Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheRoadsMustRoll t1_ivlzbqh wrote

Reply to comment by contractualist in Objective Reality and Subjective Experience (explaining two very separate worlds) by contractualist

>The objective is publicly observable, articulable, and determined.

i kept stumbling into these over generalizations and they detract from taking any of this essay seriously. if you study physics you'll know that the physical world is one based on probabilities; so it is not in a determined state. much of the physical world isn't even observable (i.e. dark matter, etc.)

​

>The objective includes mutually comprehensible reality and abstractions like math, science, language, logic, and ethics.

language and ethics are objective? its not possible that they're relative? and subjective? because i speak a different language than some other people do and my ethical behavior can be questioned by people who don't share my values. according to this essay i should be standing up for myself and insisting that my language and ethical values are objective truths that everybody should be using/following. i definitely cannot take that seriously.

​

>The objective has no authority over the subjective

so. the real mona lisa (and what she actually looked like) had no impact on her portrait? i would suggest it did.

1

contractualist OP t1_ivmo804 wrote

Thanks for reading over and providing a review.

What I mean by observable is not literally observable by the eye, but "able to be noticed or perceived." The fact that we can understand phenomena like dark matter or abstractions like geometry place it within the world of the objective.

Language falls within the objective since you are capable of understanding different languages. The words you read or hear are presented to you the same way they are to everyone else and are subject to equal comprehension, unlike the subjective, which requires our unique set of innate tendencies and experiences (along with their interactions) to comprehend to the same extent.

The portrait of the mona lisa is material and falls within the objective. Its our perceptions of the painting that are within the subjective. Some may see it and have their lives changed, for others, the painting doesn't do anything.

1

TrueBeluga t1_ivyh6ca wrote

While it is true that people are capable of understanding different languages, that does not mean it is not subjective. People have greatly different understandings of different words. This has been evidenced in your discussions with various people, I am sure, as many people have different conceptions of the words you use (freedom, objectivity etc.). To say words are presented to everyone equally and with equal comprehension is false. They are comprehended differently, based on everyone's own experiences with the words in the past. This makes them subjective. They may hold similar meaning to what others believe the words mean, but to say they hold they exact same meaning (which is what would be required to call them objective) is false.

1

contractualist OP t1_iw0tde8 wrote

People may interpret the deep meaning of a novel differently. However, they are still reading the same intelligible words. Readers can agree on definitions, which are objective, despite their disagreements over the deeper meaning of the novel, which is subjective.

1