That certain things are certainly true.

Reality, is well, real, and the same for everyone.

Basically it's the intuition that most people start with that what you experience is reality, and that it still exists when you close your eyes.

So it's the exact opposite of existenstialism?

Existentialism is that life doesn't have meaning but you can create it. Completely different.

edited 2nd Sep '09 1:56:58 PM by Tzetze

I don't think we can know anything for certain, and literally anything is possible, but if we're to operate in day-to-day life, it's helpful to make certain assumptions, based on what we can observe around us. In other words, we live by Occam's Razor, which, when you think about it, is a pretty daft notion, tantamount to telling you to take everything on face value.

I prefer to act as though the scientific method is valid, because I see no evidence to the contrary, and it's a lot easier to get through life if you accept some basic premises as certainties - matter exists, I am human, humans are alive, we breathe the air, etc. At the same time, it's fun to speculate about alternative possibilities. Mellon, you joked about The Matrix earlier, but my favourite thing about that movie was the possibility, however remote, that it might be true.

The opposite of objectivism is subjectivism. Which is basically that there is no fundamental reality and that everything is created subjectively by our minds. This has its base in the philosophy of radical skepticism that became popular around the 17th century. It's recently made a comeback through linguistic relativism (the idea that our ability to think about things abstractly is at least partially shaped by our language), but it's never really gone away.

Isn't that aburdism, Tzetze? Which I suppose is a subset of existentialism.

I thought absurdism was just that there is no meaning one can find and looking for purpose is absurd?

So it's not that you don't believe in an objective reality, just that we can never be entirely certain what it is?

No, I was always under the impression that absurdism means you create your own meaning. Existentialism doesn't say there's no absolute truth, just that you have to find a truth. Er, right?

@ Desertopa: Something like that, yes. For me whether or not there's an objective reality is irrelevant, since we're limited to our own perspectives.

edited 2nd Sep '09 3:27:53 PM by melloncollie

It appears Wikipedia is of the "absurd search" opinion.

Also: Huh...

edited 2nd Sep '09 3:37:14 PM by Zyxzy

Melloncollie, that sounds like common sense to me.

The perspective thing, I mean. Not absurdism.

edited 2nd Sep '09 3:33:59 PM by BobbyG

Let's go back to the true/useful distinction, then. It is true that your perceptions are ultimately subjective and therefore can't be trusted as perfect arbiters of truth, but in terms of usefulness all that tells you is that you need to corroborate your observations to draw firm conclusions. Once you get beyond that, radical subjectivism doesn't really buy you anything in terms of coping with your life, while assuming that your perceptions are broadly if not perfectly reliable does give you a foundation to build conclusions on.

"I thought absurdism was just that there is no meaning one can find and looking for purpose is absurd?"

Isn't that just nihilism? Or is the catch "meaning you can find" vs meaning that exists at all?

I know they're related.

Ah yes, the difference is that there is meaning, but it can never be known.

edited 2nd Sep '09 5:24:53 PM by Zyxzy

I have revised my position. Reason, rationality, logic, whatever you want to call it, is a means to an end and that only.

Now, my real issue: People who use the term "evil". Discuss.

They're oversimplifying. Assuming that they mean it "objectively".

edited 3rd Nov '09 9:11:26 PM by Tzetze

You had to do this while I was tired didn't you?

Hmm...Let's try anyway!

I dislike this "evil" term. It...it...gah! I'm having trouble with my thoughts on this again. I know what I want to say about it but I don't know how...

As such I will mention something that bothers me greatly about "evil" instead. It is used now and again to justify acts that would normally be considered "bad". "That person is "evil" according to us therefore we must do -enter "bad" thing here- to them as punishment!" and "It's okay because they're 'evil'" bother me immensely.

Dehumanization of people sickens me and strikes me as ignorant in a way. The idea of some objective form of "evil" seems...just...something.

I have something to say about how I define "evil" but I'm having trouble wording it at the moment...

EDIT: And now I can word it! YAY!

"Evil" implies something very reprehensible. Automatically reprehensible. It also implies "moral superiority" which is the main reason "evil" bothers me. If you don't have the objective truth how can you say for certain that you are indeed "good" and "superior"?

edited 3rd Nov '09 9:30:44 PM by Aondeug

Does one need an objective truth to be superior? We can evaluate moralities based on their results, and we are capable of judging results by degrees of success in several dimensions. We don't need something absolute, just something which provides better results. "Evil, " in that sense, could be construed as something which is inherently detrimental to these results, especially if paired with a categorical imperative of some sort  ^*

^{That is, if it were okay for everyone to murder, would society improve?}

* I tend to think of morality in terms of society since that's where people tend to get it from.

edited 3rd Nov '09 9:36:23 PM by Zephid

"Reality, is well, real, and the same for everyone. "

Can you be ABSOLUTELY certain that this is true Zyxzy? can you know without a doubt and as much supportable data as you need that every aspect of reality is exactly the same to every single being and detector in this universe?

no, I can safely say you cannot be. that would require you to know everything in the universe.

It is possible to be a subjectivist while remaining aware that the only way to function in practical terms is by subscribing to at least part of the subjective reality shared in your society. This is perfectly coherent. It's also possible to have a more nuanced view, and understand that some realities are objective (Such as physical reality) and some are subjective (Such as social reality). E.g., the weather is the same for everybody, but the economy is different for everyone.

SMAC time!

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism? -Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7 (Subject termination advised)

edited 4th Nov '09 12:45:52 AM by Arilou

Did the irony of this just get missed for five pages?

... that statement.

Ow.