i think there is a potential big difference between 'objective reality' and 'naive realism'.
If we are not observing an objective reality, what are we observing?
well according to naive realism we are directly seeing reality. Not
objective reality. We may then go on to construct objective reality
as an idea of fundamental truth about the world, from the 'facts' that we see reality and we can move around in it (and keep seeing reality) and also compare notes with other people who claim to see the same.
So there is definitely the possibility of a belief in an objective landscape built upon 'direct take it as it is seen' naive perception (ie of reality).
It's like people have lost faith in their ability to perceive the world around them. There is no good reason to doubt that we have access to the objective, especially considering you depend on this perception every moment of every day to even function
exactly..... the key phrase being you depend on this perception every moment of every day to even function
.You are correct to scream that phrase out because it is just about the most important thing in life.
Now we could stop there (and for very very good reason), and most of humanity did! But some didn't. Some people note that they have dreams. Originally, in order not to upset the naive realism and the naive objective world that is the foundation of basic function in life, dreams were considered to occur with the eyes open. How else could we see a dream landscape? If there is another way of seeing a dream landscape without the eyes then we have hit a really dodgy truth. If dream landscapes can occur without the eyes open..... then how do we know for sure that all we see with the eyes open is not infected by dream illusion?
So, say a religious leader exclaims that they saw an angel and heard a message for mankind...... the thinking common sense person might now say, well how do i know whether he saw a real angel in this world before me, or did he see something else that wasn't a real angel and he got confused? Already there is a beginning of mistrust in the very perception that you depend upon to function every day.
Now there is a simple solution. Very simple. I dream with my eyes open, and angels can exist and be seen, but i have to trust anecdotal evidence based upon my assessment of the person telling it.
Others however were not satisfied by this. They noticed all kinds of optical illusions and accounts of people seeing things in feverish states and began to wonder whether our senses actually do see the real world directly. They noticed that when the candle flickered out they could still feel the blade in their hand. They began to hanker for some kind of truth not based upon anecdotal evidence. Thus they moved from trusting the senses and anecdotal evidence and moved to idealism. ie get 'us' out of the perception. What can then be constructed from those 'facts' is a new form of objectivity. It is very different to the objectivity of naive realism.
What was discovered was atoms and elements and explanations for thunder storms and chemistry and laws of motion and machinery and material science and lasers and computers ...... spacetime and quantum probability waves. What now of
There is no good reason to doubt that we have access to the objective, especially considering you depend on this perception every moment of every day to even function.
The objective of idealism is very different to the objective of naive realism. In the objective of idealism and science (facts from machines consistently set up for reliable repeatability) suddenly we do not see the world directly. At present the model is of light, and spacetime, and lens, and visual cortex and ......
If we are not observing an objective reality, what are we observing? Are we all in vats, matrix-style, or something?
yes. According to the objective built upon idealism that is
, because now we do not see
the objective of naive realism. Seeing itself has come under the focus of idealism, and the machines have been set up and the experiments are running full tilt.
So what the hell happened to common sense?! Surely we cannot function without it? What possible solutions to this dilemma are open to us?
Well for a start ......If we use the term objective in a free floating way and do not distinguish between the objective created from naive realism as compared to that of science and idealism ...... then we can retain our original common sense view. We can use that ambiguity
(in conjunction with a refusal to address
the fundamental differences between them) to say ....
There is no good reason to doubt that we have access to the objective, especially considering you depend on this perception every moment of every day to even function. Why now, in armchairs, people are denying reality, I cannot grasp.
Now we can see that this is not some philosophical game of irrelevance. It is the very dismissal of people who put forward this awkward truth, and further label them as 'armchair poets who have lost their reason' that emotionally preserves the 'reasonable' position that the world is what i see, and science is correct, and i don't need the bloody contradiction thanks very much cos quite frankly it is the talk of madness! .... and for some it really is the talk of madness. Thats why i respect people who have faith in their beliefs of the world, because faith in the nature of this world is central to our mental stability. But i ask in all honesty, who is the poet here? The person who adresses the difference between objectivity born of naive realism and objectivity born of idealism .... or the person who exclaims
This supersticious belief that what we see is not what we see, and is only a construct of our subjective perspective, I do not comprehend. Having another perspective does mean we aren't seeing the same thing. We would still be seeing the same dog, even if all you could see was his ass, and all I could see was its face. The dog's ass is the dog's ass, no matter what angle we're viewing it from.
And is a poet such an insult?
It is precisely this anxiety that was created with the objective reconcieved by idealism, that makes us suspicious of ourselves, that reduces us to lives in boxes (jobs, tv, real estate,...), to dazzling us with environmental representation and feeding upon the confusion. It is precisely that feeling that the likes of ortega and sartre and the postmodernists were trying to counteract. To bring the edifice of idealism as a 'grand narrative' for understanding the world, down to size
...... lest it drives us all mad. To recognise ambiguity and uncertainty as part of us and reality.
Philosophy is both madness and sanity.