious.
Is this not impossible to prove? I don't know many metaphysical arguments, but I thought idealism seemed both unprovable and undisprovable.@@LetsGetLogical
@@ivrz Why wouldn't it exist? It existed before there were people to perceive it, so why would it stop existing if people weren't perceiving it?
Thank you for correcting me.
Observation: Joe has a headache. The headache itself is subjective in that if Joe doesn’t experience it, then there can be no headache. An unfelt headache is like an unthought thought., an unfelt feeling. But the statement “Joe has a headache” is a statement of objective reality. Joe in fact is experiencing a headache. Material for another video?
Further statements of objective reality: Joe's headache started this morning, went away this afternoon, and was caused by stress.
P.S. I had a friend in grad school who swore there could be such a thing as an unfelt pain. "The pain is there, you just don't feel it!" he would say. But I'm with you: pain _just is_ the feeling.
Truth is Relative
No, PERCEPTION of truth is relative.
@@Kevin-lv9qi That's True for you not for me
Is the difference that you were thinking of re: race/gender that they are, at least partially, ontologically subjective?
Also, there might be a deeper worry here. Somewhat might concede, that, sure, linguistic ambiguity doesn't bear on what obtains in reality, BUT, as it turns out, we have no extra-conceptual/linguistic/perceptial/social way of *getting at* reality. So, in the mini-world example, we have no way of "stepping outside" of our concepts or language to see if we're really capturing something. Of course...this kind of dispute takes place at a pretty fundamental level, and leaves most of our thinking and discourse untouched (or at least I think so)...and I often reject it when I see people trying to dispel an "issue" via definition or something like that.
Three quick things about race/gender: (1) I wasn't sure what to say b/c I'm still working through it myself, so I wasn't hinting in the vid as much as genuinely asking!😄(2) Linguistic ambiguity is often at play in race/gender discussions and I suspect clarity at that level would dissolve a lot of the problems, (3) I raised race/gender _together_ and you and I have literally been typing them together as a single issue, but but of course they're different and don't actually map on to each other very well. They'd need to be treated separately (and probably, in my view, with different results on this question.)
As to your deeper worry, about not being able to "step outside" our concepts or language: isn't that just an epistemological problem? Even if that epistemological thesis were true, how would it lead to a metaphysical conclusion about the nature of reality?
(If you happen see this and have time, would value hearing your responses! This is an area where I'm learning and reaching conclusions tentatively.)
@@LetsGetLogical yeah the metaphysics of race and gender are definitely...a whole thing.
As for the epistemological point...i think at its heart its a skeptical worry, that there are no metaphysical conclusions to be had. It's also one of the reasons why I'm skeptical of "truth" as a component of the JTB account of knowledge. I just don't know how to make sense of a notion of "truth" independent of justification.
@@CasualPhilosophy Fascinating! That probably drives you to something like coherentism... or maybe Williamson's Knowledge First approach? BTW, don't beat me to the punch on a Williamson video... I've got one planned! 😂
Thanks for the brief exchange. You helped me see more clearly where some might be coming from.
The sentence „I believe that apples exist“ is true but it’s truth doesn’t depend on a mind independent reality.
But truth always depends on being and is therefore absolute.
„I“ can mean different beings depending on who is using it.
But I don’t care about words, I care about meaning.
If Person A says „I believe that apples exist“ and person B says „Person A believes that apples exist“ then the two sentences are identical in meaning.
The truth value of „the apple tastes good“ is indeterminate as long as it is not clear to whom it tastes good because it would otherwise not refer to anything that exists.
It would lack a truthmaker.
I think it is impossible for two sentences that are identical in meaning to have different truth values.
With absolute truth I mean that a belief is true independent of who believes it.
I think that we have good reasons to believe that there is a world independent of the Human mind but that doesn’t mean that there is actually a mind independent world.
We base truth on being, this can of curse include an external world but it doesn’t collapse without it.
I don’t think that the duality of objective and subjective truth is something important as long as both are absolute.
One of the points you seem to be making might be put this way: There are objective truths about subjectivity. Which is kind of a cool observation!
@@LetsGetLogical
Do I have an understanding of „subjective truth“ that deviates from how most people use it?
If I hade to define objective and subjective truth I would make it dependent on if the truthmaker is mind dependent or mind independent.
But maybe it deviates to much from how most people use it.
I've wondered if we're better off ditching the notion of subjective truth. Because it's just a confusing way of saying _what seems true from the first person point of view._ But we all know that what _seems_ true isn't always true!
Borrowing from your previous example: Person A says, "Mint chocolate chip is the best!“ and person B says, "Person A likes mint chocolate chip the best."
We'd typically call the first sentence _subjective_ . What about the second sentence?
The truth of the second sentence also depends on Person A's mind (i.e. subjective preference for mint chip).
Good video. Very smart
What is a table?
How many legs must it have?
How long or short must it be?
What is its best purpose?
Which angle represent a table the best?
Which language represents a table the best?
When I think about subatomic particles, and I visualize the table made up of these subatomic particles, am I visualizing the same thing as you? Who is more correct?
We can ask these questions and doubt each other in each others answers until the end of time. None of us know what a table is, and that is objective truth. It is also true that objectively we must agree that it is a table to work with it and get on with our day.
However, I think about and interpret this mind experiment subjectively. The two are inextricably linked, however, subjectively comes first. It must or I would else be dead.
My own view is that the objective truth is this: _there are no tables._ I'm a compositional nihilist. Only elementary particles exists. So it's not a table, it's particles-arranged-table-wise. But you're right to say that, practically, we have to simply call it a "table" to go about our day.
To me objective reality is simply the rules of the game. We must look at a table objectively as particles and as a compositional whole. The interpretation remains entirely subjective though and for that reason subjectivity takes the drivers seat position. Objectivity sits passenger side reading the map to us…if that makes sense.
How does subjectivity come first? Subjectivity is our perception OF objective reality, so objective reality must come first. The interpretation of what constitutes a table is not entirely subjective, as you claim. It's only subjective WITHIN the ambiguity of the definition of a table. Some things, like a spider or the sun, are so removed from the meaning of the word that someone who claims such things were tables would be objectively wrong.
Subjectivity overrides objectivity. If you could truly be objective you’d understand the world in some godlike way. Which you can’t. You’re confined to your own capacity to perceive.
Why are new generations (I’m generalizing here‼️)so inclined to subjective believe?
I’m 51,my daughter is 20.No matter what we discuss or talk about,we inevitably end up with her saying my beliefs are all subjective.I am willing,If I make an effort to agree for instance about my Christian Faith.But then we talk about communism vs A free market society and subjectivism can’t work here.I tend to believe that perhaps she has a whole life in front of her,therefore a sea of possibilities of change and transformation.
Facts Matter.
I think it comes from society's progression out of more /exclusionary/ times. The younger generation has been told that they must accept ALL perspectives in order to be inclusive.
you need to look at consciousness and its role in creating reality. Experience can only exist with awareness, and experience is reality, nothing exists without it being observed
Watch out for deep holes and sharp objects!
EDIT: In case this needs explanation, there may be a deep hole or a sharp objection in your proximity that _nobody in the world is aware of_ -including you. But that doesn't change the _reality_ of the danger it poses for you. Holes and sharp objects teach hard lessons about the mind-independent world.
@@LetsGetLogical But nevertheless those are ideas, yes they are sustainable to believe so we can quantify experience into categories and forms to use as guides, eg: hole would be, in the context you used, a good idea to use when being cautious of are saftey, but is this hole an essential thing independent of experience/awareness outside our use of the idea in the given context? I dont think it's justified in saying so because it is the activity and context which differentiates the holes' mechanism and function which makes it a hole in the first place, and if we took away the interactive meaning / the function, there would be no differentiation which gave it form in the first place.
@@juliesuegordon Mechanism? Function? Category and form? Look, a hole is just not that complicated. It's a just hole- an empty space in the ground. And empty spaces in the ground existed _way_ before there were conscious creatures around to create language about holes or ideas about holes or imagine the function or context of holes. There are billions of holes out there in the cosmos that literally no conscious being has ever experienced.
Is there such a thing as objective reality? I can't see it with my eyes. I think my eyes are just practical.
You CAN see it with your eyes. The fact eyes are an imperfect tool don't allow you to see objective reality perfectly doesn't mean you aren't observing it.
Very interesting, but you are commiting a funadamental mistake by making no distinction between the concepts of "reality" and "truth".
Don't disagree that this is difficult ground. What counts as "real" is itself a thorny issue. FWIW, I learned a lot from David Chalmers' recent book _Reality+_ . Highly recommend if you're interested.
What's the difference?
My truth is what I say?
Best to avoid the phrase "my truth" or "your truth". It's more clear and precise to say "What I believe to be true" or "What you believe to be true".
No there is only 7…object because the other one didn’t see all the possibilities but if he sees it as it really is he will see 7object a bikini 👙 is one object made of 2 but no one says it’s 2object therefore the dude thinking there is 3object is on the wrong
Seems like linguistics trip up reasoning when it comes to this topic…
“My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense.” -Wittgenstein
Heads-up, there's a lot of disguised nonsense out there.
@@LetsGetLogical What exactly constitutes "disguised nonsense?"
@@israelcastro4366 In the chapter this video is largely based on, van Inwagen gives as an example this sentence he found in a piece of philosophy: "The world is a progressively self-realizing community of interpretation.” If you've seen my video on fact vs. opinion, you'll know that I think a lot of talk about _facts_ and _opinions_ is disguised nonsense. Sometimes a few careful questions is enough to expose the nonsense.
🙏🙏🙏🌻🌻🌻
So, men CAN be women after all?
@KelliAnnWinkler How did you arrive at that conclusion?
You define truth through reference to reality. It seems like you take reality as more basic than truth. So you have no way to evaluate this statement: There's no such thing as reality. It doesn't say anything about things within reality. Even worse. You need it to be the case that: There is such thing as reality. But you cannot say it is true because it doesn't correspond to reality. For me, this is one of the many reasons why reality is not a thing, just nosense.
I am a nihilist about truth. This means i believe there is no truth at all. Do i believe this to be truth? yes and no. Contradiction? When i seem to both assert and deny it, do i really caim it to be true? I seem to claim nothing, right? Nihilism.
Some good thoughts here, Georg. Thanks for chiming in. Two things to think about:
(1) If you deny the existence of truth, then you can't have any beliefs. Because a belief just is _taking something to be true_ . So you can't _believe_ there is no truth.
(2) When you tell me, "There is no such thing as reality," aren't you trying to help me see the way things _really_ are? And isn't "the way things really are" just another way of saying "reality"? On the other hand, if you're _not_ trying to describe the way things really are, then why should anyone care about what you say? 🙂
Thanks for watching.
@@LetsGetLogical Hi :-D It's just a game. I think from your position it's best to say that your philosophy of truth is close to common sense and that my position contradicts it.
(1) You point out that i'm contradicting myself.
(2) You claim that i'm committing a performative contradiction in "explaining my position".
You are right, but a nihilist about truth is also nihilist about logic. You are either believe truth is meaningful or you don't. I didn't ever encounter any approach/method/theory/explanation/definition of truth that would succeed at its own purposes. So personally, i'm a nihilist philosophically. And practically, i restrict myself to "truth" within some limited interpretation that is of course supposed to fail when scrutinized or pushed too far.
BTW, there exist paraconsistent logics. It's an active area of philosophy and mathematics. There's a position called Dialetheism that suspects some contradictions could be necessary and advocates to accept them. The motivations for paraconsistency is basically that it is unavoidable for certain goals.
"(1) If you deny the existence of truth..."
I think you didn't argue from my premiss so that reductio doesn't work. If there is no truth, who cares about "contradictions"
Nihilism is ineffable and contradictory (when you still try to analyze it from some framework). But if you spend some time analyzing how every concept and every theory fails, you will realize that we engage in nonsense all the time.
Since first reading this comment several weeks ago, I've come to appreciate some of the points more fully. Thank you!
@@LetsGetLogical Cool! Thanks. Maybe such extreme possitions, even when ultimately rejected, can enrich our perspectives on meaning, truth and knowledge.
I agree to disagree 😂
Here's a test of reality. Put your hand on a flat surface, and hit it with a hammer as hard as you can. Then tell me reality is a social construct.
Interesting that you chose pain as an example. Because pain is subjective; i.e., without a an internal, first-person point of view- _your_ point of view-their would be no pain. Still, your point is well taken: the world is full of brick walls, cliffs, hammers and other objectively real objects that must be safely navigated in order to live well.
legit
🤙🏼
Is the earth flat?
No. Next question?