Since we all have different perspectives and opinions which differ betweeen us, we can say we’re subjective.
I see the world subjective, you do to, so does her and every person.
My point. We dont have the same opinions
But we all use the same mechanism to reach our conclusions.
We use the universal 5 senses to perceive the world.
We use the same mechansism of perception to perceive and we use the same mecanism of thinking to think and form opinions.
Those don’t differ. It’s impossible for them to be different. They are however on a spectrum.
My point is that because we use the same mechanisms we can’t never know the world in a different way then what our mechansism of thinking is “equipped” to understand.
Meaning that we won’t reach absolute knowledge, since we only have 5 limited senses, one limited perception and one thinking mechanism.
Since this has been establish we can draw a few conclusions :
1. Science, is nothing more then finding answers to our own reality. Not the universal reality which we may never find out the answers to.
2. This quest for answers blinded us from seeing this simple fact for thousands of years. Up until now.
3. The more questions we ask ourselfs. The more we realize our real place in the univers and we become more humble as a species in the procces.
4. Intellectual curiosity, i will argue it’s a survival mechanism of the abstract level, of the mind. Since i see evolution not only as a psysical mecanism, but as an abstarct one too.
And i can think of hundred more, once i have the time
If a quantum mechanics physicist declares that reality is an illusion then what reality is he using to think with? If that reality is an illusion reality then the conclusions reached are within an illusion framework. So how real are they being just illusions. Because there is another framework for reality that better expresses ideas that we don’t want as illusions namely our values; shouldn’t we trust a non illusion reality? Are our perceptions on every level equal in terms of reality? Is reality different through an electron microscope vs the naked eye? Of course. If everything is just mental representations or illusions this is just idealism and denies a materialist reality. How does an idealist who thinks in terms of illusions work with in a cause and effect network performing something like a life saving procedure such as heart surgery? They profess why bother it’s all just an illusion. No morality and the denial of phenomenology and cause and effect. Living in an illusion denies morality which allows a person to do what they want with only illusions as consequences. Does knowing you are in an illusion change how we should live our lives? We sure depend on materialist things like tv, food, jobs for retirement, and sex. How do we explain objective truth within an illusion? What if everyone stopped participating in society and began to sit at home and overthink? Then everything would be an illusion because everything we have now would have the capacity to exist but it wouldn’t have human ingenuity to bring it into existence. No doctor jobs to take care of people, no police to keep people safe, no families to perpetuate the species. What is the reality the majority of people are more likely to buy into?
If a quantum mechanics physicist declares that reality is an illusion, without truth, then what reality is he using to think with? If that reality is an illusion reality then the conclusions reached are within an illusion framework.
Its about the nature of reality. Which is irrelevant to the nature of human knowledge which can be achieved by humans.
Since the nature of reality won’t affect the nature of attainable knowledge. It won’t make a difference, simply said.
Potatoes, tomatoes
Edit : @Zwaynopolous i can’t go as far as saying its an objective truth.
I cant go there since i am not knowledgeable enough about truth or philosophy of truth.
It’s a statement which simply says that no matter what knowledge we discovered it’s only human knowledge not universal one, and we cant achieve universal knowledge because of the above limitations
it’s without our own framework that knowledge is achieved so it only applies to us and in relation to us
Edit 2 : universal knowledge is defined as an objective truth in the sense that’s its universal with or without our own reality to give it meaning. Which exists independent of our own life.
That is not attainable since we only know our reality and can’t see past our own limited reality
Simply said an objective truth would exist without ourselves to give it meaning or to define it or observe it.
It will simply be
My observation is not an objective truth because that observation cannot exist outside ourselfs, outside human mind.
So objective truth, in the most pure form, like objective knowledge, would require something to simply be independent of our reality and we cannot detach from our own reality so we cannot know what really exists and how it acts outside of our own reality
this is another story however and i have deviated a little from the subject
Ps : anybody with or without a philosophy degree would be welcomed to give they’re arguments.
I dont have that type of degree so i might be wrong. But i doubt it
That is why we must make assumptions to have a chance to know the universal truth. We can never know the truth with certainty since our mechanisms are prone to error and only capture a sliver of reality. But this is true for all finite rational beings in the universe.
We can’t agree on any truths because of the differing frames of reference-- the experiences, so to speak. Everyone is molded by his experiences and biases. We are a sum of our experiences, and a product of our environments.
As for science, it is a complicated matter to debate whether there are universal truths or relative truths. However, our subjective opinions have nothing to do with this. Science is not opinion. There is debate, but the conclusion is inevitably one.
Thinking in the abstract without concrete examples is ironic when discussing reality because your thinking is sure to become detached from what is real. Obviously thinking about sz is a good topic when philosophizing about reality because it shows how the mind is prone to illusions, not only in terms of everyday perceptions but also in more scientific researches. The reality of sz can be illusory to someone afflicted by it but has also been to those who scientifically study it. Obviously this later detachment from reality is preventing progress in better treatments and understanding how our minds create an idea of reality. If I were to methodically attempt to think about reality I would think about sz to do it.
I believe, there’s an Universal frequency of consciousness. That frequency can be big in some people more of than in the others. Evolution climbs further towards that frequency the most.
