Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Raymond]

What's the difference between "redundant" and "utterly redundant"?

So now you wonder about someone else's inappropriate and unhelpful use of vocabulary?
.

Why not?

[Raymond]

If you are so unsure of your opinions - probably a very wise position to occupy - why do you assert them with such certainty?

Because opinions is all we got. They are therefore important.

Yes, but: why do you assert them with such certainty? Importance of itself does not justify certainty. Nor does being "all we got".

"why do you assert them with such certainty?"

Well, I just stand for my opinion. Which doesn't mean it's unchangeable. Articulating them can change them. And my opinion isn't the only one. All views can learn of each other. All stories of reality can influence one another. There is not one and only objective reality. This idea was introduced in ancient Greece and is still with us today. It's taught to us already when small children and at school where it's called the scientific reality. Which IS objective, of course, but its not the one and only. It's hard to get rid of that idea.

Our discussions have centred on your vocabulary, specifically on your use of the word "objective".

If this was a scientific forum, not a philosophy forum, it would be reasonable and necessary to consider the much milder scientific meaning of "objective": "we try to carry out our scientific work with the absolute minimum of bias and partiality". But this is philosophy, and in philosophy, Objectivism is a school of thought, and the meaning it takes is more absolute.

In an everyday context, you might write "I've told you a million times that X", and that would be fine. But in the context of serious thought and thinking, such exaggeration-for-effect is inappropriate and unhelpful. In this vein, it is also inappropriate and unhelpful to characterise your own unfounded opinions as undoubtable and unchallengeable: "objective". It is nothing more or less than exaggeration-for-effect.

There is not one and only objective reality.

But that's what the term is defined to mean. I don't think I want to consider the possibility that any person lives, or could live, in more than one 'reality'. That's one fantasy too far, for this topic, anyway.

The concept of Objective Reality is that there is only one 'reality', and that it is: that which actually is, regardless of our opinions, beliefs or fantasies. I am not saying here that there might not be multiple realities, as your words seem to imply. I respond only to your use of vocabulary to artificially enhance the credibility of your opinions, without any justification.

Oh, and in a philosophical context, science is not Objective, nor does/should it strive to be. On the contrary, such speculations lie outside of science, in philosophy and metaphysics, where they probably belong. Truly, science strives to be impartial and unbiased, but that's a different thing; a scientific (not philosophical) thing. Objectivity is, among other things, quite dogmatic. Science shies away from dogmatism, being open to abandon any and all of its theories just as soon as new and contradictory evidence comes to light. This is the opposite of dogmatism, I think.

"Our discussions have centred on your vocabulary, specifically on your use of the word "objective""

That's what YOU make of it. I don't think it's a play of words.

[Raymond]

"Objectivism is a school of thought, and the meaning it takes is more absolute."

I believe there IS an objective reality. Even absolute. I even think I found it! But it's just a story among many...

[Raymond]

"Truly, science strives to be impartial and unbiased, but that's a different thing; a scientific (not philosophical) thing. Objectivity is, among other things, quite dogmatic. Science shies away from dogmatism, being open to abandon any and all of its theories just as soon as new and contradictory evidence comes to light. This is the opposite of dogmatism, I think"

"I think" There you go...

Science unbiased and impartial? There are a zillion lines of thought, schools, subjects, realities, interpretation problems, etc. How can science be impartial? Maybe the philosopher's scientist is. But that's a fantasy scientist. If scientists were all acting as Popper viewed them science would know no progress.

[Pattern-chaser]

"Objectivism is a school of thought, and the meaning it takes is more absolute."

I believe there IS an objective reality. Even absolute. I even think I found it! But it's just a story among many...

Your belief is just a story; the existence of Objective Reality is not a story, it is a clear reflection of that which actually is, and that is independent of your story/stories. Even if you should have "found it", how would you recognise it for what you think it is?

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't think it's a play o[n] words.

Then what do you think it is? You describe your own unfounded opinions as "objective" time and again. If you don't think it's a "play on words", what is it that you do mean when you endow your outpourings with 'objectivity'?

[Raymond]

"Objectivism is a school of thought, and the meaning it takes is more absolute."

I believe there IS an objective reality. Even absolute. I even think I found it! But it's just a story among many...

Your belief is just a story; the existence of Objective Reality is not a story, it is a clear reflection of that which actually is, and that is independent of your story/stories. Even if you should have "found it", how would you recognise it for what you think it is?

If nature tells you you know! The existence of an objective reality is a story just as every other story story about reality. But not a very enlightening one. It keeps us in the dark. Isn't it invented to relativize any claim of knowing it or rendering attempts to know it futile? If there is such reality why can't we know it?

[Raymond]

"Objectivism is a school of thought, and the meaning it takes is more absolute."

I believe there IS an objective reality. Even absolute. I even think I found it! But it's just a story among many...

Your belief is just a story; the existence of Objective Reality is not a story, it is a clear reflection of that which actually is, and that is independent of your story/stories. Even if you should have "found it", how would you recognise it for what you think it is?

"Your belief is just a story; the existence of Objective Reality is not a story, it is a clear reflection of that which actually is, and that is independent of your story/stories. Even if you should have "found it", how would you recognise it for what you think it is?"

Let's analyze that! My belief is a story. Okay. But why should objective reality not be a story. You can say it's by definition no story, off course. But then, what is it? What use has it? What's the story, so to speak? Is it an idea? It must mean something. Is it just the expression of ignorance?

[Pattern-chaser]

"Objectivism is a school of thought, and the meaning it takes is more absolute."

I believe there IS an objective reality. Even absolute. I even think I found it! But it's just a story among many...

Your belief is just a story; the existence of Objective Reality is not a story, it is a clear reflection of that which actually is, and that is independent of your story/stories. Even if you should have "found it", how would you recognise it for what you think it is?

Let's analyze that! My belief is a story. Okay. But why should objective reality not be a story. You can say it's by definition no story, off course. But then, what is it? What use has it? What's the story, so to speak? Is it an idea? It must mean something. Is it just the expression of ignorance?

There's a lot of questions there.

• what is it? - We don't know; all we know is that it is; it exists.
• What use has it? None that I know of.
• What's the story, so to speak? I don't know the story of Objective Reality.
• Is it an idea? Yes. It is a hypothetical idea to whose practical realisation we have no access, nor ever will.
• Is it just the expression of ignorance? As far as I know, yes, that's about what it amounts to.

Objective Reality is a real thing. You can't get more real than Objective Reality. But our senses, perception, etc, are insufficient to give us direct and knowing access to it. So it's a useless piece of intellectual autoeroticism, with little or no practical use. And yet, it cannot be said that there is no such thing as Objective Reality because there is. The one thing we can prove, to Objective standards, is that Objective Reality exists. All else concerning Objective Reality is inaccessible to us, so any opinion we might express about it is unfounded, and cannot be justified by any human means.

So, when you continually apply the adjective "objective" to your opinions, to endow them with the unchallengeable authority of Objective Reality, I saw fit to comment. That's all this is about; nothing more.

I believe there IS an objective reality. Even absolute. I even think I found it!

Even if you should have "found it", how would you recognise it for what you think it is?

If nature tells you you know!

How? How does nature "tell" you, and how would you recognise/verify its truth/existence?

If there is such reality why can't we know it?

Ask God, for no human can answer your question.

[Sculptor1]

There might be an objective truth, but we are only subjects, and may not know what that it; nay we cannot know it. We have a POV, no more, no less. And "truth" whatever that might be can only be relative and subjective. It can only satisfy ourselves, and we might hope to satisfy others. But satisfying others does not indicate an adherence nor a proximity to the objective truth, since that is always obscure and theoretical only.

I'm sorry, I missed this when it was posted. I am surprised and impressed. Well said!

Thank you.
I rather irks me when people claim to offer objective "proof" or objective evidence as if it were completely non problematic.

[Raymond]

"Objectivism is a school of thought, and the meaning it takes is more absolute."

I believe there IS an objective reality. Even absolute. I even think I found it! But it's just a story among many...

Your belief is just a story; the existence of Objective Reality is not a story, it is a clear reflection of that which actually is, and that is independent of your story/stories. Even if you should have "found it", how would you recognise it for what you think it is?

Let's analyze that! My belief is a story. Okay. But why should objective reality not be a story. You can say it's by definition no story, off course. But then, what is it? What use has it? What's the story, so to speak? Is it an idea? It must mean something. Is it just the expression of ignorance?

There's a lot of questions there.

• what is it? - We don't know; all we know is that it is; it exists.
• What use has it? None that I know of.
• What's the story, so to speak? I don't know the story of Objective Reality.
• Is it an idea? Yes. It is a hypothetical idea to whose practical realisation we have no access, nor ever will.
• Is it just the expression of ignorance? As far as I know, yes, that's about what it amounts to.

Objective Reality is a real thing. You can't get more real than Objective Reality. But our senses, perception, etc, are insufficient to give us direct and knowing access to it. So it's a useless piece of intellectual autoeroticism, with little or no practical use. And yet, it cannot be said that there is no such thing as Objective Reality because there is. The one thing we can prove, to Objective standards, is that Objective Reality exists. All else concerning Objective Reality is inaccessible to us, so any opinion we might express about it is unfounded, and cannot be justified by any human means.

So, when you continually apply the adjective "objective" to your opinions, to endow them with the unchallengeable authority of Objective Reality, I saw fit to comment. That's all this is about; nothing more.

I believe there IS an objective reality. Even absolute. I even think I found it!

Even if you should have "found it", how would you recognise it for what you think it is?

If nature tells you you know!

How? How does nature "tell" you, and how would you recognise/verify its truth/existence?

If there is such reality why can't we know it?

Ask God, for no human can answer your question.

Then we can just as well abandon absolute reality. Even when it's there.

[Pattern-chaser]

Then we can just as well abandon absolute reality. Even when it's there.

Yes, in terms of absolute (Objective) knowledge, that's about it.

[Raymond]

Then we can just as well abandon absolute reality. Even when it's there.

Yes, in terms of absolute (Objective) knowledge, that's about it.

But then what's the idea about? Why can't we know the absolute truth? Isn't the absolute truth what we're after?

[Pattern-chaser]

Then we can just as well abandon absolute reality. Even when it's there.

Yes, in terms of absolute (Objective) knowledge, that's about it.

But then what's the idea about?

It's an intellectual fantasy that cannot be verified or falsified, which makes it useless to those who seek certainty. And yet it is those who seek certainty who maintain the popularity of "objectivity" in philosophical circles. It would be better if we just forgot about the whole thing; it's a waste of time and effort.

Isn't the absolute truth what we're after?

It's what we'd like, if what we liked had any influence at all, which it doesn't.

Why can't we know the absolute truth?

You'd better ask that one of God. It isn't a question that a human can answer. We know that we have no access to absolute truth, but we don't know why.

[Raymond]

Then we can just as well abandon absolute reality. Even when it's there.

Yes, in terms of absolute (Objective) knowledge, that's about it.

But then what's the idea about?

It's an intellectual fantasy that cannot be verified or falsified, which makes it useless to those who seek certainty. And yet it is those who seek certainty who maintain the popularity of "objectivity" in philosophical circles. It would be better if we just forgot about the whole thing; it's a waste of time and effort.

Isn't the absolute truth what we're after?

It's what we'd like, if what we liked had any influence at all, which it doesn't.

Why can't we know the absolute truth?

You'd better ask that one of God. It isn't a question that a human can answer. We know that we have no access to absolute truth, but we don't know why.

Then I can ask again: How do we know we have no acces?