Objectivity
Objectivity
What I wonder is, could objectivity be unrealistic because we as human beings are ultimately and absolutely subjective in nature when we observe, hear, think, feel, react and sense?
And most of all, why do we believe there is an objective reality out there? Or if we define objectivity as the fact that there are objects, things , beings , existent in existence, external to our awareness or thought about them.
Objectivity is not unrealistic. This statement is contradiction in itself. Before saying something unrealistic, you need to define what unreal is. Truth is anything which is real, has someway root to your five senses, which is not imaginary, which is not produced purely by your imagination.
Five senses are not subjective but what you feel, think and react may be quite subjective..Because we all know and have experienced instances wherein the same single picture shows two different things the same sound may be heard differently by twp people and other such instances. It may happen with or without our knowledge, but the fact is a single incident will result in different experience in different people.
Why do you think that why I 'feel’ think' and 'react' are not subjective or excluded from the senses?
Has it ever happened to you that you tasted something sweet and later on at some day its taste became sour.
That happens to many fruits when tested seems sweet and other tastes sour, though these fruits are plucked from the same plants.
Objectivity is not unrealistic. This statement is contradiction in itself. Before saying something unrealistic, you need to define what unreal is. Truth is anything which is real, has someway root to your five senses, which is not imaginary, which is not produced purely by your imagination.
An unreal or delusion is defined by the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Illness as:
“A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.”
We can't trust the senses completely. They give us a very distorted view. They break up that wholeness into a small fragment and we call it reality. We happen to agree about it.
How do you think whole science and engineering knowledge’s have been formed if everything is subjective? How come I am reading the same message that you are writing in this thread?...
Do you see anything contradictory in nature? Even in Hindu Puranas, it is said that "Even God cannot interfere with nature." The whole nature is objective, if somehow you see some unexplained phenomenon, then it means your knowledge is limited but, it does not prove anything about non-existence of objective reality.
Your five senses are the only way to get information about the objective reality. Your interpretation could vary or could be faulty, but objective reality would not change with your interpretation.
If you hit your head against stone your head would bleed, how much you may say that the objectivity is unreal. You stop breathing you would die, how much you may keep shouting that objectivity is unreal.
Objectivity is very real, the fact is you know it and you would use this fact whenever it is necessary, e.g. you would eat, sleep, drink but when coming to this thread, you would put a subjective idea in your head that objectivity is unreal.
I think that a lack of belief in objective reality is unrealistic. It is true that I can only prove to myself that I am conscious. Perhaps that all of reality only exists as my mental states? I see no overall blueprint of the universe. I was not born endowed with a knowledge or understanding of the laws of nature. And yet, in order to deny objective reality, I have to say that the blueprint is there, because without objective reality, all of reality is created by my mind.
And most of all, why do we believe there is an objective reality out there?
My seemingly total lack of a priori knowledge of the universe. Again, if the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must have a complete knowledge of its workings prior to observing it. But I do not have such knowledge.
Therefore, the universe is not a creation of my mind. It follows that there must be an objective reality of which my mind is merely a part.
A second reason, which is related to the first, is the problem of other minds. The notion that my mental states are the only mental states is untenable when faced with the evidence that other bodies that look similar to mine exhibit behaviors similar to mine under the same stimuli/stressors.
For instance, when someone close to me dies. When a person close to someone else dies , that person cries. Given the frequency and plurality of these stimuli-behavior correlations, and the similarity to my own similar behavior under the same stimuli, I cannot help but conclude that the bodies I observe have mental states associated with them, despite the fact that I do not have access to any mental states other than my own.
Like it on Facebook, Tweet it or share this article on other bookmarking websites.