Is there such a thing as objective reality?

Question

Is there such a thing as objective reality or is all we understand purely subjective reality?
How can we be certain that what we consider to be objective reality is not purely our subjective opinion? Does majority rule turn subjective reality into objective reality?

Sara S.
You shouldn't cut and paste from Wikipedia without acknowledging them. I did look there before I asked the question but didn't find their view very enlightening.

I think that there is an objective reality but that we all operate with a subjective reality. When the two are in conflict we develop psychological or practical problems.
If my subjective reality is that I am standing in the middle of a field and the objective reality is that I am standing on a train line with an express coming toward me at 150 kph the two realities do not conflict until the express train arrives.
The objective reality supplants the subjective reality and I get squashed.

Brian,
Objective reality is that when you release a spoon it moves toward the centre of the Earth. The force which moves the spoon is subjective in the sense that the majority agree that the force is gravity but the three people who believe it is the spoon fairy and the 2 billion who have no idea why are equally applying their subjective reality.
For gravity we only have a majority concensus rather than an understood and provable mechanism. It is a delusion to believe that the spoon does not move but faith that the mechanism is gravity, particularly when none of us have any idea what gravity is.

Answer 1

Why wouldn't there be an objective reality? When you close your eyes does the world stop existing? Or, even further, when you die will the rest of the world stop existing?

Our perceptions of reality may not be perfect, but that doesn't cause reality to be non-existent.

Your first statement looks like a bit of intellectual sleight of hand. You said "Is there such a thing as objective reality or is all we understand purely subjective reality?" You're implying it's either one or the other. I think both ideas are true: objective reality does exists and all we can understand is going to be subjective. How could it not be subjective?

Your last statement: "Does majority rule turn subjective reality into objective reality?"

I think implies "oh look we are all sheep following the herd!", which is a garbage, Matrix-esque idea that should be discarded. There really is a spoon. Gravity really does exist, despite the fact that the majority of people believe it exists (that's a purposely weird statement, yes)

Answer 2

The meaning of the term "objectivity", like the term "subjectivity", is by no means unambiguous, and rather than attempting precision in definition it is more practical to simply illustrate what it involves, and perhaps by elimination, what it is not. The ontological status of a possible objective reality and references towards the objective should not be confused with, or reduced to, the dichotomous relations between object and subject, or subjectivity and objectivity, without considerable qualifications. Essential to this notion is the reconciliation of the objective and references to the objective, where the state of being objective is to correctly represent reality. However, the term "reality" itself can lack clarity and is not without ambiguity. One only needs to consider the relation of an individual subject to the objective world in isolation to see that the relation is constituted by too many unknowns to give any meaning or content to the concept of objectivity, or that the state of being objective has no meaning where in an isolated relationship the subject and object may be indistinguishable except to an external observer. Thus, reconciliation of the objective with references to it involves not simply the object-subject relation, but at least one external observer and the possibility of discourse, even where communication is limited to ostensive definition (pointing).

The concept of objectivity in philosophy does not necessarily entail notions about a neutral point of view, as the term is defined and prescribed, for example, in such disciplines as journalism. A neutral point of view is not to personally take a point of view, that is, it is to represent all sides of the story without personal observation or conjecture. Logically, if represented as "A ∨ ~A" (A or not A), a neutral point of view represents a tautology which some philosophers state has no content, or is meaningless because it provides no new information or knowledge. If represented as "A ∨ B", it may represent alternative positions without regard to the possibility that both alternatives may be true, or false, simultaneously, when the rules of disjunctive syllogisms dictates that one or the other must be true. In philosophy, due to the rule of conditionalization in modern logic, objectivity and the possibility of knowledge always allows for the application of the rule of addition, that is, "(A ∨ B) ∨ C", meaning "(A or B; or C)"[1].

The belief of the 'majority' does not alter the dacts of objectivity or subjectivity---only the value we put on one or the other.

Answer 3

sure, there is. there are a number of sturdy solutions right here. i'd want to operate that, even inspite of the actuality that human beings at the prompt are not impartial, we are able to nevertheless study some thing about purpose actuality. get at the same time: 2 human beings witness a homicide. one claims that the attacker replaced into 5'10, the different individual claims 6'0. there is an purpose actuality, a guy with a particular height dedicated a homicide.we do not know the height of the guy, yet we are able to know that a homicide replaced into dedicated by ability of him. we are able to likely not in any respect know the finished photograph, yet we are able to nevertheless study some elements of purpose actuality.

Answer 4

I don't think so.I believe that reality is a state of mind that each person has and how it is used to interpret the way they perceive what is real to them . In other words a subjective reality.

Answer 5

I do believe there is an absolute truth for everything... There is an absolute right answer for any question.... We certainly do not know all of them... and we will never know them (I think)... but it doesn't mean they do not exist...

If we once perceived Earth to be a flat planet... we were wrong regardless of our perception....

We now know it is a absolute truth that Earth is round...

And like that with everything... we might not see a tree that exists... but it still exists....

All truths exists regardless of we knowing them...

Answer 6

there is only perception no absolute truth
no the majority are usually wrong anyway