9 Answers

  1. It should be borne in mind that at the moment there is already a scientific, and not only philosophical, understanding of objective reality, just as there is now a scientific theory of atomism, but before the emergence of nuclear physics there was only a philosophical one, created in Ancient Greece by Leucippus and Democritus. Returning to objective reality: personally, I am not so interested in philosophical ideas on this subject, which are a dime a dozen, as much as the empirically based concept of experimental realism by the cognitive linguist George Lakoff.

  2. A person is initially sure, and without any evidence, of the existence of that elusive “something” that is aware of itself, that is, the starting point is subjective reality. “I think, so I am.” In this reality – in the reality of the existence of our own consciousness-we cannot doubt. Consciousness can, of course, ask itself a formal question about its own existence-only here the answer to it is already ready and is not subject to doubt or discussion. But the fact that there is still some other reality, you can doubt “wholesale and retail”, you can doubt the existence of your own body, brain and sense organs, this is only known through sensations, you can doubt the existence of other people, you can doubt the existence of the entire material Universe. That is, the answer to the question of the existence of objective reality is not a matter of knowledge, but of faith. But our feelings confirm at least the subjective utility of believing in the existence of reality. Having believed in a reality that “confirms” its existence by always reacting in a certain way, in many cases predictably, to our interaction with it, no matter what this interaction is “actually”, we, having learned these patterns, can change reality so that our subsequent interactions with it cause in our consciousness those sensations that for some reason are pleasant for us.

  3. About the neighbor in the ward and his objective reality!!! First, one person does not and cannot have an objective reality, but only a subjective one, whether it is a neighbor in the ward, or Academician Ioffe! Objective reality is given to all of us only through subjective reality, as an abstract concept based on practical expediency! Each of us pulls this abstraction out of subjective experience in his own way, but for the final verification of the obtained objectivity, he compares the result with the results of others, including historical figures through social memory. Engels said in Anti-Düring that objectivity is proved not by a couple of conjuring phrases, but by the entire experience of mankind!

  4. Taking the subject's point of view as a starting point, one cannot prove or refute the existence of an OP. Our perception is always subjective, and direct experience or observation has an individual meaning, forms an individual picture of the world, forms subjective views and conclusions. However, this does not prevent us from accepting and embedding the idea of objective reality in the subjective picture of the world, or perceiving our subjective experience as a reflection of it. Objective reality is established in an instrumental and methodological way. Provided that the results are similar for many independent observations, with different tools or methods, and with statistical convergence, such results and conclusions are recognized as objective, subject-independent. There is no reason to believe that such results correspond to complete knowledge or irrefutable truth. As there is no reason to consider them non-existent, not correlated with reality.
    From a subjective point of view, it is more correct to consider the results of objective observations not as a complete coincidence with objective reality, but as a reflection of it or a reliable approximation.
    The second approach is the initial statement about the existence of an OP. Then subjective reality is only an interpretation of the OR through subjective experience.

  5. The concept of” objective reality ” was perceived differently in the Enlightenment era, so these ideas formed the basis of the ontological representation and influenced the development of many scientific theories.
    “Realism” in its general historical and philosophical sense is the point of view of reality, which confirms the position on the personal existence of reality that lies outside of consciousness. This reality can be understood as material or ideal. Therefore, there is a problem in the concept of what is “realism”, to which substrate this concept is attributed. In this connection, a huge number of philosophical ideas of both materialism and idealism appear, and accordingly problems arise in ontology, and later in epistemology.
    Ontological “realism” was the methodological basis not only for religious philosophy, but also for thinkers outside the religious direction: Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Lavrov, Plekhanov. Dialectical” realism”, anthropological, materialism, dialectical materialism represent milestones in the development of ontological “realism” in objective – rationalistic and positivistic forms. If religious ontology paid special attention to the immanent side of being, the intuitive way of comprehending the all-unity, and this was seen as a prerequisite for entering reality, then for irreligious ontology the subject of research was the objective, that is, the external givenness of the one being and nature to man. Therefore, in A. I. Scherzen's concept of dialectical realism, the initial position is the idea of the primordial unity of nature and thinking as the beginning of history. Plekhanov: “Material objects, we call such objects that exist independently of our consciousness, acting on our feelings, causing certain sensations in us, which in turn form the basis of our ideas about the external world, that is, about the same material objects, as well as about their mutual relations.”
    Gogotsky attributed the concept of” realism ” to the history of knowledge and metaphysics, while the object of knowledge consists only of a material mass, data for sensory observation has nothing independent in itself, and therefore knowledge is only a product of the action of things on our senses. Then the further meaning of the word “realism” is revealed and realism is considered in the relationship between the subject of knowledge and the thing(object) , or the subject of knowledge(subject – objective knowledge). Recognition of a thing, substance as the initial basis of knowledge, and human consciousness as only an ordering link in this model (a reflection of the surrounding reality), this is Gogotsky's “realism”. Thus Gogotsky reduced the question to an epistemological problem and limited himself to analyzing the positions of Locke, Kant, Schelling, and Hegel. Hegel and Schelling tried to find the basis for the unity of realism and idealism, and that is why the problem of the beginning appeared in epistemology. Therefore, phenomenology was able to show” that the scheme of an empty perspective environment, which the conscious person naively draws as a natural and isotropic container of things, is pure fiction” (Berezhkov F. F., Are sensory qualities subjective, Ways of realism). N. Lossky says that the conditions for the existence of all concrete whole things and events occurring in our three-dimensional world are beyond the three dimensions. The role of the theory of knowledge in matters related to ontology and other sciences is only to formulate its own requirements and make them available to other sciences.
    Ontology must show that the events of the past, on the one hand, are forever disappearing from the scene, and on the other hand, they remain forever present, supertemporal, so that the act of comparison leading to the emergence of a judgment “may not take place at the time when the event under discussion took place, and yet may contain a present being. In the same way, the act of judgment can last for one second and yet contain the knowledge of the eternal” (Berezhkov F. F.).

  6. This is how to look at it.

    In Schopenhauer, this topic is simply beautifully described, and it follows from his works that there is no objective reality, from the word at all, since everything that a person sees, hears, touches or smells is interpreted by his brain in a way that is convenient and seems correct. Roughly speaking, there are several “degrees of slack”: we see something that we adjust to already known forms, which are then considered by the brain to clarify details.

    That is, hence the difference of opinions on one issue, up to the most odious among already frankly unhealthy individuals. The bottom line is that for you and me, there is no sniper on the roof of the house opposite, and the neighbor in the ward points his finger and says: “yes, here he is, here” – that is, for him that sniper is the most objective reality!

    What is written above is for especially “gifted” boys, but for others everything is simpler: you can eat a cutlet, so it objectively exists, and the girl who can be slapped on the ass is also nothing like that, all of herself is real.

  7. you can count as anyone. the problem is that the existence of objective reality cannot be proven. Our mind is not capable of viewing anything outside of itself objectively.And he will not be able to identify himself separately from the experience.We can only perceive impressions by the means of our sensations, analyze them, identify similarities, differences and patterns,but what is the source of these impressions we can not determine.Whether these impressions are an objective reflection of material objects or all this is a projection of our consciousness is impossible to know, because this question is beyond the scope of our cognitive ability.Beyond this framework, we can only imagine, but the need for this imaginationcan never be confirmed by experience.That is why, it seems to me, there are so many radically opposite philosophical trends, ranging from crazy solipsism to various forms of materialism.Everything that is smoothly constructed logically, regarding this issue, has the right to exist, because most likely it can never be proved or disproved.

  8. Of course there is, this is obvious because I exist. But whether you are the author, and other solipsists in the answers and comments, it does not matter. After all, we are not talking about the form of reality that we need to know, but about the fact of existence.

    Well, logically, too, it is perfectly proved, from the opposite )) A nasty debater says that there is no reality, well, OK, we agree and cross out the solipsist along with his argument, because he is still someone's delusion illusory. It remains the same argument that reality exists, and it is irrefutable.

  9. Exists.

    Philosophically, it is formulated as follows: we cannot prove the reality of objective reality (objective-independent of the subject), however, since the denial of objective reality (i.e., the recognition of the subject as the only source of truth; solipsism) is meaningless, it exists.

    There was a famous story with the philosopher Berkeley, who came close to denying objective reality in his views, but always answered a direct question:”Yes, it exists.”

    In other words, if you are going to exist in an objective reality, you must recognize its reality. Moreover, there is only one reality, “composed”: God in this sense, even when he is the source and summit of objective reality, is a part of it. Different religions may have different points of view, but none of them denies the connection between God and reality (the objectively existing world).

    In general, if you want, you can deny objective reality, but this will be contrary to objective reality and therefore devoid of any meaning.

Leave a Reply

Categories