I had a debate in a chat room with a person a few weeks ago. It was kept very friendly, and it was with someone about 10 years my elder. I don’t think either one of us lost this debate, but I don’t believe anyone really won it either. I just wanted to know what you people think in case I happen to come across this debate again in real life.
She was arguing the point that reality is subjective, and we cannot truely know what is real or not because one’s own interpretation might be differ from everybody else’s.
I told her that reality is objective by its very definition. I agreed that it was true that one’s interpretation can differ from what is actually objectively true, but in that case that person would be wrong. I also pointed out that the only people who actually live their life by her argument live in padded rooms.
She could only counter my points with questions (in quite a nihilistic way), although I could not answer to the fact that even if one views reality as objective, that person could also be mistaken. While that argument is an example of begging the question (in which the conclusion is stated or assumed in one of the premises), unfortunately, I could not answer it (and it’s difficult to dismiss an argument as a fallacy to someone who hasn’t studied logic).
So my question to you is:
How do we measure/define reality in a way that transcends individual interpretation? Is it possible?
Logic and science work, I know, but they always seem to be shrugged off with “well that’s just what you think”.
She was arguing the point that reality is subjective,
Welcome to the forum.
You will probably get a more serious answer than mine, but for fun, tell her that her position is inherently self-defeating. She cannot possibly “know” that reality is subjective if she believes her position to be true as there is no “true”.
You will probably get a more serious answer than mine, but for fun, tell her that her position is inherently self-defeating. She cannot possibly “know” that reality is subjective if she believes her position to be true as there is no “true”.
That actually makes so much sense, I don’t know why I didn’t see it before!
If one’s position is that you cannot know absolute truth, then they are arguing against their own knowledge!
I think this goes like this (feel free to correct me ):
The two basic concepts here are existence (reality) and consciousness (mind). The relationship between them is at the base of our view of reality as subjective or as objective.
Subjective reality is a view of the primacy of consciousness: consciousness creates existence. This means that the mind creates matter, that the person has power over existence. Existence is molded by consciousness. Since different people can perceive differently – reality is subjective.
Under this view, consciousness cannot therefore exist, since it is beyond existence. Mind is not material, but in a state of non-existence.
But if consciousness did not exist, it would not be able to perceive.
If consciousness exists, then it has to be subject to identity: otherwise it would be nothing in particular, which is the same as non-existence.
Consciousness exists, thus consciousness has to reside in the realm of existence, and not the contrary. Mind therefore can not create existence, mind resides within existence.
Mind can only perceive the existence. Existence exists independent of mind’s perception thus reality is objective.
Step one in the conversation should be the question: Primacy of consciousness or existence? Otherwise, you two could very well be arguing different things. If she says that reality is subjective, then that doesn’t *necessarily* entail that consciousness has primacy over existance. It could very well mean “Hey, there is only one reality, but human perception is flawed, so since all knowledge is ultimately perceptual, and everyone’s perception is wrong, then the subject views the object and creates his own ‘reality!’” The term subjective is a very loose word in the vernacular, and the term reality more often means “reality to YOU!” than “reality qua objectivist reality.”
Clear those things up before deciding exactly what you’re arguing against.
Always remember that “you might be wrong” is an arbitrary assertion until someone presents some evidence for the fact that you are wrong. The fact that people can be wrong about facts does not indicate that you are wrong about this fact any more than the fact that men can commit murder indicates that a particular person committed this murder.
And, an arbitrary assertion is not a basis for conclusions about anything.
This kind of discussion usually goes astray when an epistemological puzzle is turned into a metaphysical one.You have to first get agreement that there is an reality external to your consciousness. There is an automatic, unreasoned response that can be inserted into the debate everytime you propose an argument that there is something in the universe outside of your own mind and which you can know, namely the “it’s all an illusion” response, that is, unthinking gainsaying. Mack-truck therapy typically cures that line of “argument” – it comes down to the proposition that in reality there is ia huge truck hurtling down the freeway, about to hit you and splatter your guts all over the state. You know this because you can see the truck. The skeptic can easily deny that you know this. This therapy works best in person, especially if you can actually get near some serious traffic, although a handy electric outlet or other gruesome way to go would do, in a pinch. The point is, nobody actually seriously entertains radical skepticism as an epistemology, and everybody acts as though there is a real world external to the mind which you can know.
Going to the other extreme, it is important that you not commit the fallacy of infallibility; just because you have eyes and can see, not every inference that you make based on those eyes is in fact correct. Getting to the objection that one’s own interpretation might be differ from somebody else’s, inferences are not the same as (axiomatic) perceptual knowledge. A standard trick of skeptics is to hold that all knowledge is inferential, which is false. Some knowledge is, for example you may properly infer that a man walked by your window if you see his shadow. But if you actually, clearly and directly see the man, there is no inference, it is direct knowledge. It is really important to distinguish direct knowledge from inference.
The point is, nobody actually seriously entertains radical skepticism as an epistemology, and everybody acts as though there is a real world external to the mind which you can know.
I don’t know if that’s always true. There have been cases where people have done hallucinogenic drugs (or had some other type of psychotic break), and jumped off of a building because they thought they could fly.
Of course, this type of person doesn’t live very long, but it does happen. :smartass:
Just going to point out that taking hallucinogenic drug fantasies are not equivalent to any form of skepticism. If the gist of skepticism is “I do not believe it’s really there!” and the gist of drug use is “Dude, that invisible pink unicorn is totally there, man!”, then I don’t see any correlation. The druggie jumped off that building because he actually thought he could fly, not because he didn’t believe he couldn’t.
There have been cases where people have done hallucinogenic drugs (or had some other type of psychotic break), and jumped off of a building because they thought they could fly.
I was referring to epistemological beliefs; people on serious hallucinogens don’t do anything seriously.
Ok. lots of good advice. Some counterpoints to some suggestions:
Sophia, your argument is pretty conceptually correct, but without some way of tying to reality directly, it will seem hollow. It feels purely conceptual (if A then B then C then D. QED)
The, “I can argue you into non-existence” is interesting, and will make the person you are arguing with think a bit. But someone who entertains odd epistemological arguments might be quite willing to accept your non-existence, and be happy to keep you there with them. You must make a path out of the cave…
It is true that nobody would seriously entertain rational skepticism in a fully consistent manner, but poor epistemology comes from not resolving the contraditions and continually chasing your tail, not from truly accepting it.
My approach is thusly:
a. Figure out where they are coming from first. Many times a source of contradition comes from a faulty reasoning process, usually by using arguments about induction to show that existence can’t be induced. The basic error is that “I’ve never seen every example of a man, therefore I can’t be sure that man is mortal” - applied to reality. Combine it with man’s infallibility, and you get subjectivism. If you accept this, you’ll never get out of it.
b. You drive the argument toward reality. You want to bring them to primacy of reality, right. You have to get to the axiomatic nature of reality. To do that, you don’t have to fix the poor induction. Rather explain the concept of axioms. Validation by sense perception. Now, I accept that I am fallible, but if I could show you that even with that infallibility, there are aspects of reality that I can know for certain, that are implicit in everything. I then would focus on 2 things: identity and cause and effect. And here I make it real, because the ultimate justification is look around. Now you’re pelting them with evidence, and asking them to take it in. Identity: an apple is not an orange, and it never will be. EVERYTHING follows this. No matter how far science maps cause and effect, EVERYTHING acts one way other things and one way only. When science is wrong about something, and is later corrected, the solution has identity and cause and effect.
Psychologically, they will have to sit with this for a while so this is abou the best you can hope for I think, but look at the position that you’ve put them in. They will now have to use their deduction skills to posit things to you like miracles, things that are anti cause and effect, which will not sit well with them. God invariably comes into this. Don’t let it.
Just going to point out that taking hallucinogenic drug fantasies are not equivalent to any form of skepticism. If the gist of skepticism is “I do not believe it’s really there!” and the gist of drug use is “Dude, that invisible pink unicorn is totally there, man!”, then I don’t see any correlation. The druggie jumped off that building because he actually thought he could fly, not because he didn’t believe he couldn’t.
I don’t know-- my understanding of hallucinogenic is that, under normal circumstances, there’s always part of your mind that knows it’s just a drug, and that everything strange that’s happening is “just in your mind,” not “in actual reality.”
I would hypothesize that someone who is unable, philosophically to distinguish between their mind and reality-- in other words, is skeptical of the ability of the outside world to remain impervious to the spaced out fantasies of his own consciousness when he takes drugs, would be much more likely to cross that line that most relatively sane drug users never cross; and do something stupid like try and fly off of a building.
I’m not being scientific at all, because I have no evidence to back that up. It just makes sense to me that it would be that way.
I was referring to epistemological beliefs; people on serious hallucinogens don’t do anything seriously.
Maybe I’m being unfair to skepticism, but it seems to me that drug users and skeptics (and some psychotics) are in a similar position. They both think they’re taking things seriously-- maybe even that they have an “elevated consciousness.” They’re both capable of making some rational connections (depending on what kind and how much hallucinogens we’re talking about), but they contradict themselves and reality so often, that we are ultimately forced to dismiss them and their assertions as absurd. Is that too close to an ad hominem? I’m not saying there’s any causal connection, just kind of a similarity in their approach.
Maybe I’m being unfair to skepticism, but it seems to me that drug users and skeptics (and some psychotics) are in a similar position. They both think they’re taking things seriously-- maybe even that they have an “elevated consciousness.”
In retrospect, I agree that a psychotic or a profoundly hallucinating drug user (not a mere stoner) might truly believe that there is nothing in the universe but his mind. In short, people with no cognitive connection to reality could have this belief. The issue is whether the belief they have is serious, and if you understand “serious” to mean something like “requiring much effort” it cannot be seriously argued that a drug user or hallucinator has come to the belief by serious work. However, if you think of a serious belief as being one that has no competitors for plausibility in a person’s mind, then an arbitrary, psychotic belief which is a person’s only belief could be a “serious belief”.
We don’t actually see those people except in very exceptional circumstances (or at least, I don’t see them in the crowd I hang out with), though if you work in a hopital ER you might. So I didn’t initially think of psychotics. I was thinking of skeptics, who I know by the dozens and have read in the hundreds, and they are not like psychotics. Theirs is either not universal skepticism, or it is not serious skepticism (i.e. they don’t really believe the position they are setting forth, and they are usually aware of but not focused on the contradictory nature of skepticism).
Maybe I’m being unfair to skepticism, but it seems to me that drug users and skeptics (and some psychotics) are in a similar position. They both think they’re taking things seriously-- maybe even that they have an “elevated consciousness.” They’re both capable of making some rational connections (depending on what kind and how much hallucinogens we’re talking about), but they contradict themselves and reality so often, that we are ultimately forced to dismiss them and their assertions as absurd. Is that too close to an ad hominem? I’m not saying there’s any causal connection, just kind of a similarity in their approach.
If the argument against the skeptic was, “they are skeptical of the existence of reality, therefore they are wrong.” this would be an ad hominem (circumstantial). However, an argument against their contradictions would hold up, and give reason to dismiss their claims.
The same claim made by the drug user can be dismissed with what would appear to be an ad hominem. “They are on drugs, therefore, I should not take much they say seriously.” I believe there is enough evidence that some drugs in certain quantities can alter one’s state of mind enough that they no longer perceive reality correctly. Try telling that to the druggie though. :lol:
My usual response to subjectivism is a simple answer like:
The epistemological response:
“Our senses are our only means of obtaining knowledge, therefore they must be trusted 100%”
Common response: “But what if you know you have a chemical imbalance or are hallucinating?”
my response: “Any knowledge, past or present, of your own senses’ inefficiency must have been obtained by one’s own senses. There is still no “priori” doubt of their efficiency.”
The problem with this argument of mine is that it often makes me sound like a classical empiricist… which is not my goal…
The metaphysical response:
“There are no absolutes.”
“You just uttered an absolute”.
“That’s the only one.”
“You just uttered another one.”
“Ok how about this: The only absolute is that this is the only one.”
“That sentence doesn’t even say anything. It literally amounts to “This is the only absolute” without even defining itself. You’re just being facetious.”
