Because if objective reality is a dream — A Seagull

Where did you get that from?

What does it matter?

What’s behind the search for objective reality? What do we expect to find there? What do we expect to gain from it? — Brett

Morality is the objective reality and it addresses all the questions about what’s real so that we can know who we are, what’s important and how we should live. — Brett

Through a belief in God people accepted an objective reality — Brett

To tell you the truth I don't quite understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity too well.

What I know is that the subjective dimension includes, as expected, many of our proclivities to commit errors in reasoning which would obviously lead as away from the truth.

So, by being objective we remove all cognitive biases and arrive at the actual truth which people call objective truth.

There are certain characteristics that objective truths have:

1. Objective truths are necessary
2. Objective truths are eternal
3. Objective truths are incorrigible

It doesn't take much of an effort to realize that if one is to build a worldview that is true then the right place to start would be objective truths. It would be impossible to be wrong if you did this and being wrong is not only embarrassing it can also be fatal.

Thus we need objective truths as totally dependable anchor points to construct our picture of the world. It's interesting to see that what began as an exercise in survival has now become idealized to an extent that survival is no longer the motivation for the search for truth. Truth has become an end in itself.

As is obvious the preferred method of discovering objective truths is rationality which makes it mandatory that every and all beliefs be adequately justified (proof or evidene).

What is the alternative to rationality? Faith, not only in a religious sense but also in as broad a sense as possible - simply rejecting rationality (evidence-based belief system). The problem with faith is that it's intimately associated with religion, which is basically another word for the dark, unlit regions of human experience where our imagination runs wild and unchecked, creating worlds that are so attractive to our deepest hopes and so soothing to our greatest fears that we simply ignore everything the world has taught us - believing sans evidence is dangerous.

Consider for the moment that religion does lead to objective truths. If so then which religion is true? They all seem to be saying very different things which is a hallmark of subjectivity, not objectivity. It isn't hard to see why this is the case. A complete lack of rational analysis in religion has led people down multiple paths to lies and half-lies. A good method to realize that the Imam, the lama, the priest and the rabbi are all wrong is to make them sit together in the same room. There is no outside force necessary to reveal the falsehoods of religious dogma. They do it best by each rejecting the other. If this proves anything at all it's the absence rather than presence of objectivity in religion.

As for morality being an objective truth, I certainly hope it is and the fact that the moral compasses of different cultures seem to point in the same general direction is, to me, sufficient evidence for that. There are differences of course but these differences are more from ignorance than knowledge which is comforting. Religion, despite being the first commendable excursion of humans into the moral dimension, lacks a rational basis. Ergo, isn't objective. Yet, if one looks closely, we will find that morals of one religion resembles the morals of another. Not perfectly but there's enough similarity to infer that religion looks more like an afterthought to an already existing moral standard. Rather than religion being the origin of morals, religion is more of an enforcer with god as the policeman.

Yes, rationality applied to morality hasn't led us to that perfect moral theory which solves all our moral problems but this comes with the territory. A complex problem can't be solved overnight but that doesn't give us warrant to fly off into the arms of a poorer substitute, religion (not the moral content but the faith part).

:joke:

Lovely post.

Morality is a reduction of objective reality to what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ human behaviour and why. And even if we can grasp objective reality, our expression of it as moral claims necessarily loses information in the reduction process.

Choose to increase awareness, connection and collaboration - this is as close to my understanding of objective reality as I can express as a moral claim.

i doubt that. I think many people assume they are open minded when in fact they are heavily influenced by hollywood and popular media. I know this is a cliche but novels are better than movies simply because they go into detail why an antagonist or protagonist did this or that or thought this or that. I actually don't read novels or really watch movies but i do read alot of non fiction. Another problem with hollywood is the "disney ugly duckling effect". Many people assume a person is ugly when in fact the director did what was done in the Disney's ugly duckling. The protagonist was cute and the pretty ducklings were physically uglier than the protagonist (ugly duckling). I know many people hate to hear this but ugly germans are very often used in hollywood as antagonists. And yes i know that there are pretty germans.

What I’m positing is that this is who we are. It’s not a subjective idea of ourselves. Morality is the objective reality and it addresses all the questions about what’s real so that we can know who we are, what’s important and how we should live. — Brett

This is great! Very well put. There is almost an element of literalist definitions of ethics and morals. Specifically; Value. Values are the objective morality starting from the mathematical. The universe is at least a value greater than zero. Even if everything is an illusion, an illusion is not nothing.

This is a really compelling argument. I'll be thinking about this for awhile :)

You say:"to build a world view that is true, the right place to start would be objective truth"

But that is like trying to build a sturdy house by starting with the roof.

i doubt that. I think many people assume they are open minded when in fact they are heavily influenced by hollywood and popular media. — christian2017

I can’t understand what your referring to. It’s like you’re addressing another OP.

The fifth dimensional aspect of reality is value. Mathematics is an effective system for structuring value aspects of reality beyond our temporal and physical existence. But it is still relative to meaning. So are the various other value/significance systems of language, logic and morality. Objective is not the same as rational.

The sixth dimensional aspect of reality is meaning. Objective meaning is correlation regardless of how one structures the universe in space, time and value - not just ‘beyond good and evil’, but beyond language, logic and mathematics. Objective reality is therefore beyond the value of human existence. Religion cannot quite reach this objective reality, anymore than language, mathematics or logic can. They can all get us pretty close, but I think in order to understand how all of these structures correlate into an objective reality, we have to take that last leap without them, and then look back...

They can all get us pretty close, but I think in order to understand how all of these structures correlate into an objective reality, we have to take that last leap without them, and then look back... — Possibility

This almost reads like an act of faith. Should it?

What is Faith to you? Or what do you feel it is best to have faith in?

It does seem like that, although the connotations attached to the word ‘faith’ often imply that we must ignore evidence or take leave of our senses - which is not what I’m suggesting at all.

It’s like when astronauts first went into space - they didn’t just head out there with no idea how to get back. They structured and planned the process as much as they could without actually doing it. But the astronauts knew that, past a certain point, they were relying purely on predictions and assumptions from loosely related information at best - not evidence. They knew that the maths and physics were a poor substitute for reality. But it was as much as they could manage.

I guess ‘faith’ to me is just recognising that, past the point of certainty, you can choose to interact or not. Those who don’t like the word ‘faith’ are usually uncomfortable with anything past the point of certainty, and will choose not to interact.

I do find the word ‘faith’ fraught with problems. Mainly because with some people it’s like a red rag to a bull? But I can still use it comfortably without the baggage of religion.

Ultimately I have faith in people and what I have faith in is that they are moral. That’s not to say that there are days I despair of their behaviour towards me and in general. History is spotted with unbelievably bad behaviour, unbelievable cruelty, but inevitably something rises up against what we might call evil and it comes from people, yet on a day to day level it’s not so apparent who we are. We can be polite, considerate and understanding, all the things that keep holding communities together. But the big things, the major disruptions require a total push back and its then the our morals are quite clear. Not only that but they defeat the wrong, even if it takes years. That morality does not waver and it’s the reason we are here and who we are. People may think we are no good, what do we have to be proud of, and so, what morality, they ask? But absolutely nothing would work without the morality, you would not be able to ask that question, you might not even know how to ask the question.

What is faith? I think it’s a leap, like Possibility mentions, into that world and to engage with it or interact with it. It’s no illusion, it’s apparent every day, you can feel it in you.

You say:"to build a world view that is true, the right place to start would be objective truth"

But that is like trying to build a sturdy house by starting with the roof. — A Seagull

:chin: What then are the foundations of our worldview?

Well I don't know about your world view, but my world view is founded upon a logical analysis of sense data.

I can understand why you would say that. At this point in time i don't feel like explaining myself. I guess i wouldn't consider all forms of Nomianism good but i believe people who promote anti nomianism, their ideas should be carefully scrutinized.

can understand why you would say that. At this point in time i don't feel like explaining myself. I guess i wouldn't consider all forms of Nomianism good but i believe people who promote anti nomianism, their ideas should be carefully scrutinized. — christian2017

Agreed, at least a tad more than we should carefully scrutinise anything else.

That's not to say however that civil disobedience can't be performed reasonably, efficiently and justifiably as not all forms of Nomianism are good as you say. By this logic some moderate and temporary forms of antinomianism have to be considered too.

Take the antinatalism example from my response to Bartricks Licensing Procreation thread:

I have to say, this is probably one if your more sensible threads in my honest but unbiased opinion @Bartricks

I feel it highlights the virtues of the utilitarian intent behind your antinatal views and shows a sincere effort to meet people halfway to find some common ground where we can maybe now speak without insulting one another. I feel you have also made efforts to address the demandingness problem in your views to do this. Bravo! Sincerely. My apologies for my part in the circumstances which led to our falling out. Clean slate or would you like to respectfully and formally address specific issues before carrying on with one?

Fundamentally I agree with licensing; but not for the same reasons as yourself obviously, but I think you'll agree with mine to some extent. The thing licensing does is bring in Education! Education and opportunity are the most powerful contraceptives one could hope for in any part of the world. Equal opportunity for education and diverse education at that.

Now the thing about licensing; of course some people are going to have kids without permission, however everyone has to access a hospital or midwife and many of these now offer compulsory parenting classes.

Obviously education isn't perfect and even if we reduce some avenues of suffering more may open. That being said; at least we can improve how we educate as we grow and learn.

How do you feel about child limits set at realistic intervals? For example one child per adolescent cycle? So not until Child A is 16 or 18 can child B be conceived? Laws would have to be cognizant of twins+ also.

I feel these sorts of rules serve the purpose of reducing suffering and improving the quality of life even though a percentage of people will not obey them. It's a good start and so long as education is also at the core of any punitive action against those that break licensing laws I'm also agreeable.

As for issues of equality in giving out licenses; welfare reforms could allow for intensive support and education for those who wish to have children but might otherwise have difficulties in raising them compared to your average person. I feel like this is going back to the idea of community raising where there is enough trust and safety to do so. My point here is simply that access to licenses shouldn't be a problem so long as access to educators is given equally.

Anyway, very stimulating thread. Well done again. Glad to finally figure out some common ground.

- me

I feel this Here is an attempt to take a controversial stance like antinatalism and use it as motivation to apply a Nomian Standard to the utilitarian intent behind antinatalism.

but i believe people who promote anti nomianism, their ideas should be carefully scrutinized. — christian2017

Okay, but do you feel like elaborating on this?

Edit: sorry, forget that. I was confused for a moment over pro and anti.

I agree with this sort of approach and from a view of viewing a notion from multiple levels i definitely agree. Not sure i phrased that very well.

In my opinion space and land are key issues in keeping a large populace happy. Hypothetically if the world's population reached 1000 Trillion and all people lived in 1 mile high sky scrapers and food was grown through hydroponics and video games were how we experienced nature. To keep with a free market, i would say that enslaving older children (13 to 17) to build these large sky scrapers and have adults supervise the construction, i think that would adhere to a free market. I do not see the temporary enslavement of children as opposition to a free market. Children's labor are a commodity that can be traded by society. As long as the parents consent to their children being enslaved to society for a set period i do not see that as in opposition to a free market. Children being forced to work is not slavery in the traditional sense. When a person reaches 18 I think everything changes. Chick fil a likes to hire 14 year olds because teaching a 14 year old a modern cash register is extremely straight forward. An 18 year old and a 35 year old has a much higher learning curve even despite video game usage among these people.

Well I don't know about your world view, but my world view is founded upon a logical analysis of sense data — A Seagull

Let's look at what objective truth means. The way I said it and the way I think you understood it is that they are facts about the world which have certain qualities, some of which I mentioned.

However this is not the whole story. The concept objective truth includes the process of acquiring and confirming facts about the world. It isn't just about facts per se but also about knowing and using correct methods to acquire reliable knowledge of our world (rationality?).

If you believe sense data is good enough to build a worldview on, you're doing so not out of whim or fancy but because of reasons you think are adequate for such a belief. In other words if you chose sense data it's only because you think they're objective truths.

In addition the senses have been shown to be notoriously unreliable in providing us a picture of the world that's stable enough to build anything sensible on it.

Let's look at what objective truth means. The way I said it and the way I think you understood it is that they are facts about the world which have certain qualities, some of which I mentioned.

However this is not the whole story. The concept objective truth includes the process of acquiring and confirming facts about the world. It isn't just about facts per se but also about knowing and using correct methods to acquire reliable knowledge of our world (rationality?).

If you believe sense data is good enough to build a worldview on, you're doing so not out of whim or fancy but because of reasons you think are adequate for such a belief. In other words if you chose sense data it's only because you think they're objective truths. — TheMadFool

A good segue here into whether or not true knowledge is possible and very well put.

This is why when it comes to epistemology I always only make a claim to know what I perceive to be pragmatic knowledge based on scientific consensus in sense data where it can be found. By no means an infallible point of view and one that assumes the existence of objective morality but the entire approach is to assume the best and most rational answers to be true and act on them unless proven otherwise through the same mechanisms. However I use a very broad approach in what I term to be science and it delves into soft science in the arts and humanities also and I try to keep the science balanced with morals and personal spirituality.
It's all part of the many masks we wear;
under all masks, we are scared.

And just what is this process of yours for acquiring and confirming facts about the world?

If it is just playing with words, I am really not interested.

If it is just playing with words, I am really not interested — A Seagull

Then why are you writing anything at all?

Do we need to explain to you mathematically that even an illusion of a reality is still part of a sum reality greater than 0? Whatever reality is, it is not nothing. We might not be perceiving all of it but what we do perceive and what is that we don't perceive, for example dark matter and other forms of hypothetical matter, is indeed most certainly not Nothing. Nothing is the only true meaningless word there is for it describes a truly impossible to conceive state of affairs.

You can never really imagine nothing. Go ahead and close your eyes and start to imagine nothing. I promise you that the closest you will come is thinking of the colour black and the sound of silence which to a human means just the sound of their heart beating. Nothing is nothing, show me nothing and I will see a something. Even sleep and unconsciousness have somethings in the form of dreams and minute amounts of sense data which makes sure we are never really fully asleep which would be death for the body is always sensing internal data and it was the thing that told you to sleep in the first place. Failing all that you'll still be thinking of the word Nothing which is in itself not nothing.

Oh and to the physics interpretation of a nothing that preceded the universe; this is an assumption about the nature of the universe based on flimsy and literally explosive evidence. Entirely forgetting that explosions in and of themselves are also evidence destroyers. A false Vacuum is still a something as is a quantum fluctuation for it means that Quantum mechanics was a something prior to the fluctuation. So I dont feel there has ever been enough evidence to suggest that it all started with a big bang. A bang certainly happened but while it was the start of this cycle or phase of what we call the universe, it was also likely the end of whatever the previous phase was. Our phase has a time mechanic, that doesn't mean however that the previous phase didn't also have one.

I do not know what you are trying to say here, nor what relevance it has to what I said.

Words are for communication, nothing more.

In addition the senses have been shown to be notoriously unreliable in providing us a picture of the world that's stable enough to build anything sensible on it. — TheMadFool

Yes the senses are not entirely reliable for creating a picture of the world but they are way better than fiction or fantasy.

Yes the senses are not entirely reliable for creating a picture of the world but they are way better than fiction or fantasy. — A Seagull

Agreed but we would do well to attempt what's better than what's worse. Right?

By the way I think fantasy is useful in giving us direction as it usually opens up possibilities of a better future which give us a sense of how contingent but undesirable truths may be altered to make the world better.

A good segue here into whether or not true knowledge is possible and very well put.

This is why when it comes to epistemology I always only make a claim to know what I perceive to be pragmatic knowledge based on scientific consensus in sense data where it can be found. By no means an infallible point of view and one that assumes the existence of objective morality but the entire approach is to assume the best and most rational answers to be true and act on them unless proven otherwise through the same mechanisms. However I use a very broad approach in what I term to be science and it delves into soft science in the arts and humanities also and I try to keep the science balanced with morals and personal spirituality.
It's all part of the many masks we wear; — Mark Dennis

I don't understand the concept of sense data very well. The coin example of seeing the coin as an ellipse when in fact it's a circle suggests that we need to get past sense data to get to the truth.