Philosophy Now Forum

Probably not, since definition 2. is pretty much the definition of a 'Personally satisfying delusion'. Most peoples delusions are created out of their own personal desires and beliefs about the universe, so they would be quite satisfying personally to each person. The problems arise when one persons delusions grate on another persons nerves, as often happens on forums like this. If each person could be happy with their own delusions, and let others be happy with theirs, there would be a lot less conflict. But some people insist that their delusions are the correct ones and insist that others believe as they do.

Thedoc:
A very fair and honest answer. I cannot take issue with it, and I admire your frankness.

For others more timorous, my next question would be this: if "meaning" is taken to be a synonym for "personally satisfying delusion," does not believing in such "meaning" amount to precisely the sort of aversion to realism that Atheists accusing Theists of exhibiting?

After all, if the flat, realistic truth is that "meaning" is an order imaginatively imposed on an inherently purposeless universe to keep us from the emotional burden of facing the facts-as-we-know-them, it would surely be both anti-scientific and anti-realist.

Where now is the Atheist love of realism?

I think what you are getting at is the distinction between, "function" and "purpose".

Ginko:
This was not what I was aiming at, though my example could, unfortunately, be read somewhat ambiguously, I admit. Rather, I was positing a difference between someone who believes that "Meaning" is an objective, pre-determined property, one a person can "find" rather than construct; and on the other hand, a person who believes that "meaning" is "constructed," and hence is one of these delusions we humans use to fend of the realization that life is essentially, objectively meaningless. You can see this in my attempt to point out the different verbs involved.

My apologies for the ambiguity. I hope this is clearer now.

a false dichotomy has been set up,

Bernard:

Not at all. It's as clear a case of a true dichotomy as one can get.

Aristotle points to the fact that the quality we call "existence" has only two variations: either a thing exists, or it does not. There is no semi-existent state in between. Well, this is a case of an existence question. My question amounts to: does meaning exist (in the fullest, literal, ontological sense, not in any metaphorical, phenomenological or sociological metaphor) or does it only "exist" as a phenomenon of the sociological imagination, and one in opposition to the facts.

In plain speech: when I tell myself that my life *has* meaning, am I lying to myself? Am I making a statement only about how I feel or wish to feel, not about facts? Am I merely describing what people like to believe but know isn't true? What am I doing?

Bernard wrote:Yes, true. My take on the two definitions is that a false dichotomy has been set up, wherein subjective reality is not a result of the environment, or pre-existent in the cosmos, but is entirely of the person, whilst objective reality is pre-existent. We could easily feel the same way of both. But because we have been hunters of the objective since time immemorial - gotta get that meat back to camp sort of thing - then we not so much as disqualify subjective experiences but ignore and deny it the focus it would need to make it, at least, as equally important as objective experience. Many people do just that, but they are not the CEOs of the world.

I would like to address this dichotomy if I may, I've been mulling over it since it was posted. I am referring to reality and I understand that it needs then to be related to meaning, but I'm going to limit my discussion for now. I acknowledge IC's clarification on this point but I am going in a slightly different direction.

Let me state, for this post, that 'Objective Reality' is the physical world as it exists. 'Subjective Reality' is the world that we have in our mind, and here is where I wish to focus for now.

One extreme example of a 'Subjective Reality' is a kind of fantasy world that one could construct as a diversion. If this fantasy is understood for exactly what it is there is really no harm in indulging at times. For example, my father worked in construction and right after I was born he moved back to his home town where I grew up. Sometimes I will play 'what If" my father had continued to take jobs in construction in various places around the country, or the world. My growing up could have been quite different, an interesting speculation, but useless, as it didn't happen.
I have also encountered another form of "What If" that was really annoying and counter productive. For many years I was working out in a Dojo, and during class the ranking belt would be teaching a technique for a particular attack. Many time some goof would pipe up with "What If" the attack comes this way rather than that way. It was annoying because it wasted time from practicing the moves that were being taught, and accomplished nothing useful.

Another form of 'Subjective Reality' is somewhat more prevalent and quite counter productive, and that is when a person perceives objective reality and misinterprets it creating a subjective reality in it's place. Too many times I have observed this kind of subjective reality. It has also been demonstrated in various experiments with human perception, and No, I do not have links or references to specific examples, this is strictly from memory, such as it is. This kind of subjective reality can interfere with the understanding of the real world, and the realization of any worthwhile meaning in life.

ok lets take work as an example of an individuals part in meaning.work represents the contribution of an individual in creation and as a part of creation the work taking place in a cooprative way with other individuals in an indistinguishable function.love of work is creation with meaning.

When we speak of "subjective reality," what is it we mean?

The idea of "objective reality" is fairly clear: it means "really there, independent of whether or not I think it is." It has a referent, and a means of checking, located in the world external to me; at least Common Sense Realists, Materialists, and Empiricists think it does -- and I would actually agree with them on this point.

But *subjective* attached to "reality"? What does that mean? Does it mean a "reality" not related to, dependent on, or checkable by reference to the *real world*? Does it mean just "feelings"? It cannot be merely the observation that I'm "really" having a feeling, because that's just another way of stating an objective fact, not a subjective one; and besides, as an observation it's painfully trivial.

I understand the concept "subjective." I just don't get how we connect it to the noun "reality" in this case. Is not the most obvious, commonsensical understanding of "the real" that which is NOT dependent on my subjectivity, but persists in spite of it?

Again, the idea of "delusion" comes dangerously into view.

Immanuel Can wrote:When we speak of "subjective reality," what is it we mean?

The idea of "objective reality" is fairly clear: it means "really there, independent of whether or not I think it is." It has a referent, and a means of checking, located in the world external to me; at least Common Sense Realists, Materialists, and Empiricists think it does -- and I would actually agree with them on this point.

But *subjective* attached to "reality"? What does that mean? Does it mean a "reality" not related to, dependent on, or checkable by reference to the *real world*? Does it mean just "feelings"? It cannot be merely the observation that I'm "really" having a feeling, because that's just another way of stating an objective fact, not a subjective one; and besides, as an observation it's painfully trivial.

I understand the concept "subjective." I just don't get how we connect it to the noun "reality" in this case. Is not the most obvious, commonsensical understanding of "the real" that which is NOT dependent on my subjectivity, but persists in spite of it?

Again, the idea of "delusion" comes dangerously into view.

I have another guess at proposition 2. and say you might be referring to some type of existentialism. Something like,"existence before essence" or perhaps in your case, "existence before meaning".

Yeh Doc, howd you go with the ebay? You may find this discussion about Calixto Muni interesting. Our culture is very centred on objectivity due , I believe, to its still very colonial, conquer and plunder mentality. Older, more stable cultures are less objective. The story goes from page 114-116.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ckY ... =html_text

We make as many subbjective errors as we do objective errors, yet we persist with objectivity and dismiss the subjective because of the subjective errors we make. I think that's something that has become second nature to us as recent posts seem to highlight. I don't think its realistically correctable, but is interesting in terms of examining our species and identifying flaws.

Bernard wrote:Yeh Doc, howd you go with the ebay?

You may find this discussion about Calixto Muni interesting. Our culture is very centred on objectivity due , I believe, to its still very colonial, conquer and plunder mentality. Older, more stable cultures are less objective. The story goes from page 114-116.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ckY ... =html_text

I've been on EBay since Dec. 97 and I have seen it go from something very open and friendly to what it is now. I am currently making preparations to start selling again, I'll go with Pay-Pal for now, but at the first sigh of trouble, I open a 'Merchant Account' and go without Pay-Pal.

Years ago I had one or more of the books by Carlos Cascaneda on Don Juan but I never got around to reading them, I was reading about Zen at the time. I did notice, in this short reading, that there are some similarities in the mindset.

Bernard wrote:We make as many subbjective errors as we do objective errors, yet we persist with objectivity and dismiss the subjective because of the subjective errors we make. I think that's something that has become second nature to us as recent posts seem to highlight. I don't think its realistically correctable, but is interesting in terms of examining our species and identifying flaws.

Part of this might come from corroboration or the lack of. With a physical object you can look at it and compare impressions with others and come to some agreement about what is in front of you. With the subjective there is no physical object to handle and compare. Just look at how difficult it is to express ideas and concepts on this forum. Words on the screen might be considered physical objects but they are just symbols that represent something that is not always a physical object.

thedoc wrote: This kind of subjective reality can interfere with the understanding of the real world, and the realization of any worthwhile meaning in life.

On further thought, I need to correct this sentence. A subjective reality can indeed lead to a kind of understanding of meaning in life, but it must be clearly understood that a subjective reality is not the physical world. But it can lead to some understanding of that world. I have stated that subjective reality is not the physical world, but a subjective reality can be just as real to the individual, in some ways, as the physical world. The key is to be able to differentiate the two, and know which is which.

A subjective reality can indeed lead to a kind of understanding of meaning in life, but it must be clearly understood that a subjective reality is not the physical world. But it can lead to some understanding of that world.

thedoc:

I think you're right...but it has some big implications if you are.

We should surely begin by asking, "In what sense is it a 'reality' if it is no part of the physical world?" For the Materialist or the Naturalist holds that 'reality' is coextensive (i.e. takes into itself all the territory of) the physical world, and nothing else. There is only the physical. So if, as you say, the subjective is in any sense "real," they would want us to explain precisely what we mean; and if we said it was *more than* the physical world, they would doubtless demand evidence and reasons.

But you do explain a bit. You say, "it can lead to some understanding" of the physical world. But they will ask how can that be, if it is itself no part of the physical world. Yet, on the other hand, if it were only part of the physical world, then how could "understanding" refer to anything but physical properties (i.e. cognition itself would be unreal, a false appearance that hides the reality that we are all merely physically determined)? So is would seem that for both sides, the concept "understanding" needs to be explained.

A solution: the problem does not appear if physical and cognitive (i.e. "understanding") are both "real" -- that is, if reality itself is not just the physical but also a second realm, the realm that includes things like cognition...maybe what's been called "the spiritual"? But if so, Materialism and Naturalism are thereby denied.

What is cognition? Is the mind responsible for cognition or the brain? Or neither?

Brains are given to much function, like every other organ of the body the brain serves a singular purpose:

http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert ... rains.html

Bernard:

"Cognition" is a general term for "thinking" of all kinds -- emotional, intellectual, rational, perceptual, etc. Thedoc, in his addendum, is speaking about "understanding a meaning." I'm just trying to discover whether he's wanting us to perceive his view as physicalist-monist (in which case the brain and all cognitions are assumed to be physical) or dualist (meaning mind and brain) are distinct entities.

We could get off track by arguing the mind-brain problem for its own sake, but I'm really interested in how "subjectivity" is any better at proving a REAL "meaning" than, say, a delusion is at producing a false one. So I want to stay on track with that thought if we can.

I'm also sympathetic to Thedoc's view, because I don't find physicalist-materialism even remotely plausible. It seems very clearly reductional and absurd. And in any case, if true, it just means again that there is absolutely no "Meaning" behind reality, so it does nothing to rescue the idea of "meaning" at all.