There is an objective complete reality, and Ortega would definitely agree, but what he is saying is that there is no way that anyone can observe this.

The dog's ass is the dog's ass, no matter what angle we're viewing it from.

Observe what? That there is an "objective complete reality", or "the objective complete reality"? And, what would it be like to do either one? Just what is it that we cannot do which, if we did it, would be doing either of those things? Suppose there is a dog out there. Now, according to you, what I do now (which I call 'observing a dog') is not observing a dog. Isn't that right? Then what would I have to do to observe a dog? What would it be like to observe a dog, if what I call "observing a dog" is not observing a dog?

Two men may look, from different view-points, at the same landscape. Yet they do not see the same thing. Their different situations make the landscape assume two distinct types of organic structure in their eyes...

Perspective is one of the component parts of reality. Far from being a disturbance of its fabric, it is its organising element. A reality which remained the same from whatever point of view it was observed would be a ridiculous conception....

All knowledge is knowledge from a definite point of view...

Spinoza's species aeternitatis, or ubiquitous and absolute point of view, has no existence on its own account: it is a fictitious and abstract point of view. We have no doubt of its utility as an instrument for the fulfilment of certain requirements of knowledge, but it is essential to remember that reality cannot be perceived from such a standpoint. The abstract point of view deals only in abstractions.

It's only confusing because I don't feel like putting the effort into being totally clear, because it is not going to be read properly anyway, so what's the point?

There is an objective reality that you observe, but there is no observation of that objective reality outside of subjective experience. Every perspective offers a different point to observe reality, but not every perspective offers the same account.

Of course our experience is subjective in that it is our experience and no one else's. I can't have yours, and you can't have mine. And, it is subjective in the sense that it is mental. But, what has that to do it? It does not follow that because the experience is subjective that the object of our experience is also subjective. We are not observing our own experiences which are (as I just said) subjective. We are observing what our experiences are experiences of. And what we experience are not themselves experience. They are what cause us to have those experiences. But, to repeat, the cause of our experience is not, itself, an experience. Just because our experiences are our means for observing their cause, why should it follow that it is the experiences we are observing? Why should it not be that what we are observing is what causes our experiences?

Every perspective offers a different point to observe reality, but not every perspective offers the same account.

*And yes. I agree with all of that. But what is supposed to follow from that? It could not be that we do not observe reality, for you say that we do observe reality each from a different point. So, why is it not reality that we observe. Surely, from the premise that something looks different from different perspectives, it does not follow that it does not exist, nor that there is no correct perspective. If you think it does follow, could you explain why you think so?

*By the way, is there any reason why two persons cannot see something from the same perspective?

There is an objective reality that you observe, but there is no observation of that objective reality outside of subjective experience. Every perspective offers a different point to observe reality, but not every perspective offers the same account.

If we are not observing an objective reality, what are we observing?

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

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.

If we are not observing an objective reality, what are we observing? Are we all in vats, matrix-style, or something?

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.

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.

Philosophy is both madness and sanity.

I think this is how Ortega's view becomes difficult to approach. It seems to threaten the substantiality of me. It's not at all clear how I could be a mental construction, when I'm supposed to be the one doing the mental constructing. It's convoluted, but I think a first step in dwelling with what I see in what was posted by longknowledge is a complete and utter acceptance of objectivity. To let go of trying to defend it, and believe in it. To grasp that I cannnot be diminished by any philosophy.

I am. To see Ortega's ideas as an attack on something suggests that there's something that needs defending. There isn't.

I recall a quote by one of the contributors here, in another thread, about the Iraq war, which said that 'People, if given the choice, would rather entertain themselves with conspiracy theories than acknowledge the truth'. (I didn't attribute it because I don't know about the etiquette of quoting one thread in another - it is simply to illustrate the point below...)

Note reference to 'The truth'. The idea that there is 'one true perspective' on this vastly complex situation, which has affected hundreds of millions of people, involving geopolitics, energy security, conflcting accounts of what was at stake, and so on, does strike me as a simplistic view, and potentially, an absolutist view.

So as distinct from 'a dog's ass' or 'a cow in a paddock', the real nature of what we are perceiving and dealing with in day to day life is usually far more like this. It is a complex of intersecting realities subject in which there are plainly an enormous, perhaps an uncountable, range of perspectives. Ortega uses 'the landscape' as an example but we rarely have cause to think about 'the meaning of the landscape'. Most of what we think about, weigh up, make judgements on, is much more complex than that. But if we apply the same principle we will begin to appreciate that in a given situation there are indeed a enormous variety of perspectives. I will have a perspective, as will others. I won't understand some other perspectives, and I might even think others are 'seeing things that aren't there', and so on. But I am much less inclined to think that 'the truth' is monolithic, clear-cut, single view of the matter. I will understand that there are many viewpoints, some of which will inevitably be in conflict. And at the end of the day, there is no 'ultimately objective' assessment of a situation LIKE a war, a revolution, an attitude, and so on. There is the winner's view, which makes sense from his viewpoint, the loser's view, which is perfectly logical from his. And so on.

But i don't think that matters much. For a start i don't believe any narrative can be complete and beyond deconstruction. Thats why i am a multi narrative dude. ...

well we differ there As a pagan i feel there is so much that needs defending philosophically and culturally. Rick Roderick in his youtube lectures talked about the crisis we are experiencing philosophically and he used the term 'enchanted' to describe the world prior to the enlightenment.

It is one thing to say that there is no one true view because the circumstances are complex, and there are a great many facets in the situation itself: it is quite different thing to say that there is no true view because there are different viewers,

Did he say there is no true view? I thought he said every view is true. Which view do you think is untrue?

Which view have you in mind? In the case of the blind men in the elephant, none of the views is true. That is the point of the story.

I only recently figured out the saying: people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Now you tell me I didn't understand the blind men and the elephant story either?

I will submit that an elephant is an elephant no matter which part of it your feeling.

I agree. But each of the blind men thought the elephant was a different kind of thing: snake, tree, etc. And none of those views was true.

Ok. I see what you're saying. A single, unique perspective, shaped by my predilections, may or may not be true. So I should take any view with a grain of salt. In due course, I may collect enough views to have confidence in a certain interpretation of my experience.

This is an especially good way to approach troubleshooting. Those who tend to doubt assumptions will excell at troubleshooting because the solution to the really pesky problem is usually hiding in assumptions that no one bothered to recheck. So you come along and start with no assumptions and voila: problem solved. The advent of confidence in this situation is pragmatic. It comes retrospectively: the thing works now. No need to find some rock in the realm of reason.

Except that some views are much better than others. A man who can see the entire elephant has a better of view of what the elephant is than any of the blind men. In fact, is there any reason to say that his view isn't true?