In the previous posts, I asked whether questions or observations can create reality, or whether they instead form an intersection where reality appears.
I now want to sharpen the issue.
Many discussions seem to assume that there is a fully formed, objective structure of reality “out there,” and observation merely reveals it.
But what if objectivity itself is not prior to observation, and instead emerges through repeated, shared intersections of perspectives?
In that case, observation would not be a causal force, nor a passive recording device, but a stabilizing process.
My question is simple but uncomfortable:
Can we meaningfully talk about a “purely objective structure” without already presupposing a standpoint from which it is identified as such?
I’m curious where others locate objectivity: before observation, after it, or nowhere at all.
If objectivity requires the removal of all standpoints, who or what is left to recognize it as “objective”?
I did read them, but when you entertain ideas like the Boltzmann brain, living in a grand simulation, etc. this is entering the realm of idealism. The idea of “certainty” is false to begin with, and used to justify idealist arguments that serve as fantastical explanations for the real, similar to religion.
You seem to mistake epistemology and metaphysics. The Cogito argument is an epistemological claim about what can be known to be true. I do not believe that I am a Boltzmann brain or that we would be in the matrix. I only brought these ideas up as alternatives which can not be debunked with absolute certainty in the epistemological sense of the word. In case you’re unfamiliar, that’s the branch of philosophy which deals with the nature of knowledge and information. I already told you what I believe in terms of metaphysics: Materialism all the way.
We’re in !philosophy@lemmy.ml, entertaining ideas is what philosophy is all about. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it” and so on…
And about on the subject of certainty: Are you not certain that 1+1=2?
I reject metaphysics as well, I’m a dialectical materialist. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you’re referring to, then, but my point on dialectical materialism and how it corresponds to knowledge is that what we know is informed by our sense organs, and we reach further and further towards an objective truth without ever exhausting it. The universe is not static, but ever-changing, and progresses through constant contradiction. 1+1=2 is in the realm of logic.
Ok so another definition: Metaphysics (at least as I use the word) is simply the branch of philosophy which deals with questions about the underlying structure of the world and nature of reality. The edges are a bit fuzzy and there is at times overlap with other branches like epistemology or philosophy of mind. Materialism is a metaphysical framework just as idealism is.
Yet it demonstrates that certainty does exists, at least in the realm of rational proofs. It’s something we can know without using our sensory organs, just thought alone. The Cogito argument is significant in that it’s the only such proof that can be made about the universe, and thus the only thing we can say with certainty about the universe.
Nice chat. It’s getting late and I should go to sleep. But before I go, do you have any recommendations to read up on the basics of dialectical materialism? It’s a subject I’ve been meaning to delve into for a while.
Metaphysics, as I use the word, looks at immutable properties in static, isolated areas, and is opposed by dialectics. There is metaphysical materialism, and dialectical idealism, and then there is dialectical materialism. The development into dialectical materialism, beyond metaphysical materialism, actually first went to dialectical idealism via Hegel, before being turned right-side-up by Marx.
As for where to learn about dialectical materialism, how deep do you want to go? If you’re interested in the subject from a practical perspective, right now I’m reading Cornforth’s Materialism and the Dialectical Method. I’m a big fan of Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy, with the major exception that Politzer misunderstands autodynamism and contradiction, leading to fundamental errors, which is why I am trying to replace it in my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list.
If you want to be thorough, Marx’s The German Ideology, followed by Engels’ Anti-Dühring, and finally Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism will be deep enough for a thorough understanding.