I'm turning into Descarte....

[a completely inoffensive name]

Recently, I have been committing myself to a strict regiment of no video games and hours of solid reading. I got tired of feeling like I knew less than I should and then spending all my time playing video games instead of actually learning. Over the course of a few days I have taken advantage of Border's going bankrupt and got some moral and political philosophy as well as picking up a few books from my local used bookstore.

I have been reading a book called Justice by Michael Sandel a professor at Harvard and suddenly utilitarianism doesn't look so solid to me anymore. In fact, it looks pretty fail to me now.

I have been reading a book called Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin and suddenly I read that the Catholic church was extremely helpful to the black community in the south. Now religions don't seem so useless to me.

Now I am starting to feel like Descartes, doubting everything around me. When do I start to finally learn enough to ground myself in what is actually "reality"?

[Centurion1]

Who says you can't do both?

When you get over typical college age cynicism (which I also have of course) and just choose what reality you want to live in.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who says you can't do both?

When you get over typical college age cynicism (which I also have of course) and just choose what reality you want to live in.

I don't want to choose what reality to live in, I want to live in the actual reality. I don't actually go along with Descartes and everyone who says the mind doesn't really know what reality is. I like the older philosophers who seem to assert that reality is real for all of us, not subjective.

To me subjective realities, lead to a conclusion of a justification of no morals because you can't judge someone for simply having a different view of reality from your own since they can't help it.

[Fragony]

Cogito ergo dumb, works for me

[Major Robert Dump]

Thats why I keep my philosophy reading to a minimum, like Will Rogers. I really like that guy and it's too bad he died in that plane crash with Buddy Holly, Steve Vaughn and Aiisha.

Not a bad thing to turn in to:

http://www.descartes.com/

[Adrian II]

Now I am starting to feel like Descartes, doubting everything around me. When do I start to finally learn enough to ground myself in what is actually "reality"?

There is only one reality by definition. And it will always be confusing, if only because is it too large to grasp. The only certainty you can reach is in the realm of morality. But be careful, morality is not a roadmap, it's just a compass.

Sounds complicated, grasshopper? You'll get it soon enough.

AII

[Viking]

I don't want to choose what reality to live in, I want to live in the actual reality. I don't actually go along with Descartes and everyone who says the mind doesn't really know what reality is. I like the older philosophers who seem to assert that reality is real for all of us, not subjective.

To me subjective realities, lead to a conclusion of a justification of no morals because you can't judge someone for simply having a different view of reality from your own since they can't help it.

Of course, it is would be natural to assume that there is some objective reality of which each individual can have a subjective perception; like an adult reacting different from a child to the same situation. It would also be natural to assume from this that there would be an absolute relative morality, meaning that it would be possible to make moral judgements once it is established what the morals are/should be. However, going from an objective reality to an absolute objective morality is a bit of a leap.

As for "you can't judge someone for simply having a different view of reality from your own since they can't help it", that would be equivalent to someone killing a good guy thinking he was killing a bad guy in self-defense. It does not make judgements meaningless, just more complicated.

[Reenk Roink]

Get a girlfriend and take harder classes, problem solved.

[Cute Wolf]

Get a girlfriend and take harder classes, problem solved.

seconded, you should try quantum physics

[rory_20_uk]

There is only one reality by definition. And it will always be confusing, if only because is it too large to grasp. The only certainty you can reach is in the realm of morality. But be careful, morality is not a roadmap, it's just a compass.

What is, is. What you make of it can vary.

Most things don't matter. Learning more facts is nice, but almost everything you read or learn is by it's nature recounting events subjectively. Even what one sees can in some cases be manipulated.
Most people don't matter. We never know most people to any great degree.

Family is all that truly matters. Everything else is merely smoke and ashes.

From one's beliefs one can develop principles to live by, and then be quite happy one is living true to oneself. "Good" if you will, which is again subjective. Is it "good" to sacrifice one's child to save many others? I would say not, but others would disagree.

Get too deeply into Philosophy one has those debates as to whether everyone else in the world is a Robot, or are we all in a massive AI created reality.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

Ugh philosophy. Get back to the games man, its not worth it.

[Shibumi]

To believe Descarte is stupid.

Not because Descarte was stupid, mind you, but because the giants of today are standing on his shoulders.

Go with the giants of today, why reach for ten steps down the ladder of giants sight?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Recently, I have been committing myself to a strict regiment of no video games and hours of solid reading. I got tired of feeling like I knew less than I should and then spending all my time playing video games instead of actually learning. Over the course of a few days I have taken advantage of Border's going bankrupt and got some moral and political philosophy as well as picking up a few books from my local used bookstore.

Posting on forums less and avoiding google news and blogs works wonders for that too.


I have been reading a book called Justice by Michael Sandel a professor at Harvard and suddenly utilitarianism doesn't look so solid to me anymore. In fact, it looks pretty fail to me now.

That's because it is!


Now I am starting to feel like Descartes, doubting everything around me. When do I start to finally learn enough to ground myself in what is actually "reality"?

Enjoy being ungrounded. It gives you something to think about.

Aristotle's Ethics is a must read. And I like Bernard Williams on ethics. But you will probably have to go to the library for the latter.

[Papewaio]

I don't want to choose what reality to live in, I want to live in the actual reality.


Then study physical science like Biology, Chemistry or Physics.



To me subjective realities, lead to a conclusion of a justification of no morals because you can't judge someone for simply having a different view of reality from your own since they can't help it.

However even the sciences won't help you there. Reality is subjective. The observer effects the outcome of the observation.

Each of your eyes has a different view of reality. You can either poke one out and be certain that you only have one view, or you can keep them and enjoy life in 3D sight and stereo with your ears.

As for judging someone, normally we do judge, the best judges gather all the facts, understands from the other persons point of view then makes a decision. So it's a matter of seeing from anothers viewpoint... which does not equate with agreeing.

[Centurion1]

Then study physical science like Biology, Chemistry or Physics.



However even the sciences won't help you there. Reality is subjective. The observer effects the outcome of the observation.

Each of your eyes has a different view of reality. You can either poke one out and be certain that you only have one view, or you can keep them and enjoy life in 3D sight and stereo with your ears.

As for judging someone, normally we do judge, the best judges gather all the facts, understands from the other persons point of view then makes a decision. So it's a matter of seeing from anothers viewpoint... which does not equate with agreeing.

I suppose I am going to have to be this guy........ let us discuss the true problem here.

You believe you are approaching a level of understanding akin to one of the great philosophical minds of our time :clown: Does anyone else here see any delusions of grandeur?

:clown:

i used alot of clown faces to make the point I was kidding.

I believes reality is whatever you choose it to be. That being said society also chooses a reality and if your realities do not coincide in a manner as to allow symbiosis then society maintains the right to judge and question your reality. If an individuals reality is in fact "superior" to societies group reality than society will likely adapt and change to suit this new and improved reality.

[Adrian II]

Reality is subjective.

Yeah right. Reality is, like, aware of itself man. It smiles perpetually on mankind like a Vishnu avatar. :hippie:

Not.

Heisenberg -/- subjectivity of nature.

AII

[Papewaio]

I suppose I am going to have to be this guy........ let us discuss the true problem here.

You believe you are approaching a level of understanding akin to one of the great philosophical minds of our time :clown: Does anyone else here see any delusions of grandeur?

:clown:

i used alot of clown faces to make the point I was kidding.



I'm standing on the shoulders of giants.

I was referring to a common understanding in physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29

Uncertainty Principle being a lower limit of the delta introduced at a quantum level. IE momentum or position can be determined but not both precisley at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle

More importantly that they way we go about measuring reality has an effect on what we measure and the type of outcome we will find. Our minds choose our methods, and our methods determine our outcomes. For instance the double slit experiment vs the photoelectric effect. Measure one way and we find a particle, measure the other way and we have a wave.

So as observers we can find reality is subjective. To take to the objective level, requires measurement again and again. Something that science does, and stamp collecting does not.

[Fisherking]

I'm standing on the shoulders of giants.

I was referring to a common understanding in physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29

Uncertainty Principle being a lower limit of the delta introduced at a quantum level. IE momentum or position can be determined but not both precisley at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle

More importantly that they way we go about measuring reality has an effect on what we measure and the type of outcome we will find. Our minds choose our methods, and our methods determine our outcomes. For instance the double slit experiment vs the photoelectric effect. Measure one way and we find a particle, measure the other way and we have a wave.

So as observers we can find reality is subjective. To take to the objective level, requires measurement again and again. Something that science does, and stamp collecting does not.


Right! :2thumbsup:

I saw all this just before leaving home and wanted to point it out.

I am glad you got the little daisies before I did. :laugh4:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm standing on the shoulders of giants.

I was referring to a common understanding in physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29)

Uncertainty Principle being a lower limit of the delta introduced at a quantum level. IE momentum or position can be determined but not both precisley at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle

More importantly that they way we go about measuring reality has an effect on what we measure and the type of outcome we will find. Our minds choose our methods, and our methods determine our outcomes. For instance the double slit experiment vs the photoelectric effect. Measure one way and we find a particle, measure the other way and we have a wave.

So as observers we can find reality is subjective. To take to the objective level, requires measurement again and again. Something that science does, and stamp collecting does not.

Correct me if I am wrong, but being unable to accurately measure reality does not equal "reality is subjective". Subjective means that what you are observing only exists in your mind, this is different from being unable to see clearly.

Your application of quantum physics doesn't really seem apt here. In fact, you seem to be misunderstanding what the double slit/ photoelectric effects mean. It means that light itself can act and behave with properties of both waves and particles. It does not mean we are deciding in our own minds through experiments what light "will be".

I think that there is an objective reality, which you must work to understand and which you can understand. People have different interpretations of it because everyone has a personal degree of self separation of their own mind from reality. Wack jobs that go about shooting people up are not "victims" of a subjective reality but simply men that have slowly replaced reality with their own imagination and delusions separating their own minds from what is real.

[Strike For The South]

I know these things

I am here

Why I am here is nothing more than a cosmic gamble

However, cosmic gamble or not. Humanity as a whole is an entirely capable entity. Even if we sometimes fail to live up to such lofty expectations

[Fisherking]

Correct me if I am wrong, but being unable to accurately measure reality does not equal "reality is subjective". Subjective means that what you are observing only exists in your mind, this is different from being unable to see clearly.

Your application of quantum physics doesn't really seem apt here. In fact, you seem to be misunderstanding what the double slit/ photoelectric effects mean. It means that light itself can act and behave with properties of both waves and particles. It does not mean we are deciding in our own minds through experiments what light "will be".

I think that there is an objective reality, which you must work to understand and which you can understand. People have different interpretations of it because everyone has a personal degree of self separation of their own mind from reality. Wack jobs that go about shooting people up are not "victims" of a subjective reality but simply men that have slowly replaced reality with their own imagination and delusions separating their own minds from what is real.


Actually, what they are showing is that the observer has an effect on a subject being observed.

Further, the observers intent has some effect on the overall outcome.

It doesn’t mean that you can get things to fall up or that you can change lead into gold just because you want it but it dose mean that there is a measurable effect.

Therefore, you have an effect on the universe. Things often may turn out the way you expect them to, simply because that is what you expected.

You can’t reorder the world but you can change some outcomes, even if it is just a little.

[Papewaio]

Correct me if I am wrong, but being unable to accurately measure reality does not equal "reality is subjective". Subjective means that what you are observing only exists in your mind, this is different from being unable to see clearly.

Your application of quantum physics doesn't really seem apt here. In fact, you seem to be misunderstanding what the double slit/ photoelectric effects mean. It means that light itself can act and behave with properties of both waves and particles. It does not mean we are deciding in our own minds through experiments what light "will be".

Acutally Young's vs Einsteins experiments show that light in the first experiment is a wave. In the second it is a wave. The choice of experiments does have an impact on the outcome. If I continously repeat Einsteins photoelectric effect experiment, all I measure is light acting as a particle, it won't turn into a wave. No matter how often I repeat the experiment if I expected it to change I would be insane. :laugh4: Well more so. :dizzy2:



I think that there is an objective reality, which you must work to understand and which you can understand. People have different interpretations of it because everyone has a personal degree of self separation of their own mind from reality. Wack jobs that go about shooting people up are not "victims" of a subjective reality but simply men that have slowly replaced reality with their own imagination and delusions separating their own minds from what is real.

I agree that there is an objective reality. The subjective part is how we approach it and we have to understand our approach can effect the outcome. Take a cup of water, use a cold thermometer you get one reading, use a hot thermometer you get a higher reading. Just because there is an objective reality in the background does not mean that all of us are going to get the same outcomes. It also means that "I think therefore it is" will only get you to a subjective reality as it is missing a vital step.

To understand the objective reality you have to actually move from a system of thought in isolation, to include a system of measurement. Even then you have to understand the impact/feedback/change that they system of measuring has on that reality.

[Adrian II]

Take a cup of water, use a cold thermometer you get one reading, use a hot thermometer you get a higher reading.

On, I am going to use this example in future. It is the best explanation of Heisenberg I have ever come across. :bow:

AII

[Papewaio]

Well it is the one you can use with school children... the other version involves a nurse :7nurse:, a patient :sick2: and a rectal thermometer:daisy: :laugh4:

[Koga No Goshi]

Then study physical science like Biology, Chemistry or Physics.



However even the sciences won't help you there. Reality is subjective. The observer effects the outcome of the observation.

Each of your eyes has a different view of reality. You can either poke one out and be certain that you only have one view, or you can keep them and enjoy life in 3D sight and stereo with your ears.

As for judging someone, normally we do judge, the best judges gather all the facts, understands from the other persons point of view then makes a decision. So it's a matter of seeing from anothers viewpoint... which does not equate with agreeing.

Indeed.

Gutmensch, have you ever read about the anthropic principle? I find it interesting/relevant to your crisis here in a way.

Really long story short: anthropic principle says that reality is limited by what can be observed, more or less. When humans did not know about outer space, the world was existence. When humans learned about outer space, that was existence. When humans learned about galaxies and the universe, that became (and remains today) the perceived limit of existence/reality. So the anthropic principle turns that around and says... did these things always exist all along, or do they exist only because an intelligent thinking sentience became aware of them?

So there may be a whole other dimension or extension of reality of which we are presently completely unaware... does that mean it does not exist until we gain the awareness, technology or science to become aware of it? And perhaps most relevant to you... if we're incapable of perceiving it, does it matter if it exists or not as "true reality" out there somewhere?

I don't necessarily believe in subjective realities in the sense I believe you were describing, but I do believe everyone ultimately falls on one side of the anthropic principle. There's either a hard, objective reality out there regardless of human thought, or what's real is whatever we happen to see, perceive, or BELIEVE exists at the moment. Like sailors who thought they'd fall off the edge of the world or people who thought Astronauts might see Heaven as they left the atmosphere.

[Papewaio]

Or Black Swans...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Acutally Young's vs Einsteins experiments show that light in the first experiment is a wave. In the second it is a wave. The choice of experiments does have an impact on the outcome. If I continously repeat Einsteins photoelectric effect experiment, all I measure is light acting as a particle, it won't turn into a wave. No matter how often I repeat the experiment if I expected it to change I would be insane. :laugh4: Well more so. :dizzy2:

Light does not "turn into" waves or particles though, they have properties of both and the experiments merely show one or the other. You are only "choosing" what it will be through your experiment in the sense that the light will act in a certain way for a given situation and the situation you are creating in your experiment will have the light demonstrate properties of one or the other.



I agree that there is an objective reality. The subjective part is how we approach it and we have to understand our approach can effect the outcome. Take a cup of water, use a cold thermometer you get one reading, use a hot thermometer you get a higher reading. Just because there is an objective reality in the background does not mean that all of us are going to get the same outcomes. It also means that "I think therefore it is" will only get you to a subjective reality as it is missing a vital step.

To understand the objective reality you have to actually move from a system of thought in isolation, to include a system of measurement. Even then you have to understand the impact/feedback/change that they system of measuring has on that reality.

Hmmm, I will think about this.