# The Case for Objective Reality vs. Subjective Reality



## Zygomorphic (Nov 19, 2009)

In the wholehearted pursuit of omniscient knowledge, one must make a vital decision: to delve into the wellsprings of objective reality or of subjective reality? 

The goal of pursuing objectivity is clear: to attempt to establish a perfect, omniscient grasp and view of reality as it truly is in terms of logic and systems. Logic ultimately seeks to define that which is concerned before it experiences and/or acts; to, ironically, create merely a larger framework which dictates and explains the laws governing the universe. Humans, ever imperfect and fundamentally flawed, shall likely never reach the apex of this goal. This is not to say that the quest is sophomoric and pointless at all - it is rather the contrary, as can be seen in the advancements of human thought processes. 

One might ponder how a perfectly logical being might be characterized - perhaps it might even be considered a demigod. Will this deity transcend logic as humans know it? How might this being approach the concept of subjectivity - entirely deny its worth, compromise with it, or would this deity, to pose a bold question, perhaps wholly embrace it?

Essentially a reverse of the process logic undertakes, the subjective approach seeks first to experience and interprets during or after the experience. It exists on the opposite end of the spectrum logic inhabits; it is that which can never be wholly and justifiably defined within the confines of mere words and linguistics. Ironic then, that here I shall seek to describe it in part. 

I could choose virtually any abstract example to convey the following, as the universe is characterized by cyclical patterns, but this one in particular seems apt and easily depicted with language: me in a hovering suspension between the atmospheric heavens of earth and the vast, dazzling space at a sort of midpoint. Indeed, one need only look downwards to face and marvel at the density of beauty condensed into but a humbled, celestial rock - here, the essence and matter of all that is passion and emotion personified. Then looking above, earth is paralleled in magnitude of awesomeness by the infinite expanse of the universe, a contrarily-hued bombast of blackness and white light. At this midpoint, there is this overwhelming sensation and experience of a merging of the two mediums depicted - nothingness intertwined with everything; depth of breadth compounded with breadth of depth; infinite beauty and a beautiful infinity. This is a deeper than deep unraveling of the mind - it is the pinnacle of my subjective experience. 

Although the subjective experience might be described within the boundaries of logic, the experience itself always pervades any tangible definition - it is an experience, after all. What defines the apex of subjectivity is, of course, subjective by nature, which is why it is so feasible to achieve. If I say it is so and truly "feel" it, it must be true within my realm of subjectivity. In a manner, a submission to this pattern of thought paradoxically breeds a different logic - that a recognition of subjective reality also instigates the fact that logic lies within it; logic is "experienced" rather than grasped. Since I do choose to experience the universe in its entire subjectivity, this form of twisted logic becomes realized. 

One might view me as subjective at the core and fortified at the exterior with objectivity acting as a shell or barrier against disharmonizing forces which would threaten my core. This not only works well, but is arguably in a manner consistent with the nature of the universe - that is, as I stated earlier, the universe functions cyclically. Space and infinity function in cycles in dimensions beyond the concrete, first three. Tomorrow exists as yesterday and yesterday exists as today - and many more webs do exist. The concepts of memory and imagination, existing perhaps in the abstract, fifth dimension, intertwine with and supersede the fourth dimension of time as well as the previous three. Thus, a memory or even an apparently false idea can still be perceived and experienced as truth - this is why, as stated, yesterday might exist as today or even tomorrow. The desire of objectivity is subjective and the decision to be subjective is birthed from objectivity. Thus, perhaps perfect objectivity leads to an innate subjectivity and perfect subjectivity leads to an innate objectivity. These explanations help to define what I mean by a cyclical universe. The space-earth anecdote could be interpreted exactly the same through the relationship between a river and ocean or the sun and the horizon.

Thus, I believe I have well-explained the workings of my very self - one who seeks to indulge in the ultimate subjective reality bearing objectivity. It seems as if only one more issue remains at hand; this subjective reality invokes a higher state of trance and self- and worldly-awareness also giving rise to exuberant emotion and passion. Yet these energies have no beneficiary to direct towards, and are sadly turned back inward to fade. This fact works against the cyclical universe; I must find someone to essentially love (as the greatest avatar of emotion and passion is truly love) and accept love from. Actualizing it would complete the necessary cycle, which would be but a smaller projection of the larger cycle of the universe - but no less in magnitude.

This is why, for me, subjective reality, in the end, surpasses objective reality.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Yay!!! :happy:


----------



## Arioche (Aug 5, 2009)

*nod of approval*
It's funny how much we think alike. :3 You should write more often, this was a very interesting read.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

All I can really say is: I disagree. I think that "subjective reality" is a fancy way of saying "intentional ignorance."


----------



## Zygomorphic (Nov 19, 2009)

The point I was trying to make was that one can develop both objective and subjective views of reality because the two inhabit the "system of the universe" differently (objectivity being an exoskeletal framework and subjectivity being the inner flesh, so to speak). Thus, it is possible to concern oneself with subjectivity and still not be ignorant. The subjective reality is closer within our grasp, however, and thus it is more efficient to devote oneself to.


----------



## εmptε (Nov 20, 2008)

*Azrael*: I hate to disagree with you but I do disagree. I believe reality is all basis inside of our heads. We perceive reality this way so reality is this way. A dog would not perceive reality in the same way that a human does so how can you say that reality is objective. Okay, I'll help. Reality is Objective, but our eyes and minds are subjective.

Personally I believe all of you are just figments of my own imagination, and I can easily make one of you disappear.... aka: *Solipsism.*


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

One cannot escape subjectivity _entirely _due to the very fact that perception itself distorts the nature of reality, but by using logic and empirical evidence, we can make efforts to move towards the TRUTH. Embracing subjectivity sounds to me like admitting defeat. I think that it is dangerous. Opposing views unchecked by reason or evidence will create more excuses for conflict.


----------



## εmptε (Nov 20, 2008)

*Azrael: *That depends on if you think subjectivity is bad. Sometimes Subjectivity is a good thing. I may sound idealistic but I like the ability to view my world however I want instead of having just one steady thing pushed on me.

Now, you're argument about Logic and Empirical evidence. How do you know that is correct? Would the science and logic used to prove realities objectivity be there if it wasn't for subjective view points. The apple fell on his head and he convinced gravity. What if it was someone else? They might have just been pissed an apple fell. If people can be taken from this reality and it changes than it's not objective.

Again; I really enjoy Solipsism. Most philosophers don't because its like the end all be all, but I'm on of the few that love it. If I remember correctly weren't they trying to prove that reality isn't real a little while ago? (Scientist) I remember XKCD made a little comic about it.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

I don't think that subjectivity is "bad." I just think that it is dangerous without objective guidance. Logic and empirical evidence are objective/unbiased/impartial by themselves. Someone may interpret them incorrectly, but that is another story.

Regarding solipsism, I am one of those philosophers who doesn't like it. I don't think that it has a firm epistemological grounding. It reminds me of those people who talk about how they might be plugged into the matrix, or maybe they are a figment of someone else's imagination, etc, etc...


----------



## εmptε (Nov 20, 2008)

*Ah, the matrix. That is an interesting belief system. Dollhouse did something similar with their attic. I actually love the thought of using a bunch of human brains together to create a fictional reality, and who knows it is somewhat plausible that it may be true.

*You believe reality isn't subjective. I believe that reality is what we (I) make it, and he believes that reality is subjective. The great thing about opinions and theories are that they are subjective until proven factual, and I believe its going to take a longer time to answer this question.


----------



## MilkyWay132 (Jul 15, 2010)

That was a very fascinating read. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Plaxico (Dec 11, 2010)

Very interesting topic. Can't say I completely understand it.


----------

