I agree. Essentially, I think this is Heidegger and unfortunately it iseems to me that analytical philosophy has been prevailing more and more, changing philosophy in science, and this way ignoring Heidegger's research, because science doesn't need to examine the radical questions of philosophy.

Funny, I wanted to ask a question along the same lines: Which is better, that there are no objective truths or that there are? In other words, is objectivity better than subjectivity or is the other way round?

Please give this question some thought before you post an answer.

What do you mean by "better"? I suggest you read the essay "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"

In what way doesn't science need to examine the "radical questions of philosophy" and what do you think those questions are? Isn't one of the essential questions of philosophy whether or not objective reality exists and can be reliably perceived? If reason is invalid, what is there to base science upon?

Is it possible for individuals to perceive and agree upon objective reality? — Elric

We seem to be doing pretty well agreeing about reality already. The precise nature of this shared exercise we call reality has been an open question throughout history.

Does objective reality pose requirements for human survival, for example, in order not to die you have to eat, and in order to eat you have to produce something? — Elric

Not sure exactly what you are asking. If the question is, do we die if we don't observe certain facts about our situation, the answer is clearly yes.

Does it respect objective reality, and does it require the subjective individual to behave in a consistent, sane and logical manner based upon the facts of objective reality......rather than upon subjective whim, which is how most political structures attempt to function. — Elric

This is unclear to me. Are you asking whether the facts of our situation - the need to eat and have clean air, etc tell us something about what we should value in terms of a social order and behaviour? Sure it does.

I personally don't know what the word 'objective' ads to the idea of reality. By definition reality would not be subjective. But you can have a personal or subjective experience of reality, which seems to be what we all have. But in the end, no matter how baroque your metaphysics are, and how radical you think you might be, you still need to piss and eat...

Despite these obvious things, millions do adhere to fantasy, religion, to guide their actions, rather than objective reality.

What is objective reality?

Objective reality is self evident, and behaving in accordance to it leads to survival. Ignoring it leads to the horrors of history created by religions and subjective political philosophies.

The problem is Randians often come across as evangelists, with glib talk and ready made phrases that resemble the approach of Christian apologists sharing the good news about Jesus/objecitivsim. You wanna save us, right? So I avoid prejudging you, what are you here for?

Before any ethical / political principles can be established, the questions of ontology and epistemology have to be answered.

Is reality independent of any individual's opinion, is it objective, not subjective? — Elric

Ohh dear we all missed the boat. I knew it, fuxx! However, on second thought, ethical and political principles have been established way before ontological and epistemological questions were answered. In fact, we cannot do without ethical and political principles when running a society and so, by necessity, they have to be in place before any ontological question is answered.

↪Tom Storm Despite these obvious things, millions do adhere to fantasy, religion, to guide their actions, rather than objective reality. — Elric

↪Tom Storm Objective reality is self evident, and behaving in accordance to it leads to survival. Ignoring it leads to the horrors of history created by religions and subjective political philosophies. — Elric

Meh... are those two statements not a teensy weensy bit contradictory? If objective reality was self evident then why would all those people rely on fantasy? Apparently it is not so self evident.

"Meh... are those two statements not a teensy weensy bit contradictory? If objective reality was self evident then why would all those people rely on fantasy? Apparently it is not so self evident."

You'd evidently like them to be contradictory. Why? Does the idea of a political / ethical system based upon objective reality frighten you? Are you a collectivist, a whim worshiper?

Those people rely upon fantasy because they place their subjective feelings as superior to objective reality. Unlike their fantasies, objective reality can be reliably demonstrated.

So you're just a troll. Noted.

So I avoid prejudging you, what are you here for? — Tom Storm

Ontology and epistemology are not ‘exact sciences’ (so to speak).

To suggest there should be some underlying objective foundation for reality that we can access and create a universal ethic from seems naive at best.

All ‘objectivity’ in day-to-day life is just a matter of intersubjectivity. ‘Pure objectivity’ is achieved only in abstracted demarcations (ie. Mathematical Arithmetic where there is no ‘opinion’ over 1+1=2).

The OP seems muddled btw. It seems like you are equating ‘subjectivity’ with ‘post modernism’? In reality experiences (that we have) are subjective, so to claim there is an ‘objective reality’ is not the same as offering complete truth. Science doesn’t deal with ‘truth’ in this way. Evidence is laid out and experimentation sheds light on phenomenon that allows us to navigate through life.

We don’t have any idea about any ‘physical objective truths’ of our world. We have however managed to peel back some layers that have allowed us a better understanding (predictive models) of the world we live in. Whether the layers ever end or we are capable of getting to the core is a matter of speculation.

One thing seems pretty clear though. Acting like there is an underlying mechanism to reality has helped us understand and expand more and more … but more answers have led to more questions too.

It is pretty amazing :)

You'd evidently like them to be contradictory. — Elric

You think the contraictory quality of the statement resides in me liking them to be so? You must think highly of my capabilities.

Why? Does the idea of a political / ethical system based upon objective reality frighten you? — Elric

Not that I am aware of, no.

Are you a collectivist, a whim worshiper? — Elric

My whims are most surely peersonal, not collective!

Those people rely upon fantasy because they place their subjective feelings as superior to objective reality. — Elric

Why would they do so, if reality is self evident? How do you know your preference for 'objective reality' is not based on your subjective feeling?

objective reality can be reliably demonstrated — Elric

Please demonstrate to me ' objective reality' . Mind you, 'objective reality' is something else entirely from what we refer to as 'a fact' .

What do you mean by "better"? I suggest you read the essay "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" — Elric

Sometimes it's best to leave a term as vague as it is or even vaguer.

As evidence, I offer you all of history, the horrors brought about by subjectivists, both religious and political. — Elric

I dispute this.

I suggest the greatest horrors of history were performed by people who believed in the objective righteousness of their actions. It is people with subjective views, who think those are objective views, who are the most dangerous. They think they have the moral authority to act, because they think they are objectively right, and the "other side" is objectively wrong.

A subjectivist can't have a position the "other side" is wrong.

If a person were to make a mistake, incorrectly believing one's views are subjective is far safer than incorrectly believing one's views are objective.

Unless the questions of ontology and epistemology are correctly answered first, no rational ethical / political principles can be established. — Elric

What counts as a correct answer to ontological questions?

What counts as a correct answer to ontological questions? — Jackson

He's been banned. Gone.

sock puppet account, I think.