Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
fullywired

. - Understanding religious delusion

680 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sherapy

Sheri... there is no "objective reality", even Br. C. has stated that... let me show you...

Here is another interesting link, just because of his thoughts on the issue, although he isn't an expert...

Do Your Beliefs Reflect Reality or Create It?

Thank you for the link,.

Yet I understand the nature of subjectivity.

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cluey

Jorel, I am trying to ask/establish: The difference between objective reality and subjective reality.?

that makes no sense......as objective means fair or impartial........and subjective means emotion...based on inner experience rather than fact..........so what your asking....is incorrect :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius
As has been shown here, the arguments on what is really objective are actually worthless, since the very medium we observe is not actually reality as seen by God, the ultimate observer.

I strongly disagree with your conclusion here. The process of attempting to map the objective is everything. Ultimately it is impossible, but along the way we learn and expand our understanding and approach a complete understanding. It is the mistake of believing that we have the answer (as religion claims) which is the delusion which leads us into folly. We may never be able to prove the absolute truth of things, but we can certainly prove the absolute error of many things - religion as currently constituted been a huge error which fails to adequately reflect the day to day reality we experience.

You seem to have given up on an idea of an objective reality, I most certainly have not.

Your position is one of very partial knowledge, a fossilized knowledge if you like, and happiness in that relative lack of knowledge.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Karlis
Added quote link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor

I've had to remove a number of posts to clean this thread up. If you can't make your point without attacking other members, there isn't much use in making it at all; so keep to countering opinions, not the people that hold them.

Raptor

[Forum Mod Team]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Jorel, I am trying to ask/establish: The difference between objective reality and subjective reality.?

Very well then Sheri, explain to us what it is you actually mean by the above, since from my perspective the two cannot be seperated except as an exercise in futility.

what you claim to be objective I can agree with or disagree with as it affects my paradigm of reality. In other words, I can believe in miracles, or as we put it to those of the scientific mind, occurences that contradict established principles of nature and science, or even the existence of God but you cannot accept that as part of your objective reality paradigm, thus immediately you will classify it as superstition or delusion, whichever comes first.

The simple fact is that you cannot accept a contradiction to your established paradigm of reality, because you are forced to make a conscious decision on its worth as an objectivce premise and this you cannot do, your mindset will not allow it unless you are willing to live in contradiction with yourself.

Usually this will mean one of two things, 1) you will reject it out of hand as impossible, or 2) you are forced to accept it and are then forced to alter your paradigm to fit the new information.

Most often, you don't get past point 1, and only rarely are forced to adopt point 2.

By no means are you alone in this, you and I share this as well as everybody else. The difference is that I was forced onto point 2 by personal experience, wheras you have not done so.

This means simply put that we cannot share objective reality because our particular perception of what that means is totally different at this time.

Hence my comment that there is no such thing as an objective reality... one has to accept a common framework to accept such objectitvity as you propose, that is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karlis

Very well then Sheri, explain to us what it is you actually mean by the above, since from my perspective the two cannot be seperated except as an exercise in futility.

what you claim to be objective I can agree with or disagree with as it affects my paradigm of reality. In other words, I can believe in miracles, or as we put it to those of the scientific mind, occurences that contradict established principles of nature and science, or even the existence of God but you cannot accept that as part of your objective reality paradigm, thus immediately you will classify it as superstition or delusion, whichever comes first.

The simple fact is that you cannot accept a contradiction to your established paradigm of reality, because you are forced to make a conscious decision on its worth as an objectivce premise and this you cannot do, your mindset will not allow it unless you are willing to live in contradiction with yourself.

Usually this will mean one of two things, 1) you will reject it out of hand as impossible, or 2) you are forced to accept it and are then forced to alter your paradigm to fit the new information.

Most often, you don't get past point 1, and only rarely are forced to adopt point 2.

By no means are you alone in this, you and I share this as well as everybody else. The difference is that I was forced onto point 2 by personal experience, wheras you have not done so.

This means simply put that we cannot share objective reality because our particular perception of what that means is totally different at this time.

Hence my comment that there is no such thing as an objective reality... one has to accept a common framework to accept such objectitvity as you propose, that is not the case.

Jor-el -- imo your above statement zeros in on spiritual belief: "The difference is that I was forced onto point 2 by personal experience".

Personal experience is what brings any individual into faith. Logic does not, because logic does not mesh with faith -- a faith which is brought into existence through a spiritual experience.

Regards,

Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mklsgl

I can give you a hint: to have some idea of the said, you need to practically encounter an objective platypus, emitting the light and curing from tobacco dependency. If you do not have them in Cali, then opt for a giant Schroedinger's Cat in a shape of a pillar of light, which visits your hospital bed, leaves you the Bible and jumps out of the 20th level window (with probability 50%). In any case try checking the urine sample daily, it may contain some proofs of God's existence. And do not even dream of becoming Napoleon, I am the one already - all you can hope for is a role of Josephine. Read Anton Chekhov's "Ward #6"... :sk

Mara, I'm not sure how many know "Ward #6" but you got a loud laugh out of me. And, you've never read Foucault's thoughts on 'madness'???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mklsgl

Very well then Sheri, explain to us what it is you actually mean by the above, since from my perspective the two cannot be seperated except as an exercise in futility.

what you claim to be objective I can agree with or disagree with as it affects my paradigm of reality. In other words, I can believe in miracles, or as we put it to those of the scientific mind, occurences that contradict established principles of nature and science, or even the existence of God but you cannot accept that as part of your objective reality paradigm, thus immediately you will classify it as superstition or delusion, whichever comes first.

The simple fact is that you cannot accept a contradiction to your established paradigm of reality, because you are forced to make a conscious decision on its worth as an objectivce premise and this you cannot do, your mindset will not allow it unless you are willing to live in contradiction with yourself.

Usually this will mean one of two things, 1) you will reject it out of hand as impossible, or 2) you are forced to accept it and are then forced to alter your paradigm to fit the new information.

Most often, you don't get past point 1, and only rarely are forced to adopt point 2.

By no means are you alone in this, you and I share this as well as everybody else. The difference is that I was forced onto point 2 by personal experience, wheras you have not done so.

This means simply put that we cannot share objective reality because our particular perception of what that means is totally different at this time.

Hence my comment that there is no such thing as an objective reality... one has to accept a common framework to accept such objectitvity as you propose, that is not the case.

Jor-el, if it involves the human perception, then it is subjective. Period. Objective reality is not impossible, it's just that the human mind cannot experience it. For more, read Stanley Fish, Richard Rorty, Michel Foucault, Ihab Hassan, Umberto Eco, Luce Irigary, Helene Cixous, Jean Baudrillard, Trinh T. Minh-Ha, Tim O'Brien ('How To Tell A True War Story' alone should be sufficient)...

Introduction to Postmodern Philosophythinker.jpg

The heart of postmodernism is the view that reality cannot be known nor described objectively. This contrasts to the modernist view that says reality can be understood objectively. In this brief article we will suggest how postmodernism arose and describe a Christian response.

Medievalism (800-1500’s AD)

To comprehend the rise of the postmodern worldview, we need to go all the way back to medieval Europe, to see how modernism itself first developed.

European society under medievalism was collective, theistic and static.

It was collective, because a strong sense of individualism did not yet exist. People lived for God and king in a duty-filled world.

It was theistic because what happened in life took a back-stage to the divine drama, as mediated by the Roman Catholic Church.

And it was also static because people largely accepted their station in society. A limited amount of inventive thinking and a passive acceptance of fate hampered the solving of many problems.

The End of Medievalism – the Renaissance (1500’s AD)

The coming of the Renaissance in the 1500’s modified the medieval mindset. During the Renaissance, classical learning was re-discovered and a new era of fresh learning began. Also, individuals such as Francis Bacon (1561-1626) developed the scientific method, causing the world to be understood in a new way.

As the role of reason reasserted itself and the new scientific methodology began to be employed – first to understand the world, then to improve it – an optimistic belief in progress arose, as well as an increasing confidence in the capacity of humans to solve problems. Humanism began to replace theism in European society.

Philosophy itself became focused on the individual. During the Renaissance, René Descartes (1596-1650) found what he felt was an objective and certain foundation for knowledge in the individual. Accepting no tradition from the past, and questioning the truth of everything, Descartes used a process of doubt to discover if there was something he could not doubt.

Descartes concluded there was one thing he could not doubt – his own existence. Accordingly, he founded his new philosophy on his famous axiom, Cogito, ergo sum – "I think, therefore, I am."

In defining reality in terms of the thinking self, Descartes felt he had discovered a certain and objective foundation for truth. He thought of the individual as a subject observing the world as an object. This understanding nicely matched the new scientific method of inquiry, in which observers view and objectively seek to measure what is happening in the world. This new 'Cartesian' philosophy became so influential that it set the philosophical agenda for the entire modern period.

So, as the Western world grew beyond medievalism, it’s worldview shifted from being collective, theistic and static to being increasingly individualistic, secular and progressive.

The Enlightenment (1650-1800 AD)

Modernism began with the Renaissance and achieved its early flowering under the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment - arising out of the Renaissance worldview and based on a belief in human capability, the scientific method, and the certitude of knowledge - was a tremendously confident and optimistic movement that sought to create an improved world based on reason. As a movement, it ran in western circles from about 1650 to approximately 1800.

Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was the greatest figure of the Enlightenment. The discovery of his laws of motion caused people to regard the cosmos as an entity which functions in an orderly way according to natural laws.

The modern worldview developed out of a combination of a belief in an orderly, Newtonian universe and the certitude of Cartesian philosophy. Modernism perceives the world as possessing an objective reality which can be discovered with certainty through observation and reason.

Immanuel Kant’s Influence on Modernism

For all its promise, the Enlightenment came to an abrupt end when skeptical philosophers such as David Hume (1711-1776) raised serious questions about the ability of the self to objectively comprehend reality.

Hume’s skepticism threatened to collapse the fledgling modernist worldview. It was rescued, for the time being, by Immanuel Kant.

In his response to Hume, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) created a new basis for knowledge. Basically, Kant argues in his seminal work, Critique of Pure Reason, that knowledge depends on the structure of the mind. We are able to comprehend reality because categories exist within our minds that actively generate perception. These categories, Kant assumed, are universally the same in all people. Thus, we all perceive the world in the same way.

Kant wanted to provide a basis for a continued belief in objective truth. But his philosophy raised the obvious question, “How do we know if the perception generated by the mind truly corresponds to reality?”

Kant does not provide us with an adequate answer to this question. So, although his philosophy allowed the modernist era to continue by preserving a belief in objective truth, it also raised the crucial question that ultimately led to the rise of postmodernism.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is the person most responsible for transitioning philosophical thinking into postmodernism. Completely rejecting Kant’s theory of transcendental categories, which are supposedly shared by all people, Nietzsche concludes that truth is nothing more than an illusion.

He taught that we each construct our own world according to our own perception. There is no objective truth, only our own perception of what is true. Our minds share no common categories. Instead, truth exists only within the specific linguistic contexts which we construct and perhaps share with others. Truth is a metaphor, an illusion of our perception, which appears real only because we have become so familiar with it.

Whereas Descartes made the thinking self to be an objective observer of the universe, and Kant reinforced that idea, Nietzsche effectively dethrones the self from the center of objective reality. He undermined modernism and raised some of the most important seminal issues which others later developed into postmodernism.

Postmodern Philosophers

Following Nietzsche, philosophers grappled with two major problems which gave rise to postmodernism.

The first problem is that of hermeneutics - textual interpretation. It asks: “How do I know the true interpretation of a text?” Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) concluded that an interpreter cannot objectively understand the exact mind and intent of the original author of a text. Rather, a meaning for us emerges from a text only as we engage in a dialogue with it.

The second problem is that of language. It asks: “Can language objectively describe truth?” Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) concluded that language cannot objectively describe truth. This is because, he said, all language is socially conditioned. We understand the world solely in terms of our language games – that is, our linguistic, social constructs. According to Wittgenstein, truth, as we perceive it, is itself socially constructed.

In addition to these two philosophical questions, and the answers given to them, developments in the field of physics also reinforced a postmodern worldview. Just as Newtonian physics appeared to strengthen belief in an orderly, modernist worldview, so the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics suited a postmodern world defined by probabilities rather than absolutes.

During the twentieth century, major philosophical figures such as Michel Foucault (1926-1984), Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) and Richard Rorty (1931- ) built on these developments to define the essential boundaries and issues of postmodernism.

The Value of Modernism and Postmodernism

Both modernism and postmodernism are valuable in correcting imbalances from the past.

Modernism, by respecting the role of reason, allowed society to seek solutions to many nagging problems which had been allowed to exist during medievalism. Furthermore, by respecting the individual, modernism also encouraged the formation of protective individual rights.

But things went too far. Because modernism defines humanity in terms of the thinking self, it fails to understand the non-rational elements of human nature, including the spiritual. It also utterly fails to comprehend the limits of reason and objectivism. In effect, modernism dehumanizes us by convincing us that we are only a small cog in a great, mechanistic universe. And modernism leads to a breakdown in human relationships by exalting individualism and analysis. On the whole, modernism has kept us from a relational, holistic approach to life.

Postmodernism seeks to correct the imbalances of modernism. It reminds us that we do not possess an unlimited potential to understand and change the world for our own purposes. Rather, we exist in the world and in relation to it.

The Over-reaction of Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism. It corrects problems from the past, but also over-reacts to those problems, leading to an exaggeration. So, the chief strengths of postmodernism are in what it corrects, and it’s chief weaknesses are in what it over-corrects.

Let's look at an example. Under modernism, the prevailing theory of truth was known as the correspondence theory of truth. That is, something was felt to be true in so much as it corresponds to objective reality found in the world. The correspondence theory of truth caused people to believe that scientific truth equals absolute truth.

Postmodernism corrects this by denying the equivalency between scientific truth and absolute truth. All scientific conclusions are now understood to be tentative simply because no one has ever made the infinite number of observations required to learn if there are any exceptions.

So, postmodernism corrects modernism by helping us to understand the limits of our reasoning ability and knowledge. But postmodernism then presses things too far.

It adheres to a coherence theory of truth. That is, something is true for us only in so much as it coheres with our other perceptions about the world. But this new theory of truth makes science to be just a collection of independent research traditions, each having its own perspectives and language games. Taken to the extreme, this can lead to the absurd.

A classroom dominated by a radical postmodernism might, for instance, abandon a curriculum in favor of just letting everyone 'discover their own truth.' Inevitably, radical postmodernism leads to a social breakdown because it undermines all language, information and achievement.

Postmodernism was correct in critiquing modernism and concluding that the correspondence theory of truth is limited. We now know that the scientific method is not able to discover absolute truth.

But postmodernists who insist on the coherence theory of truth are clearly over-reacting. The scientific method is still able to come up with a reasonable understanding of how the world works. And, despite the existence of research traditions, valid scientific experiments are reproducible, descriptive and predictive – making them understood objectively by all scientists. We hardly want to live in a world in which all language, information and achievement is undermined.

Critical Realism

This is precisely the conclusion of a new development in philosophy known as critical realism. Founded by Karl Popper (1902-1994) and Roy Bhaskar (1944- ), critical realism builds upon the best features of modernism without falling into the nonsensical excesses of postmodernism.

Basically, critical realism says that we live our lives as if there is objective reality, but we acknowledge that can never understand reality perfectly. Nevertheless, we might understand it to a reasonable degree.

Walter Truett Anderson created an illustration about three umpires that aptly describes the difference between modernism, postmodernism and critical realism. The modernism umpire says, “I call ‘em as they are.” The postmodern umpire says, “They ain’t nothing till I call ‘em.” The critical realist umpire says, “I call ‘em as I see ‘em.”

The Weakness of Critical Realism

The weakness of critical realism is that it is a pragmatic theory of knowledge that takes the best from two other theories (the modernist and the postmodernist) to create a working synthesis. As a theory of knowledge, however, it does not describe how we know what we know.

A physical answer to that question may be coming from the field of neurobiology. Once, the only people who developed theories of knowledge were philosophers; now, the neurobiologist is also becoming involved. Neurobiology is seeking to explain how we know what we know by developing a physical theory of knowledge based on the workings of the human mind.

This research will have direct philosophical implications. Results indicate that there is a structuralism to both the human mind and to DNA. As Kant previously indicated, we all possess common structures within our minds that enable us to perceive reality. But it is unlikely that neurobiology will return us to a Kantian philosophy. It is more likely that on-going results will weaken postmodern skepticism and result in a strengthened case for critical realism.

A Christian Theory of Knowledge

Critical realism appeals to the Christian thinker by avoiding the extremes of both modernism and postmodernism. It confesses that there is an objective reality around us that we can know, even while our knowledge of that objective reality will always remain limited.

Should Christians, then, adopt critical realism for their philosophy of knowledge?

If we do, we need to make one crucial change. Secular critical realism does not ground reality in the person of God. In any Christian theory of knowledge, this is essential.

For the Christian, since God is the ground of all being, the pursuit of truth is much more than an exercise in reason. It begins with an encounter with the living God. This is why St. Augustine concluded, in his theory of knowledge, that our intellect, will and understanding are all darkened without a knowledge of God.

The early modernists believed in God. They concluded that since God existed, the universe must be rational and can be studied rationally. But later modernists separated rationality from the person of God. They considered something to be true only if it could be proven by reason. Since revelation cannot be proven by reason, many later modernists concluded that God was either unknowable, non-existent, or equivalent to the laws of nature.

A Christian theory of knowledge uses reason but also admits the possibility of revelation. It understands revelation as being just another form of truth. Because reality is grounded in the person of God, the Christian is able to confess that we live in a world in which we can understand truth rationally and in which we can also know God personally.

Yet, a Christian theory of knowledge also recognizes the limits to our knowledge and reasoning ability. Because we know God, we can pursue truth. But since we do not know God fully, we will never fully understand the world. Absolute truth resides only in God. This does not prevent us, however, from seeking to understand the world in a rational way.

Christian critical realism is important for preaching by giving us confidence in our study of the biblical text. Postmodernism tells us that we cannot study the Bible objectively and that our preaching will never be more than our own subjective interpretation of the text. But Christian critical realism says we can have a reasonable understanding of the text, even though we will never perfectly know what was in the minds of the original authors. We do not have to totally abandon the grammatical-historical method of study. The section in this website titled, “The Study of the Bible in Postmodern Times,” explains a critical realism approach to studying the Bible.

One last word. Some of the thinkers behind the so-called emergent church movement have adopted a postmodern theory of knowledge. They feel that theology should be done subjectively in community, instead of taught doctrinally. While there is much to be said in favor of this new approach, it is just postmodern subjectivism and it could turn dangerous. The so-called emergent church movement would do better with a Christian form of critical realism.

Source - http://www.postmodernpreaching.net/philosophy.htm

Edited by mklsgl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Jor-el -- imo your above statement zeros in on spiritual belief: "The difference is that I was forced onto point 2 by personal experience".

Personal experience is what brings any individual into faith. Logic does not, because logic does not mesh with faith -- a faith which is brought into existence through a spiritual experience.

Regards,

Karlis

Yes, an experience that was brought upon me, I did not seek it, although it changed my life, it was observed by me through the cognitive process and thus altered my paradigm of reality. The point being that it IS OUR paridigm of reality that makes the distinction of what is real or nor and also what is objective or not. We may both witness the same event for example, but it is our paradigm that will determine, how we shall see or interpret that event.

In the case of those that reject other paradigms that do not interact with their own, they can only see through their own lense and will interpret any event according to that bias. They are simply not aware that it is a bias because the logic they use will justify their bias.

As I have stressed before all of us including myself do this, it is not limited to those who believe or desbelieve in any given environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Jor-el, if it involves the human perception, then it is subjective. Period. Objective reality is not impossible, it's just that the human mind cannot experience it. For more, read Stanley Fish, Richard Rorty, Michel Foucault, Ihab Hassan, Umberto Eco, Luce Irigary, Helene Cixous, Jean Baudrillard, Trinh T. Minh-Ha, Tim O'Brien ('How To Tell A True War Story' alone should be sufficient)...

Hi mklsgl,

Sorry for cutting the quote, quite an interesting read, I was as yet unaware of Critical realism and I certainly reject Postmodernism and all it entails, my one intent here is to demonstrate exactly that, to the effect that if the human mind cannot experience it then for all intents and purposes it isn't possible.

We can argue in circles as this thread has been doing, but in the end I can only say that we are all right within our own "objective" outlook, because even if objectivity were possible as you suggest, our perceptions are not neutral. Each of us will see reality through the paradigm our perception has given us.

And bringing this thread back online with the OP, then the author is right within his own perception as I am right within my own. I believe the author to fail on one item and that is to assume that all share his perception of reality thus making him right and others who do not agree, wrong.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Very well then Sheri, explain to us what it is you actually mean by the above, since from my perspective the two cannot be seperated except as an exercise in futility.

what you claim to be objective I can agree with or disagree with as it affects my paradigm of reality. In other words, I can believe in miracles, or as we put it to those of the scientific mind, occurences that contradict established principles of nature and science, or even the existence of God but you cannot accept that as part of your objective reality paradigm, thus immediately you will classify it as superstition or delusion, whichever comes first.

The simple fact is that you cannot accept a contradiction to your established paradigm of reality, because you are forced to make a conscious decision on its worth as an objectivce premise and this you cannot do, your mindset will not allow it unless you are willing to live in contradiction with yourself.

Usually this will mean one of two things, 1) you will reject it out of hand as impossible, or 2) you are forced to accept it and are then forced to alter your paradigm to fit the new information.

Most often, you don't get past point 1, and only rarely are forced to adopt point 2.

By no means are you alone in this, you and I share this as well as everybody else. The difference is that I was forced onto point 2 by personal experience, wheras you have not done so.

This means simply put that we cannot share objective reality because our particular perception of what that means is totally different at this time.

Hence my comment that there is no such thing as an objective reality... one has to accept a common framework to accept such objectitvity as you propose, that is not the case.

Basically I'm defining Objective truth/reality: As whatever remains whether I believe in it or not.

I am saying that I distinguish that which is objective/ subjective { the 'truth' (value)} by evidence or lack of evidence.

I apologize I thought I was clear that I was not arguing for or against anything, as there is nothing to argue I was just clarifying your position.

My question could of been worded better how do you determine the truth value of ideas? How do you distinguish between something that is a belief versus a fact.

Very basic epistemology.

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Yes, an experience that was brought upon me, I did not seek it, although it changed my life, it was observed by me through the cognitive process and thus altered my paradigm of reality. The point being that it IS OUR paridigm of reality that makes the distinction of what is real or nor and also what is objective or not. We may both witness the same event for example, but it is our paradigm that will determine, how we shall see or interpret that event.

In the case of those that reject other paradigms that do not interact with their own, they can only see through their own lense and will interpret any event according to that bias. They are simply not aware that it is a bias because the logic they use will justify their bias.

As I have stressed before all of us including myself do this, it is not limited to those who believe or desbelieve in any given environment.

Jor el "we' do not have paradigms.

Disciplines have paradigms. e.g. religion or science.

We have subjective realities.

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Jor el "we' do not have paradigms.

Disciplines have paradigms. e.g. religion or science.

We have subjective realities.

We don't?

How interesting... did you bother to check this before writing it?

As in political revolutions, so in paradigm choice—there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community. To discover how scientific revolutions are effected, we shall therefore have to examine not only the impact of nature and of logic, but also the techniques of persuasive argumentation effective within the quite special groups that constitute the community of scientists.

Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 93 (1960).

Synonyms: archetype, norm, ideal, criterion, exemplar, mirror, model, original, pattern, prototype, sample, standard, basis, benchmark, canon, foundation, scale, standard, touchstone, yardstick, measure...

If the word is not to your liking you can alwyas choose one of the above.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Basically I'm defining Objective truth/reality: As whatever remains whether I believe in it or not.

I am saying that I distinguish that which is objective/ subjective { the 'truth' (value)} by evidence or lack of evidence.

I apologize I thought I was clear that I was not arguing for or against anything, as there is nothing to argue I was just clarifying your position.

My question could of been worded better how do you determine the truth value of ideas? How do you distinguish between something that is a belief versus a fact.

Very basic epistemology.

We determine it all in the very same way... personal experience and secondly by communal interaction.

In short, we are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices and as a result so the world will be.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mklsgl

Hi mklsgl,

Sorry for cutting the quote, quite an interesting read, I was as yet unaware of Critical realism and I certainly reject Postmodernism and all it entails, my one intent here is to demonstrate exactly that, to the effect that if the human mind cannot experience it then for all intents and purposes it isn't possible.

We can argue in circles as this thread has been doing, but in the end I can only say that we are all right within our own "objective" outlook, because even if objectivity were possible as you suggest, our perceptions are not neutral. Each of us will see reality through the paradigm our perception has given us.

And bringing this thread back online with the OP, then the author is right within his own perception as I am right within my own. I believe the author to fail on one item and that is to assume that all share his perception of reality thus making him right and others who do not agree, wrong.

No apology necessary; it was quite an expansive post.

I presumed you would "reject" postmodernism. You do realize that you live it, though; don't you? You've never known or experienced anything but a postmodern world--which is the uncanny paradox of 'Religious Delusion.'

Bold: If you ever have the chance, then read Foucault's essay on "Author Function." In it, he discusses (argues) the role of the author vs. the role of the audience/reader and how reader-response meaning trumps author-intent.

Oh, and BTW, the article I sourced was written by a full-fledged Christian--if that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

No apology necessary; it was quite an expansive post.

I presumed you would "reject" postmodernism. You do realize that you live it, though; don't you? You've never known or experienced anything but a postmodern world--which is the uncanny paradox of 'Religious Delusion.'

Bold: If you ever have the chance, then read Foucault's essay on "Author Function." In it, he discusses (argues) the role of the author vs. the role of the audience/reader and how reader-response meaning trumps author-intent.

Oh, and BTW, the article I sourced was written by a full-fledged Christian--if that matters.

I don't reject the modern world, I live in it after all, but I do reject many of its principles and ideals. As for the author, he may hold whatever view he likes, yet I suspect that the perspective of the various philosophical views are not his, but rather a synthesis of how these ideas impact chrsitianity in general.

I don't know any christians that are post-modernists, but I would love to see how (if they do exist), they can live with that dichotomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

We don't?

How interesting... did you bother to check this before writing it?

As in political revolutions, so in paradigm choice—there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community. To discover how scientific revolutions are effected, we shall therefore have to examine not only the impact of nature and of logic, but also the techniques of persuasive argumentation effective within the quite special groups that constitute the community of scientists.

Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 93 (1960).

Synonyms: archetype, norm, ideal, criterion, exemplar, mirror, model, original, pattern, prototype, sample, standard, basis, benchmark, canon, foundation, scale, standard, touchstone, yardstick, measure...

If the word is not to your liking you can alwyas choose one of the above.

It looks as if you went on wiki and looked it up, as opposed to understanding it.

I took a Philosophy course on this subject and it's really very basic.

There are basically two paradigms Religion and Science.

It's just a FYI type post .

Of course you are free to dismiss this too.

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

It looks as if you went on wiki and looked it up, as opposed to understanding it.

I took a Philosophy course on this subject and it's really very basic.

There are basically two paradigms Religion and Science.

It's just a FYI type post .

Of course you are free to dismiss this too.

Sheri,

It is a word that has a specific meaning and it is not related to science or to religion alone, we are free to use the word in the context it was meant to be used ie, a criterion, or standard, as in a standard of reality, we can use the word perspective as well. Do you think the word is unable to be used except in the form your philosophy course used it?

What a waste of a good word... :lol:

PS - I'm trying help here not criticize, do a google on the term "paradigm shift"...

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Sheri,

It is a word that has a specific meaning and it is not related to science or to religion alone, we are free to use the word in the context it was meant to be used ie, a criterion, or standard, as in a standard of reality, we can use the word perspective as well. Do you think the word is unable to be used except in the form your philosophy course used it?

What a waste of a good word... :lol:

PS - I'm trying help here not criticize, do a google on the term "paradigm shift"...

Of course you can use the word how ever you want, but if you want to advance the discussion it helps to use it in context.

Not make up a context.

Jorel quotes;

"Yes, an experience that was brought upon me, I did not seek it, although it changed my life, it was observed by me through the cognitive process thus altered my paradigm of reality. The point being that it IS OUR paridigm of reality that makes the distinction of what is real or nor and also what is objective or not. We may both witness the same event for example, but it is our paradigm that will determine, how we shall see or interpret that event."

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Jor-el, if it involves the human perception, then it is subjective. Period. Objective reality is not impossible, it's just that the human mind cannot experience it. For more, read Stanley Fish, Richard Rorty, Michel Foucault, Ihab Hassan, Umberto Eco, Luce Irigary, Helene Cixous, Jean Baudrillard, Trinh T. Minh-Ha, Tim O'Brien ('How To Tell A True War Story' alone should be sufficient)...

Mklsgl

You are presenting as a fact,one philosophical viewpoint.

Eve the philosophers who developed that viewpoint would not do this. Philosophy presents ideas and opinions and constructs to help us think and learn not to provide definitive answers. The problem withthis particular viewpoint is that whil it has philosophical use it leads to a dead end in practical terms. Thus it is not a particularly useful tool other than for academic debate.

You present a belief as absoutely as another would present a belief in creation.

It aint necessarily so

I have read parts of the works, biographies and a number of critiques, of all of the following philosophers, among many. They represent an historically identifiable evolution of human thought.(and means of /skills in thinking)

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aurelius, Aquina, Niccolo Machieavelli, Francis Bacon, Hobbes Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Locke, Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, Berkley, Voltaire, DAvid Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Thomas Paine, Jeremy Bentham, Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, JS Mill, Kierkegaard, Marx, CS Pierce, William James, Nietzsche, Edmund Husserl John Dewey, Russell Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Popper, Sarte, AJ Ayer, and Foucalt.

Some build on the work of others, some seek to demolish earlier concepts. Some concentrate on one aspect of the world, others on an entirely differnt one.

The pov you present is no more than one evolved thread among many in philosophical terms. It is a construct which meshes, in part, with how some see certain scientific developments.

But it only reflects those philosophers' viewpoints of what those scientific disoveries mean.

Thus your quote is just a pov and not a universally held one even among philosophers

I would suggest you read some of Aj Ayres work where he distinguishes between "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact"

He also distiguishes between practical verifiability and verifiability in principle, He is shappy also with weak verifiability, wheras, for the vienna circle, only conclusive verifiabilty was acceptable. Thus if a theoretical statement can be distinguished as probably true or false this distinguishes such a statement from one which has no potential verification.

Thus Ayre's tears apart transcendent metaphysics with the following statement

"For we shall maintain that no statement which refers to a "reality" transcending the limits of all possible sense experience can posssibly have any literal significance; from which it must followthat the labours of those who have striven to describe such a reality have all been devoted to the production of nonsense."

"LAnguage Truth and logic" AJ Ayre 1936

Hers a very abridged version.

http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/ayer.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D

Mklsgl

You are presenting as a fact,one philosophical viewpoint.

Eve the philosophers who developed that viewpoint would not do this. Philosophy presents ideas and opinions and constructs to help us think and learn not to provide definitive answers. The problem withthis particular viewpoint is that whil it has philosophical use it leads to a dead end in practical terms. Thus it is not a particularly useful tool other than for academic debate.

You present a belief as absoutely as another would present a belief in creation.

It aint necessarily so

I have read parts of the works, biographies and a number of critiques, of all of the following philosophers, among many. They represent an historically identifiable evolution of human thought.(and means of /skills in thinking)

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aurelius, Aquina, Niccolo Machieavelli, Francis Bacon, Hobbes Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Locke, Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, Berkley, Voltaire, DAvid Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Thomas Paine, Jeremy Bentham, Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, JS Mill, Kierkegaard, Marx, CS Pierce, William James, Nietzsche, Edmund Husserl John Dewey, Russell Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Popper, Sarte, AJ Ayer, and Foucalt.

Some build on the work of others, some seek to demolish earlier concepts. Some concentrate on one aspect of the world, others on an entirely differnt one.

The pov you present is no more than one evolved thread among many in philosophical terms. It is a construct which meshes, in part, with how some see certain scientific developments.

But it only reflects those philosophers' viewpoints of what those scientific disoveries mean.

Thus your quote is just a pov and not a universally held one even among philosophers

I would suggest you read some of Aj Ayres work where he distinguishes between "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact"

He also distiguishes between practical verifiability and verifiability in principle, He is shappy also with weak verifiability, wheras, for the vienna circle, only conclusive verifiabilty was acceptable. Thus if a theoretical statement can be distinguished as probably true or false this distinguishes such a statement from one which has no potential verification.

Thus Ayre's tears apart transcendent metaphysics with the following statement

"For we shall maintain that no statement which refers to a "reality" transcending the limits of all possible sense experience can posssibly have any literal significance; from which it must followthat the labours of those who have striven to describe such a reality have all been devoted to the production of nonsense."

"LAnguage Truth and logic" AJ Ayre 1936

Hers a very abridged version.

http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/ayer.htm

Yes, MW - he presents only one Philosophical viewpoint. It is called "Materialism" - and the terms "Ovjective Reality" and "Subjective reality" specifically belong to this one viewpoint. Not to the other one, called "Idealism". And this viewpoint, which Michael presents, is the one, Science is exclusively built on. Therefore all practical output which Science/Engineering/Biology/Medicine ever achieved SUPPORTS this one viewpoint. Just do the other part of your claimed job - read Machiavelli or Aristotle and try to find in them the separation of Objective and Subjective Realities!

As soon as you use the terms "objective", "subjective" you claim speaking within the frames of some Materialistic teaching. And this claim means first of all that you deny any Creation and consider Matter to be superior to Conscience. The technology of analysing your urine sample, to find God in it, and the TV you use to watch anti-Materialistic channels, and the computer you use to popularise your platypus-God, were all developed by the Materialists, firmly separating Objective and Subjective. Try finding something useful, developed by those who do not separate Objective from Subjective, I would give you time till Christmas to report it here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Yes, MW - he presents only one Philosophical viewpoint. It is called "Materialism" - and the terms "Ovjective Reality" and "Subjective reality" specifically belong to this one viewpoint. Not to the other one, called "Idealism". And this viewpoint, which Michael presents, is the one, Science is exclusively built on. Therefore all practical output which Science/Engineering/Biology/Medicine ever achieved SUPPORTS this one viewpoint. Just do the other part of your claimed job - read Machiavelli or Aristotle and try to find in them the separation of Objective and Subjective Realities!

As soon as you use the terms "objective", "subjective" you claim speaking within the frames of some Materialistic teaching. And this claim means first of all that you deny any Creation and consider Matter to be superior to Conscience. The technology of analysing your urine sample, to find God in it, and the TV you use to watch anti-Materialistic channels, and the computer you use to popularise your platypus-God, were all developed by the Materialists, firmly separating Objective and Subjective. Try finding something useful, developed by those who do not separate Objective from Subjective, I would give you time till Christmas to report it here!

I am not seeking to deny a few philosophers their right to refine english words FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES, only to disallow them to usurp the original meanings of those words. Neither god nor science is relevant in the philosophical framework under discussion here.

Science does not use objective and subjective in the same way philosophy does, Or it could not operate as science, although philosophers have adapted some science to try and shore up some philosophic pov. Ive never met a scientist who said my corn beef sandwich lost physical existence when ii couldnt see it.

I deny you the right to claim that when i use certain words they automatically fall under anyones provenance, other than the origian english language meanings and derivations of them.

Being a fan of berkely i guess you go along his assumptions that all which exists are minds and the thoughts within them.

His outright denial ofthe existence of a material world is understandable given the way our minds work, but cannot reconcile with scientific understandings to any useful purpose Science is all about the material world.

His books presented a very clear paradigm but there is no physical evidence for it. Even samuel johnsons famous retort illustrates theoretical and evolutionary nature of berkley's concept.

And then there is the small problem of why we all apparently see the same things.

Berkley.s solution to why our sandwiches keep existing when we are not looking at them was (ironically i imagine in your world view) via the mind of god. Berkley saw god as kindly maintining the focus which we could not, in order to maintain the reality of the universe. So, for him, reality was not in our minds but in gods.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Science would have agreed with you up until about a 100yrs ago. Since then relativity and Quantum mechanics have blown that simple mechanistic interpretation out of the water. You should go and do some reading on the various competing interpretations of what Quantum mechanics actually tells tells us about the world. It vary much fails to support your position. Science is currently adapting to the reality of what that actually means on the macro level, and it has a long way to go before it fully assimilates its own findings into its out of data materialist world view.

Philosophy blazed the trail which science is now following.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius
And then there is the small problem of why we all apparently see the same things

We see the same things because they are objective. Its how we interpret them that makes the difference, in that sense we don't see the same things - we see our subjective impressions of objective "objects". In most case the distinction doesn't matter because the approximation between the two is functional. In the case of concepts such as God, Love and Hate then the subjective interpetation is very personal and particular and therefore we do not see the same things at all.

We do not just live in a world of things, we also live in a world of ideas about things and pure ideas. The delusion of classical thinking is not to distinguish between those different orders of reality. Ontology is the foundation of trying to decide what is actually real and therefore been able to decide what ideas are actually real. Almost everyone skips the ontological stage when seeking meaning and falls into the bear trap of believing that their ideas are actually real things :lol:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Science would have agreed with you up until about a 100yrs ago. Since then relativity and Quantum mechanics have blown that simple mechanistic interpretation out of the water. You should go and do some reading on the various competing interpretations of what Quantum mechanics actually tells tells us about the world. It vary much fails to support your position. Science is currently adapting to the reality of what that actually means on the macro level, and it has a long way to go before it fully assimilates its own findings into its out of data materialist world view.

Philosophy blazed the trail which science is now following.

Br Cornelius

ROFLMAO only a philosopher could view it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.