Fair play to you for your tenacity, alegro. I do feel there is not likely to be any resolution to the problem, but I hope I'm wrong and discussion can elucidate which of the two viewpoints (an objective reality vs no objective reality, if that is a fair description) is more reasonable, correct or true. You see, for me, the problem is shown up as I close that sentence. The nature of truth is what is being debated, and whatever arguments are raised in support of realism/physicalism/materialism/??? or solipsism/subjectivism/relativism/postmodernism/???, the framing of those arguments and their very meaning rests on the validity of whichever perspective is being defended. If one asserts objects exist independent of observers, and the other asserts that they do not, no amount of thought experiments will reveal who is right or wrong. That is why it is frustrating. For a solipsist, the statement 'A way to distinguish subjective reality and objective reality is to find something that would be "objective".' is itself meaningless. If they 'find' something 'objective' it is only a label that their subjective reality has projected outwards. It is akin to the idealism of (help!...er...Aristotle?). The cup, as mercuryrising has 'explained', is just an idea.
My philosophy is objectivist but postmodern or relativist at the same time, by which I mean that indeed a cup is just an idea, since I could model out of clay any number of objects that span the divide between cup-ness and dinner-plate-ness, for instance. How concave a cup must be not to be a plate, but a cup - whether it must have a handle, and how obviously a handle it must be - how large or small - etc. - are all subjective judgements relative to mental ideals. However, I still believe in the separate, physical objective existence of things.
Perhaps you agree with that. It seems it must be a fairly common understanding. What the alternative seems to be is to take that idealism to the extreme (in some cases - clearly there are different takes), where one's subjective 'self' is considered fundamental and the cause of all experience. Objects are not just relative in the sense of labels given to collections of molecules, they are utterly illusory projections of Mind. No amount of appealing to such a person to find something that is objective and which cannot be viewed differently by two observers will be fruitful (philosophically within that discussion, I mean). The process, of course, may be fruitful in the learning involved and I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't bother. I think you know what you're up to. I'm just trying to help clarify and perhaps speaking mostly to those who really believe there is a resolution to this. Or maybe you really do.
The whole thing, I think, could be very easily simplified by you and mercuryrising. It would be the question "What is reality?", and the discussion could go something like this:
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
M: Mind
A: Matter
Now, which line shall I stop on?
|