Interesting debate

[Summa]

Me and my friend had (as stated in the title) an interesting debate just the other day, which I also argued with my brother about at length. The question proposed was simply is reality objective or subjective. This friend is a catholic, so obviously he was arguing for the objective side of this debate. The example that was the center of the argument was about a table. He stated that a table is a table regardless of what word, name, label you assign it. He said that if he were to call the table candy, it would still function and be a table. That is its eternal purpose and it will never be anything else. It is a table to all. I disagreed, I argued that if one could convince themself that the table was indeed candy, then to them (in their reality) then the table is candy to them. One could trick all of their senses into believing that the table is candy and thus to them it is. He disagreed and something like 3 hours of argument ensued.

So i pose the question to you trenchies, is reality objective (the same for all) or subjective (unique to each individual and how they perceive the world)?

[Jerome Scuggs]

there's an objective world we subjectively perceive.

[DoTheFandango]

So i pose the question to you trenchies, is reality objective (the same for all) or subjective (unique to each individual and how they perceive the world)?

the world exists in a physical, objective state. humans perceive it in a completely subjective and thanks to our perceptions.

for instance, no one knows what the world really looks like. Everything could be curved slightly, or different colors, or something completely unbelievable, but we can only see what our eyes perceive. So thus, we subjectively place uses for objects based on how we thought to use them. Stone always existed, but the first person to round it out and make it a wheel made people think entirely differently about stone.

[Zeebu]

a table is a table, but it doesnt have to be limited to that. also, if you could set up a scale of 'tableness' each person should be able to decide whether or not the object of discussion demonstrates 'tabley' characteristics. if you look at a table and at that same time desire something to set junk on that is of comfortable height and adequate strength, then whatever is in front of you suits the purpose of the common definition of a table. now if you feel like up and changing the definition of a table, pfft, why?

[Summa]

a table is a table, but it doesnt have to be limited to that. also, if you could set up a scale of 'tableness' each person should be able to decide whether or not the object of discussion demonstrates 'tabley' characteristics. if you look at a table and at that same time desire something to set junk on that is of comfortable height and adequate strength, then whatever is in front of you suits the purpose of the common definition of a table. now if you feel like up and changing the definition of a table, pfft, why?

its a matter of perception, our reality is governed by how we perceive things and the way our senses interpret such. if i were to trick myself into thinking that something that is the most "tabley" was actually the most tasty candy, then my reality would be different and thus subjective or relative to the perceiver.

[Kolar]

Our perception does not change the fact that a table is still a table. I guess it means something if you assume the human perspective and perception are all that matters.

[Zeebu]

its a matter of perception, our reality is governed by how we perceive things and the way our senses interpret such. if i were to trick myself into thinking that something that is the most "tabley" was actually the most tasty candy, then my reality would be different and thus subjective or relative to the perceiver.

thats what i figured you actually meant, but what i said was easy

reality is only what you expect (or desire) to be there. if you expect a table to be at a certain spot and perform a certain function, then it will. if somehow you convince yourself that that is no longer the case, good for you. then you can wander about eating whatever furniture you like and pretending its the greatest shit in the world.

i expect gravity to work in the way physical laws demand it works, therefore shit will always fall down when i let it go. if you can convince yourself that shit wont fall down, have at it. hell, even if we stand side by side and you take an apple and drop it from waist height, i will watch the apple leave your hand and fall to the ground at an acceleration of about 9.81 m/s^2. you will see whatever it is you truly desire and expect to see. if thats the apple hanging in midair, that is fine, i just wont see the same thing.

that better?

[Fluffz]

If everyone is experiencing a different subjective table, how can you know whether or not there is an objective table? Lets for example take the colour blue instead of the table. Colour is something that has no objective counterpart at all, at least it cant be prooven to exist jet. Maybe it is light with a wavelength in a physical reality but every existing being could experience it different. If i transplant my eyes and the nerves in someone's brain the eyes might send green signals instead of blue ones and visa versa. So if there is no Blue, there might as good as be no Table...

[Jeenyuss]

a table is just a stool with no back.

[Jerome Scuggs]

i wish i could add to these arguments but there are several logical fallacies and outright missing reasoning

the classical school of reasoning would say: if you can define it, it exists. "gravity" is such an example - you can't really see it, touch it, etc - but it's there.

the realism school would say: you can deduce an object's existence by subtracting it from the world and seeing the world in that light.

by both tests, tables do in fact exist.

the objective existence of the table is very well established, but the subjective notion of a table can be debated. since the concept of a table isn't a priori knowledge, it's possible that Hume's "senseless" model - a hypothetical human raised deprived of all of their senses - could very well assert that tables are non-existent. but, once again, you'll find the table does exist.

subjectivity has been a major problem for philosophers because it's hard to objectively perceive the world. logic only gives part of the picture - since it is the action of creating the subject via analysis of an object, it's never truly "final" wisdom in that the mind-matter duality problem which most scientists/philosophers have reached a shaky agreement on, is still a problem yet to be solved. we're not even sure if "subjective" and "objective" are the only two "perceptions" that exist, but as of now, they fit nicely into the common consensus of the worldview... but it still leaves questions.

that's where ration and logic step in. logically, since most humans are built the same, we should all perceive a "table" as a "table", given we have the knowledge of what a table is. this seems to work, seeing as the world is a (barely) functioning place - if humans REALLY had such different subjective perceptions of the world, society wouldn't exist. if what I thought was a table, someone else thought was an automobile, you see how hard life would be to live.

[Zeebu]

yeah, the next thing i was going to write was about statistics. jerome's last paragraph woulda gone with it a little bit.

you ask a bajillion people if a table is actually a table, im sure most would claim true. enough to resonably assume that a table is actually a table. view something subjectively all you want. then repeat it ten tousand million times from just as many points of view. i would assume that the statistical results would be a landslide win for a table sitting right in front of everyone.

oh no, i made an assumption

[Jerome Scuggs]

If everyone is experiencing a different subjective table, how can you know whether or not there is an objective table? Lets for example take the colour blue instead of the table. Colour is something that has no objective counterpart at all, at least it cant be prooven to exist jet. Maybe it is light with a wavelength in a physical reality but every existing being could experience it different. If i transplant my eyes and the nerves in someone's brain the eyes might send green signals instead of blue ones and visa versa. So if there is no Blue, there might as good as be no Table...

Kant gives an answer to this partly in his analysis of the a priori knowledge. Humans have certain concepts that we know, from birth - concepts like "time" and "Space" which basically provide a "Screen" for us to interpret our data.

By your model and logic, everytime a human blinked, they would be terrified because the world has dissapeared, and when they opened their eyes they would see a foreign world they would have to re-acquire.

Color-blind people are incapable of seeing certain colors, but that doesn't mean colors don't exist. Imagine a world without color - it's not our world. Color is a problem for the rational school of thought because defining "Blue" is impossible (afaik), and definitions are the building block of reason - if you can't nail down a concept directly, then you can't use it to make further logical implications. So things like "color" have an odd irrational quality about them in that sense, but science is busy handling that question and I think they've provided sufficient answers about "wavelength" and "light", etc - as well as being able to explain why certain people can't see colors.

But once again, imagine a world that is as subjective as you say.... traffic signs wouldn't exist. But, apparently, enough people know "red" or "green". People might see the colors different... but there's no arguing that they do not exist.

[gran guerrero]

if the table can float, it now becomes a boat

[DoTheFandango]

If everyone is experiencing a different subjective table, how can you know whether or not there is an objective table? Lets for example take the colour blue instead of the table. Colour is something that has no objective counterpart at all, at least it cant be prooven to exist jet.

Not objective?

Here, we look at this image. What color (shades, I suppose, but the point remains) is this image? We will all agree that these are shades of red. Now, look at this picture.


These are shades of blue.

Despite if what I see as Red is your Blue, or vice versa, the fact that we define them as such proves objectivity because there is something innately there that defines this spectrum as Red or Blue, despite what we perceive as the reality of the waveform.

[Jerome Scuggs]

edit: weird double post