[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

I do. Opinions are subjective, facts aren't.

Discuss.

[pbradley]

I'm too skeptical of the ambiguity and dual nature of "objectivity" versus "subjectivity." Often, I find they serve simply as another avenue to the Victorian opposition between reason and emotion. I reject that opposition.

[floatingslowly]

reality is an individual's holographic interpretion of sensory data.

so, although an objective reality may exist, and perhaps may be strived for, not enough data exists.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Originally Posted by pbradley

I'm too skeptical of the ambiguity and dual nature of "objectivity" versus "subjectivity." Often, I find they serve simply as another avenue to the Victorian opposition between reason and emotion. I reject that opposition.

How do you figure?

I don't see much ambiguity between definite truth and claiming that there is no definite truth. That is, unless you're obviously more on the subjective reality side of the argument.

[adjectives-ex]

yes, i do believe in an objective reality. mostly i do this because it makes me feel better.

[jon boy]

sure why not.

[SYRFox]

I do believe in an objective reality, but we do not necessarily perceive it right, or at least completely. We only get the version our senses get from it - and that is only a slight part of it. Maybe the fact that I'm color-blind - and therefore do not see the world as it is, or at least, as you all see it - influences my opinion on this.

A metaphor: the objective reality is like a FLAC file and we only get the 128kbps stream

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

I'm fully willing to admit that while being the center of my own personal universe, I am not the center of the universe. Therefore, I can not believe in a subjective reality.

[floatingslowly]

once you realize that you are not the center of the universe, but but you circle around it, you will begin to view parts of the whole.

we're all spinning down into the maw of eternity. please, keep your head, arms and legs inside the ride.

although I'm not sure that any of that even matters. it's all what you make of it.

[knox]

lol, reality and objective.
why should it matter?
whether it is or not.
you'll think it is anyway.
and you won't have an OBJECTIVE answer.

[EVOLghost]

i am in the center of the universe.

[Glice]

I believe in objective reality. And I'd like you all to get the fuck out of it, please.

[Genteel Death]

Yes, even though it's too easy to fiddle with it so that what you get is not what you see.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

I don't see much ambiguity between definite truth and claiming that there is no definite truth.

You don't see any peculiarity in claiming there is an indefinite truth that is metaphysically separate from definite truth? Wouldn't an indefinite truth be no truth at all? How is it even possible to observe and delineate between entities and observers from outside ourselves as observers? Through logical self-reflection? Is there a mathematical proof or are we resigned to assume it as axiomatic? If truth is formal proof, how does that relate to facticity in the world? Or, instead, is objective truth only what is a fact in the world? If so, we return to the problem of our own position as observers that obscures what a fact is without being conditioned by observation.

No ambiguity, you say? Perhaps you can clarify all this for me.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by SYRFox

A metaphor: the objective reality is like a FLAC file and we only get the 128kbps stream

You should transcend to a faster broadband.

[Inhuman]

I believe in a subjective reality. There an be ambiguity in believing that either "subjective reality" is a "self-revolving universe", or it is denying the existence of objectivity. Anything most can conclude as something that "is" "objective" doesn't necessarily conclude that it "is", or speaks the truth, as it does not apply to everyone's reality - just a large amount of people's perceptions. Many believe that history and fact are distorted as a result.

You should consider reading Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson if you haven't already, the book goes quite in depth on this subject. I have the e-book if you would like it

[Glice]

You've all failed to get out of my objective reality. Ergo, you should just kill yourselves.

Thanks.

[floatingslowly]

if I could get everyone to join me, I'd do just that, and leave you here, twilight zone style.

white nights

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by Glice

You've all failed to get out of my objective reality. Ergo, you should just kill yourselves.

Thanks.

I object.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Originally Posted by pbradley

No ambiguity, you say? Perhaps you can clarify all this for me.

I'll debate what I can.

Originally Posted by pbradley

You don't see any peculiarity in claiming there is an indefinite truth that is metaphysically separate from definite truth? Wouldn't an indefinite truth be no truth at all?

Certain things are true, certain things are not. As long as we're not talking in matters of opinion, there is absolutely a definite truth.

Now, I'm not saying that humans are even half-capable of understanding the grand secrets of the universe. Just because everyone believes something to be true, doesn't necessarily make it true. But there is a constant state of truth that has existed since the beginning of time, and will inevitably outlive time, itself.

Originally Posted by pbradley

How is it even possible to observe and delineate between entities and observers from outside ourselves as observers? Through logical self-reflection? Is there a mathematical proof or are we resigned to assume it as axiomatic?

Does your tin foil hat get hot in the summer?

The fact that I know that we've both considered the assumption that no one else is real but ourselves, is more than enough for me to believe in both of our existences.

Originally Posted by pbradley

If truth is formal proof, how does that relate to facticity in the world? Or, instead, is objective truth only what is a fact in the world? If so, we return to the problem of our own position as observers that obscures what a fact is without being conditioned by observation.

I completely agree.