A question for subjectivists: What is one perceiving if not reality?

Answer 1

In that case, my answer should never be trusted.

Answer 2

One perceives a blurry, incomprehensibly incomplete description of reality. While you might say that our vision is clear, we lack atomic precision and can only really see certain wavelengths of light (visible light spectrum), hear certain wavelengths of sounds, feel certain strengths of force, etc. What more? You only see, of the entire time-space continuum, the present time in a very small radius around yourself (often only 1 room, though possibly a few square miles are simultaneously visible). Moreover, that which you are focused on is all that is perceived with precision (peripheral vision is blurry). Even beyond that, things such as sleep deprivation, psychoactive drugs, or even our dreams can alter our perception of reality. The things that we focus on are largely based on what we think we should focus on as derived from experience (if you are shopping for toothpaste, you may prefer a specific brand, or you may look at the active ingredients and find the one with the most fluoride, or you might choose the gel or the paste, or the peppermint or the spearmint, your focus is based on your experience with toothpaste).

Beyond all that, we probably do see blurry, incomplete versions of objective reality, but no one has been able to prove it. We know that we ourselves exist, thanks to Descartes (I think therefore I exist). That's about it.

Answer 3

A question for objectivists: Since the only reality your ever perceive is a subjective one, what makes you think you have certain knowledge of an objective reality?

The subjectivist would certainly agree one percieves reality. They would just deny it is an objective reality. If we have to choose between pure subjectivism and pure objectivism, it would seem that the subjectivism would win, hands down. I don't think there are very many people (even among subjectivists) who would deny an objective world exists, or that this world likely influences our experiences. What they would deny is that you have direct access to this objective world, unmediated by the subjective aspects of the self. A subjectivist would say that the tree she sees likely really exists, and that her perception of the tree is likely influenced by certain "objective" properties of it. What she would deny is that she has direct access to this objective reality. All she has is her subjective experience of what she can only assume is an objective reality.

Answer 4

I think a good case can be made that we just need to abandon the whole appearance/reality distinction and deal with things in pragmatic terms.

You make a good point. We are always perceiving reality. Even a hallucination is "real" to the person perceiving it. Basically, we don't have false perceptions. We have perceptions that sometimes don't fit in with other perceptions and lack value in helping us function in the world.

Answer 5

u perceive what ur senses are tuned to make u perceive - and u will never be able to perceive anything else. (basically, u perceive just what is useful for u to perceive.)
so, for u, reality is just that!
u can, of course, infer lots of things by using ur thought - and they might be totally correct, in fact - but u will never be able to perceive them!
"absolute reality" is just a myth -I reckon!

Answer 6

One is perceiving reality. One's own reality. That is rather the point.

Whether there is anything else is entirely irrelevant, as we can't see outside our own perceptions by definition.