Metaphysical Subjectivism vs. Objectivism

Let me begin this by defining these two views of reality. Metaphysical Subjectivism defines that reality is a creation of perception and holds that there is no underlying, "true" reality that exists independent of perception. Objectivism is the philosophy that reality is objective and external to our perceptions; there IS an underlying, "true" reality - the method and views of science are a great example of this theory.

So, my question is, what do I, as well as you, find more sense in. For the most part I believe that reality is subjective and perceptual. This explains a difference of opinion, misunderstandings, etc... However it does not mean that it is impossible for one to be objective about their perceptions. Also, we must consider the world in which we exist that was here before our birth and most likely will continue to exist after our death. If I was truly a subjectivist I would believe the world did not exist until I was able to perceive it. How the hell does that explain those alive before me? Did they not exist until I was conscious? Everything we perceive is organized energy. The sound we hear, the wind we feel, the world we see, the food we taste, the fragrances we inhale are all forms of energy. Despite varying perceptions we all are perceiving something external to our senses.

Consider this thought experiment devise to challenge Subjectivity:

"The invention of machines that can "see", "hear", or otherwise observe and record events provoked a thought experiment (offered by Winston Churchill, who is not otherwise known as a philosopher) that has created difficulties for subjectivists. Let us set up an automatic camera to record events in a place that no human (or other creature reasonably considered "conscious") can observe. Say that it is set inside a volcano, for example. The camera is later retrieved and its photographs, with date markings, are observed. Did the events recorded in the photographs really happen even though no one consciously observed them? Did the conscious observation of the photographs themselves somehow suddenly cause them to depict events that apparently happened at an earlier time?

One explanation of this scenario from a subjectivist perspective is that the events in the photographs didn't really happen at all. Only the photographs came into existence as the observer went to collect the results of their test.

This explanation fails to explain why the pictures would exist to be collected if they were not objectively present to be collected in the first place."

While agreeing with the criticism on that paradox of Subjectivity I also find myself critizing Objectivity as an impossible or nearly impossible theory to maintain by human standards. While some may argue of a concrete reality underlying all things they are incapable of truly understanding it if the reality is indeed outside their perception. We are perceptual creatures. We never escape our senses. Only to a degree we can be objective or detached. I suppose I can infer that there must be an objective reality since we all share similar perceptions that allow us to interact in a physical world but I will never see it for what it is. I can only postulate.

Having defined these two views side by side I realize once again that it is a matter of balance, at least for me. I find truth in both. When I focus on the nature of existence, I am the metaphysical subjectivist, I accept reality as a matter of perception, my views and feelings are not immutable, they change with experience and mental awareness. From this I gain flexibililty and understanding of others, and interestingly enough, this helps me to be a more objective, lucid thinker. When I focus on the physical presence of the world and our effects on it, I become the objectivist that doesn't quite escape subjectivity, for I am always perceiving.

This really all comes down to a belief I have held for a long time... it is all shades of gray, never black or white. So, I suppose I only clarified what I already thought, but I still would love to hear your opinions on this debate...

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

I can't imagine anyone taking metaphysical subjectivity very seriously. As cool as it might sound, there isn't a whole lot of proof, and the method of mocking people who conceive of an objective reality only makes us less likely to take them seriously.

Yup, it is impossible to completely adhere to metaphysical subjectivity, it's just too laughable. However, our enjoyment or "perception" of reality is subjective, because yeah, we are STUCK with our senses. We all are perceiving the SAME thing but we come away from the experience/event with different angles due to our position at the time and our socialized reality filters.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Like I said, I feel that both theories have their applications to the human experience, neither, though, can stand alone.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Sexninja

Conciousness is a building material,keep building before making any judgements.
Read alot,read,sleep,read again,bathroom,read,eat,sleep rinse and repeat.
But make sure to be neutral before reading and making your judgements.Avoid self-preference.

If you environment is limited,in turn making your senses LOCK then what best you can do, is to expand your environment.
If you are really sincere with finding truth of life,jump into everything,the more you will explore the more you will get to know.

Word to that Sexninja, but you totally avoided giving a stance on the debate. Are you saying you have experienced so little, therefore you are ill-equipped to have an opinion? Learn and then learn more, yes, of course, but one's perceptions are mutable, they do change with time. I want to know what YOU think/believe NOW. :P

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

You are essentially questioning the very basis of the "Schrodinger's Cat" paradox. Schrodinger asked if events occured along an independent, objective course that was governed by a higher law or if observation (subjectivity) played a role in the outcome. He then outlined a hypothetical situation in which both answers could be true. We'd like to rationally believe that it is either one or the other, but Schrodinger's example allows both sets to peacefully coexist in a controlled environment.

I've heard this phenomenon called "Divine Dichotomy". It maintains that objective reality and subjective truth can peacefully coexist. They are faces of the same coin. Each can be examined independent from the other, but they can both be accepted as being parts of the greater whole.

Subjective truth, no matter how limited, is still truth. If you perceive an apple as "red" - that is, everything you know and all possible observations and cross-referenced inquiries support the thesis that it's "red", then that is the truth. The apple is red, because that is how you honestly define it. Others are allowed to disagree. If they do, they're not wrong. You are simply experiencing different subjective truths. Neither is less valid than the other.

Above this, lies a higher reality. It's not exactly an "objective" reality, one that insists that the apple is green and no other answers are applicable. It's more of an all-encompassing reality, one in which the apple is red, green, blue and whatever other colors are perceived for it, anywhere. They are all correct, and though we perceive each possibility as a seperate state, they manage to exist as one. They become multiple facets of the same object, like the coin. If we had the scope to process all of these states in one simultaneous moment, we'd understand that the apple is many colors, not just one. But our subjective truths are bound by the limits of our physical perceptions. We simply cannot see more than one side of the coin at a time, in most cases.

Consider light. It exists all around us, yet we cannot fully understand it without darkness. We are intelligent enough to understand that darkness is only the absence of light, but this absence becomes a seperate entity. The darkness cannot exist without light, yet the light has no reference without darkness. The darkness becomes a focal point by which we comprehend the light around it. They are opposite in nature, yet they're part of the same greater whole.

And so it is with ultimate reality and subjective truth. We cannot understand one without knowing the other. What good would it be if there were only objectivity? All things would simply be one way and no other ways would even occur to us. We'd never learn anything new, we'd never grow, we'd never have the differing experiences that define who we each of us are.

Everything we perceive is energy. Even above kinetics, there is the energy of emotion, life force and of ideas. We lack the tools to measure these energies but they still exist. Yet it's been scientifically proven that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can merely be reshaped and redefined. This is the context for our universe: there is an objective amount of energy that exists but it can be experienced in infinite ways.

This energy is both objective and subjective. It is many things, but it's all the same. Divine Dichotomy. The Alpha and the Omega. This is why both philosophical viewpoints are valid.

YES!! I love the way you reason. All subjective truths are TRUE to the individual, what may be true to me may not be true to you, but it remains my truth nonetheless. Every truth is valid. Every truth contributes to the greater truth, or higher reality. Divine Dichotomy indeed.

I don't suppose that the "higher reality" you defined is somewhat similar to the collective consciousness?

I was speaking idiomatically.