- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Objective reality is an idealized concept, which means the ultimate truth. This concept has its roots in Plato and his Theory of Ideas. Psychologically, it is based on the human need to simplify ideas, taking some opinions (hypotheses) for the truth (objective reality) , because our brain has a limited memory and limited data processing power.
Even if we assume that there is an objective reality, no one will ever know what it is. At different times, scientists have seen this objective reality differently.
Now (and even earlier) “objective reality” is a means of pressure and manipulation in order to be able to refute the opponent's Opinion without proof. For example, saying “you are wrong, because the objective reality is different.”
For example, once there was an “objective reality” that the Sun revolves around the Earth, now the Earth revolves around the Sun, but neither is an error for Newtonian physics.
Theories are constantly wrong, so when talking about “objective reality”, it is important to remember that it was different before, and in 50 years it will also be different. So a person in different “realities” can be:
And there is no” objective reality ” even in the definition of a person, it all depends on the context, social norms, upbringing of the speaker and listener.
You can answer the question – does not exist. But then I come across the question, ” What does it mean to exist?” And here, too, you can find many contexts and answers. Therefore, I will answer this: “Everyone decides for himself whether there is an objective reality.”
But if you ask the question specifically, ” Will I invest money at 10% per day in the project?” And the answer to this question will be a veil from my experience, and there will be my subjective reality that will be a veil from my experience. I may or may not give it away. And it will definitely be my subjective reality, not “objective reality”.
I know of at least two ways to talk about objective reality without leaving much doubt about its existence.
First, there is a reality that does not depend on my will. Secondly, there is a reality in which quite a large number of independent observers agree. Both of these realities (for the most part they are identical) clearly exist and can be called “objective”.
“Objective reality” as a model can be described in the following two ways::
a) the perceptual-motor experience of the functioning of our bodies and gestalt perception create basic-level categories;
b) pre-conceptual structuring of the experience of functioning of our bodies in space creates kinesthetic figurative schemes.
As a material for creating indirectly significant concepts (including mathematical and other ones), people use basic-level categories and kinesthetic figurative schemes using metaphors and some other methods. In this sense, these two kinds of symbolic structures construct an “objective reality”for our species.
Exists. It is best to approach this issue from a purely materialistic perspective. We feel it and we feel it therefore it objectively exists
Objective reality is the correspondence of your mental model to the entity outside of you that you perceive. Objectivity test – the ability to predict the future state of this entity. In principle, there can be no complete model of objective reality. You see a chair – this does not mean that you also have a chair in your head, it means that you have created a mental model of the chair, and not anyhow – but the one that you see. But a person, especially one who imagines himself to be intelligent and educated, really likes to smear verbal snot on the glass. And philosophizing begins neither to the village nor to the city, which is essentially verbiage.
You can say about the media text.
It is clear that a person thinks in words (or a discursive model), words (denotation) are assigned to the concept of the univer-sum of objects and phenomena. And there is a narrative that aims to explain “what and how” there is.
To summarize, media channels (like me now) broadcast narratives that simply and easily explain (create) a discourse (language model) of reality (information about the world around us). And the existence of objective reality is lost in the number of interpretations of this very reality.
For example, the BBC explains popular science, Heidegger academically-scientifically (dasien), Christianity through faith and miracles, Communism about oppression, etc., etc.
And speaking about objectivity, as well as about this question, you get a lot of different answers.
Yes, how to say its existence for people depends on the “conscious subject” (i.e., on the “observer”). There are some “observers” who believe that “objective reality” is an illusion (solipsists) and it is impossible to prove to them that objective reality exists independently of them (because “what is existence?” this is the “basic question” even of the ontology of the “queen of all sciences” philosophy, and not at all the question ” does God exist?”, because when answering it, you already need to know what “existence” is).
There are also those who believe that it = Matrix (in modern terms). Etc.
It's just that if objective reality doesn't exist, then why do we need all the sciences? What are they “learning” then? Not to mention the fact that there is then no difference between life and death, and even more so all that (more “small”) that so “excites people” at all times.
In short, as you answer the “basic question of philosophy”, so it will be (for you). It is “more pleasant” for me to answer “Yes”, because if the answer is” No”, then I myself am also” no “(and this is” unfair “somehow, I can't even find the words for my”feelings”).
Reality is what exists in general, an objectively revealed world. Objective – existing outside and independently of the subject. Or, if we are talking about concepts and representations, those that are independent of the subject (an unbiased and unbiased) reflection of material reality.
In a sense, it turns out to be an oily oil. For the most part, “objective” and “real” are used interchangeably. On the other hand, the requirement of independence from the subject (impartiality) is in itself contradictory, since the requirement of “objectivity of reality” is itself biased and dependent on those who establish it. So it is possible to doubt the objectivity of objectivity itself.
The existence of objective reality is already butter squared, because all three concepts include the concept of”existence”. Simply by virtue of the very definition, objective reality exists. This is a formal answer to the question posed.
However, the reality is not so simple. Over time, philosophers expanded this concept beyond the objective world to include the realm of the ideal. As a result, today we are already dealing with several dozen realities, such as physical, subjective, consensual, virtual, etc.Reality is no longer connected with objectivity, but only existence as such remains. However, with this approach, everything already exists-ideas, numbers, images, symbols, etc. Of course! It exists in the mentality of believers. From this point of view, the question becomes meaningless. “Objective reality” at least exists as an idea or concept. Moreover, as a concept, it can be biased and dogmatic, i.e. biased, which it already is today. Yes, and aggressive.
So what is “objective reality”? This is the concept of dividing reality into objective and subjective. And since it is a concept, it cannot be independent of the subject. In addition, given the rigid orientation of the dominant scientific approach to this concept today, it is clearly biased. Therefore, following its own definition, it is absolutely biased. Such a squiggle is obtained 🙂
And indeed, the division of reality into objective and subjective is very conditional, and is a product of human mental activity (nature knows nothing about this). Following this concept, we only believe that there is an external objective world independent of us. It is basically impossible to prove this. And science does not do this, it proceeds from this, because this concept is its foundation.
Why, then, are there so many questions about reality and its existence? I think the root of it is that despite the presence of a huge number of philosophical trends, the basic concept of any philosophy – existence-is still vague and uncertain. Yes, there is a lot of talk about it, usually referring to something else (essence, transcendence,…), while not giving at least some clear definition. There are even such words as “present being” or “that which simply is”, i.e. only synonyms are given. And this is in the philosophical dictionaries! The same thing is happening in religion and Eastern systems. The very statement of the question of the existence of God suggests that existence is more important than God.
There is also such a definition of existence – the ability of an entity to interact with physical and mental reality. Roughly speaking, there is something that interacts with other entities, our senses and thinking. It follows from this definition that whether something exists or not is determined only by direct or indirect interaction with our mentality, and only our thinking ultimately decides whether it exists or not. Decides in the process of interpreting such a hypothetical interaction based on the chosen concepts of the hypothetical external (physical) world. As we can see, there is only a place for objectivity here as a hypothetical in consequence of the choice of a certain concept, which we observe in nature in the form of a scientific approach as one of many others. And everyone claims toThe truth!
By the way, physicists (at the suggestion of Einstein) have long abandoned working with objective reality. For their work, they defined physical reality as a coordinated practice of physical experiment and theoretical developments. And here it is impossible to say that the experiment confirms the theory, because it is carried out on the basis of obviously defined ideas of the chosen theory. Experiment and theory here are two parts of the same whole – physical reality. Do you feel it? Objectivity is intertwined with mentality here.
So what is the essence of existence?
Once upon a time in pagan times, people did not warm their heads over this, they simply communicated with the gods, spirits and elements, without asking questions about their existence. They were pragmatists. However, over time, it was noticed that the world is not what it seems. Often, visible things hide other entities and interactions. This gave rise to ideas about substances, atoms, and Being, as well as about God the Creator and the Tao. People were looking for a single and absolute Truth behind all the diversity of the visible world. I.e., the idea is that there is only the true, and everything else is just a manifestation of it. To be True is to have a real existence. Dahl assumed that the Russian word “truth “is the same root as the word”is”.
If we accept the understanding of the concept of “existence” as “truth”, then it becomes clear why different concepts of the world are based on the question of existence, the question of what is considered to really exist, that is, what is considered to really exist. The truth. Brahman (Buddha, Tao), God or Being?
The East tells us that Buddha is True, the Middle East that God is True, and the West that Being is True. Well, we are the Russians (North), what can we say about this? Eh?
Even in the most ancient times, people realized that what they think or know about the world around them does not always coincide with what actually exists. There is a saying: I see, then I believe. But even your vision can fail, just like the rest of your senses. Although more often the error occurs at the level of interpretation of visual, hearing, etc. data. It is from the realization that what seemed to us may be something else and with a more thorough analysis we will come to more reliable data, no longer refuted by any verification, that the concept of OBJECTIVE REALITY was born. From what has been said, it is clear that the object we call objective reality exists, this concept was born out of practice, and practice is a criterion of truth.
Indeed, it depends on the position of the observer, so the “objective” and “subjective” definitions of reality are relative. At the moment when consciousness is distracted from the object of knowledge, does not delve into the essence of the known-subjective reality becomes objective. Conversely, objective reality becomes subjective when the mind is directed by will, feelings, and thought to cognize the object. How strong is the aspiration and tension in the cognition of an object, this will be the degree of subjective cognition of this object.
It is incorrect to say “reality that does not depend on my will”, this means denying the reality perceived by the senses and thoughts, but rejected by the will. When the mind (in the trinity-thought, will, feelings) is one-sided, due to the refusal of the work of one of the “colleagues”, it is no longer a mind capable of perceiving reality in truth. Of course, the denial of reality is also a reality, but perceived only from the obvious side, i.e. invalid. Without an attempt to delve into the essence of what is perceived by the will, reality will remain illusory.
You probably already realized from the rest of the answers that there is no single answer. I will add that there is an opinion that a person cannot even talk about such moments using ordinary language, since our language is created in order to describe ordinary things, and not metaphysical concepts. What is” objective reality ” each person decides for himself, and also determines where its boundaries begin and end. The answer will depend on their worldview, the era they live in, their education, religion, and so on.