private experiences and objective reality

[oldbadger]

I
Subjective =/= not true, irrational, etc

..... I fear that what you are trying to subject us to is indeed irrational.

There is no value in any of it so far, methinks..... honest.

 

[oldbadger]

I just see a massive misunderstanding of the term 'subjective' on this thread. Yeah, my goals are by definition subjective. That seems trivial. Whether or not a truth claim is subjective isn't a matter of what so and so decides though, there are by definitional criteria for that.

I once (40+ yrs ago) read a book about 'Ishi', the last of his tribe. He spent his last years living at or near the Smithsonian Institute, I seem to remember. His memories, skills, ideas and thoughts were of great interest to researchers, anthropologists and scientists. You might know more about him than me.

But he had a beautiful way of thinking and speaking. When he was recounting a memory or experience, he would often explain 'This is my truth'.

Your truth about an experience might be different to mine, but it would nevertheless be 'your truth'. You would be unlikely to call me a liar if I described the same experience with my own truth. Since our perceptions, our wants and needs, our challenges and beliefs are all unique to ourselves, you cannot have any fixed law about subjectivity or objectivity........ but you can relax and accept the world as it seems from your own point of view.

Quite simple, no complexities.......... just accept what you see as 'your truth'. No?

 

[brokensymmetry]

That's not how I learned it. Subjective means presenting opinions, and objective means presenting facts.

Okay. There are different ways to use these terms which is no doubt a part of the confusion in the discussion at this point. I have in mind epistemological usages of the terms.

Epistemology: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge - Nicholas Rescher - Google Books

Page 62 thereabouts shows the sort of usage I have in mind.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I once (40+ yrs ago) read a book about 'Ishi', the last of his tribe. He spent his last years living at or near the Smithsonian Institute, I seem to remember. His memories, skills, ideas and thoughts were of great interest to researchers, anthropologists and scientists. You might know more about him than me.

But he had a beautiful way of thinking and speaking. When he was recounting a memory or experience, he would often explain 'This is my truth'.

Your truth about an experience might be different to mine, but it would nevertheless be 'your truth'. You would be unlikely to call me a liar if I described the same experience with my own truth. Since our perceptions, our wants and needs, our challenges and beliefs are all unique to ourselves, you cannot have any fixed law about subjectivity or objectivity........ but you can relax and accept the world as it seems from your own point of view.

Quite simple, no complexities.......... just accept what you see as 'your truth'. No?

No. I take it as true that we exist in the same world that is subject at minimum to the rules of logic. I also assume that we are subject to the same physical rules. Someone deciding that they have some personal 'truth' does not strike me as a particularly meaningful assertion. Great, so you sat around and decided upon vast ontological claims for no good reason, or at the very least insufficient ones. People are going to do this, I know, but that doesn't bind me to respect that process.

 

[Sir Doom]

I just see a massive misunderstanding of the term 'subjective' on this thread.

Define it then, since the dictionary definition seems to be insufficient.

Yeah, my goals are by definition subjective. That seems trivial.

No, it isn't trivial it is responsible for how much and the nature of whatever information you spend time collecting. This will be directly responsible for your concept of reality itself and the contents thereof AND the relative importance of those contents. Nothing about the fact that this is subjective implies that it will also be necessarily irrational. That is the point you made in the OP. That is the point I am disputing.

Whether or not a truth claim is subjective isn't a matter of what so and so decides though, there are by definitional criteria for that.

The defined criteria for subjectivity is that so and so makes a truth claim. Whether that claim of truth is objectively true or not makes no difference to the fact that it is a subjective claim of truth.

Roses are red
Violets are blue
stating it as objective fact
doesn't make it objectively true

 

[brokensymmetry]

Define it then, since the dictionary definition seems to be insufficient.

No, it isn't trivial it is responsible for how much and the nature of whatever information you spend time collecting. This will be directly responsible for your concept of reality itself and the contents thereof AND the relative importance of those contents. Nothing about the fact that this is subjective implies that it will also be necessarily irrational. That is the point you made in the OP. That is the point I am disputing.

The defined criteria for subjectivity is that so and so makes a truth claim. Whether that claim of truth is objectively true or not makes no difference to the fact that it is a subjective claim of truth.

Roses are red
Violets are blue
stating it as objective fact
doesn't make it objectively true

It is the contents of the claim are what categorize it as a subjective or objective claim. I've defined what I mean by subject and objective facts on this thread half a dozen times, and at that, I don't know why. I am interested in learning about how the world is, as best as I can, as it would look with no subjects in it whatsoever. I have multiple reasons for wanting to do that which, yes, are by definition subjective. Great. Are there grave epistemic difficulties in achieving my (subjective) goal? Yes! There are.

I don't think I ever claimed it was irrational to have goals and desires, and to set out a program to achieve those. It is irrational, though, to ignore the way the world 'really is' in pursuit of those goals because you will be operating with a hand tied behind your back. You will not be nearly as effective in getting what you really want if you pretend that the world works like x, when it really works like y. That is where irrationality creeps in.

 

[Willamena]

No. I take it as true that we exist in the same world that is subject at minimum to the rules of logic. I also assume that we are subject to the same physical rules. Someone deciding that they have some personal 'truth' does not strike me as a particularly meaningful assertion. Great, so you sat around and decided upon vast ontological claims for no good reason, or at the very least insufficient ones. People are going to do this, I know, but that doesn't bind me to respect that process.

Imagine, if you will, that you were abruptly the last and only person existing in the world. All truth, then, would be "true to me." Does objectivity suddenly fail us? I think not.

 

[Nakosis]

RElying on the testimonies of others doesn't make it a subjective fact about the world. What makes it objective is the content of the propositional claim, not how it was arrived at. "Helium nuclei have two protons and two neutrons" is not a truth claim that is partially constituted by the psychological response of subjects, and is therefore an objective truth claim.

One way I can distinguished between these is imagine a world free of subjects altogether. Does it make sense to even put forth the claim in question? The one above yeah. It would not make sense, in the subject free world, to put forth the claim that 'brokensymmetry loves coffee' however.

I think what you are saying is that you accept some facts as facts without having/needing subjective verification.

Other facts are facts only because of subjective verification.

So instead of relying on subjective verification you think it would be better to rely on objective facts to determine "truth"?

Objective would be where we accept facts which are "self-evident"? So need no reliance on subjective verification?

So then by sticking with objective facts it can provide less subjective answers? And, less subjective answers are better answers?

So then theologically how could this be applied.

I'm just trying to understand whether I understand you position correctly.

 

[Sir Doom]

It is the contents of the claim are what categorize it as a subjective or objective claim. I've defined what I mean by subject and objective facts on this thread half a dozen times, and at that, I don't know why. I am interested in learning about how the world is, as best as I can, as it would look with no subjects in it whatsoever. I have multiple reasons for wanting to do that which, yes, are by definition subjective. Great. Are there grave epistemic difficulties in achieving my (subjective) goal? Yes! There are.

Next time, why don't you just make this your thread topic then. Why so many people insist on making these end arounds is beyond me. Your OP is about whether or not it is rational to rely on our subjective experiences to determine the 'nature of reality'. Not what is literally objective and what isn't.

I don't think I ever claimed it was irrational to have goals and desires, and to set out a program to achieve those. It is irrational, though, to ignore the way the world 'really is' in pursuit of those goals because you will be operating with a hand tied behind your back. You will not be nearly as effective in getting what you really want if you pretend that the world works like x, when it really works like y. That is where irrationality creeps in.

No, you ASKED if it was irrational to rely on subjective private experience to determine the nature of reality. I'm saying... no. It isn't irrational. Unless of course you are irrational and then... yeah... because subjectivity has NOTHING TO DO WITH RATIONALITY AT ALL.

 

[Nakosis]

Imagine, if you will, that you were abruptly the last and only person existing in the world. All truth, then, would be "true to me." Does objectivity suddenly fail us? I think not.

So we have to imagine an alternate reality in order to understand what objective reality is?

I think we can assume an objective reality exists but any attempt to validate the truth of an objective reality becomes a subjective process.

 

[Willamena]

So we have to imagine an alternate reality in order to understand what objective reality is?

No, it's just helpful.

I think we can assume an objective reality exists but any attempt to validate the truth of an objective reality becomes a subjective process.

And I think we'd still know that an objective reality exists, just as we do now.

 

[Willamena]

Okay. There are different ways to use these terms which is no doubt a part of the confusion in the discussion at this point. I have in mind epistemological usages of the terms.

Epistemology: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge - Nicholas Rescher - Google Books

Page 62 thereabouts shows the sort of usage I have in mind.

This doesn't differ from what I've stressed. "I take it there is a cat," is subjective. It's opinion, in this case because it's uncertain. "There is a cat," is a fact, if it is the case. The objective is the case (true).

Notice also that the author emphasises "two facts" which are bulleted on the page, and presents them objectively. The objective case is used to present the facts.

 

[brokensymmetry]

This doesn't differ from what I've stressed. "I take it there is a cat," is subjective. It's opinion, in this case because it's uncertain. "There is a cat," is a fact, if it is the case. The objective is the case (true).

Notice also that the author emphasises "two facts" which are bulleted on the page, and presents them objectively. The objective case is used to present the facts.

Alright. This is a difference without meaning as far as I can tell... the main thing is that we understand what each other means by the term in question. I'm fine going either way so long as it's clear which definition is being used in the discussion.

So I propose this. What i have been calling 'subjective fact' is now 'opinion'. Does this work?

 

[brokensymmetry]

No, you ASKED if it was irrational to rely on subjective private experience to determine the nature of reality. I'm saying... no. It isn't irrational. Unless of course you are irrational and then... yeah... because subjectivity has NOTHING TO DO WITH RATIONALITY AT ALL.

Sure, I want to know if it is rational to rely on private experiences to make claims about the nature of reality, such as, metaphysical/ontological ones, theological ones and so forth, which are supposedly objective. If so and so meditates very hard, has an experience of transcendent universal love, then comes out of that thinking 'there is a spirit of transcendent universal love and *this* is ultimate reality! if only everyone else could see that... '.. .is this a rational approach?

There is a difference between defining a project in terms of goals and desires and such, which are necessarily subjective, and wanting to use subjective experiences to come to objective truth claims.

Now I think others on this thread have pointed out to a certain extent there is no avoiding our own subjectivity. No matter how objective I think I am being, I can't not be myself and look at things through the lens of personal experience. This is true and I think also that is relevant. But there seems to be a qualitative difference between the meditation experience described above and doing an experiment, publishing it, and having others repeat it, and using that as a ground for making some truth claim about how the work works 'out there'.

Actually I am not even addressing that specifically at you because I am honestly not sure what your point is.

 

[Willamena]

Alright. This is a difference without meaning as far as I can tell... the main thing is that we understand what each other means by the term in question. I'm fine going either way so long as it's clear which definition is being used in the discussion.

So I propose this. What i have been calling 'subjective fact' is now 'opinion'. Does this work?

It's not important what we call it, I was more concerned that we understand that facts fall on one side of an epistemic divide and opinions on the other. One carries truth value and the other does not.

Also I'm not a firm believer that any other person is required to validate anything that I believe. Believing is enough, we believe what we see as true and if things are demonstrated to be incorrect, belief changes--it adapts to adopt whatever is true in the moment. It follows truth like a beacon.

 

[Willamena]

Sure, I want to know if it is rational to rely on private experiences to make claims about the nature of reality, such as, metaphysical/ontological ones, theological ones and so forth, which are supposedly objective. If so and so meditates very hard, has an experience of transcendent universal love, then comes out of that thinking 'there is a spirit of transcendent universal love and *this* is ultimate reality! if only everyone else could see that... '.. .is this a rational approach?

There is a difference between defining a project in terms of goals and desires and such, which are necessarily subjective, and wanting to use subjective experiences to come to objective truth claims.

Now I think others on this thread have pointed out to a certain extent there is no avoiding our own subjectivity. No matter how objective I think I am being, I can't not be myself and look at things through the lens of personal experience. This is true and I think also that is relevant. But there seems to be a qualitative difference between the meditation experience described above and doing an experiment, publishing it, and having others repeat it, and using that as a ground for making some truth claim about how the work works 'out there'.

Actually I am not even addressing that specifically at you because I am honestly not sure what your point is.

Being objective just requires looking at the facts. There is a cat on the couch. That I know this privately doesn't detract from the fact. That I garner information about the world through personal experience doesnt detract from it being a fact. The only thing that could make it subjective was if I wasn't in the room with the cat to verify his being on the couch with my own (private, personal) eyes--in other words, take away a statement's truth value in some manner and you're left with an opinion.

It's really about truth, rather than objectivity and subjectivity. If someone meditates and has a personal experience of what they describe as transcendent love, to find the facts we just assess what is true about the case. It's true that they describe it this way, and likely true that they believe this. It's true that they have concluded this is ultimate reality. But their experience is not truth to us, so their description and expressed beliefs are opinion to us. What may be fact to them will be opinion to us, because personal experience is private and truth can be validated with a personal experience.

If someone told me there's a big ole' tower in Paris that glows at night, one way to validate it would be to go there and see it for myself. I'm more inclined, though, to take evidence (photographic) as good enough. Fact. If someone says they touched an ultimate reality in meditation, I personally have nothing to compare that experience to, so no way to validate it. Opinion (to me).

 

[Nakosis]

If someone told me there's a big ole' tower in Paris that glows at night, one way to validate it would be to go there and see it for myself. I'm more inclined, though, to take evidence (photographic) as good enough. Fact. If someone says they touched an ultimate reality in meditation, I personally have nothing to compare that experience to, so no way to validate it. Opinion (to me).

However if you were to meditate and apparently had the same experience of touching ultimate reality?

Is it now validated, is it objective?

My subjective experiences seem to have a lot of supportive testimony from Buddhist and Hindu teachings. My experiences are independent. It's not like I was aware of these teachings and set out to prove them. I tell people of my experiences and someone tells me this was taught about 1000s of years ago.

It provides confidence that my subjective experience is based on something objective.

 

[Willamena]

However if you were to meditate and apparently had the same experience of touching ultimate reality?

Is it now validated, is it objective?

Well, it would necessarily be a unique experience, not the same experience, and the phrase "touching ultimate reality" would have to be informed by something more to become a meaningful descriptor of choice, but... yes. Truth makes for objectivity and personal experience is a validator of truth.

My subjective experiences seem to have a lot of supportive testimony from Buddhist and Hindu teachings. My experiences are independent. It's not like I was aware of these teachings and set out to prove them. I tell people of my experiences and someone tells me this was taught about 1000s of years ago.

It provides confidence that my subjective experience is based on something objective.

Confidence (belief) is usually a good thing.

 

[Willamena]

I think we can assume an objective reality exists but any attempt to validate the truth of an objective reality becomes a subjective process.

"The truth of an objective reality" is a tautology. Truth informs (shapes) that thing we call the objective reality. We know things in thought, but as soon as something is known 'true' that thought gets cast into the area of understanding objective reality, to reside there as the really-real world that we know.

 

[Nakosis]

"The truth of an objective reality" is a tautology. Truth informs (shapes) that thing we call the objective reality. We know things in thought, but as soon as something is known 'true' that thought gets cast into the area of understanding objective reality, to reside there as the really-real world that we know.

Jesus being God is apparently "objective reality" to some folks.