I have two more points to make. If everything is subjective and nothing is objective, then what about control? If everything is subjective to the observer then nothing should be out of that observer's control. The next point is the fact that if you don't trust the definition of words then how can you use them. How can you use your term for the word illusion and be able to make sense of it to someone else? Or any word for that matter? The only way is to make a point or a statement. Well, people don't just understand statements. You have to show some proof, a lack of proof will leave what is commonly known as "doubt." I am going to break this down for you. I know that this will make you mad or offend you. The reason you get offended is because it will be broken down so much that you will say, "Duh, stop telling me things I already know." It is four things: something that you know already, something other people know because it is something broken down to the point that someone else taught it to you, something that you learned long ago enough that you "know" it, and it is something I obviously already know, because I am telling you. By telling you something you already know and explaining it to you as if you didn't know it, action occurs called "patrionizing." If you don't except definitions you won't understand anything I am telling you. Here is an example otherwise known as evidence, and also know as objective reality. By the way, I am not trying to be a jerk. I am just trying to get my point accross. I don't question anyone elses intelligence. What exactly intelligence is, is for another discussion.
My previous two posts bring up an interesting question that seems to have an obvious answer, other wise known as "common sense." A person that would argue the existence of reality should also argue the existence of common sense in objective reality. The question is, "What is the point of talking about subjective reality or objective reality?" First, how do we know we want to talk? Because we blogged in the first place and responded to a response to our blog. By blogging we are inviting a discussion. Other wise your blog would be in the singular for, "blog", in which you blogged once and walked away never to blog again, because you never cared about what other people thought. This is one example of common sense. Lets proceed. The reason we talk about these issues is in hopes of coming to some agreement. How do we get to an agreement? By convincing one another. If evidence is not objective then neither of us would be able to provide evidence to support our claims. Thus we would inevitably never agree. The fact that evidence does exist, is supported by the evidence that people do agree on issues. The reason people will disagree on the existence of a difference between subjective and objective reality, is because of two reasons. 1.) If you make a distinction that objective and subjective realities exist in a parallel relationship, eventually a conclusion will be made that God exists in some form of reality. This is because if God exists in your thoughts then God exists in some form of reality. If you say all existence is subjective then God actually exists, especially if you suggest that illusions exist. If your definition for illusion suggests that illusions are real, then when God forms in your thoughts, otherwise known as a subjective reality, God is then real. If a person doesn't believe in God they will argue both points. 2.) We disagree because existence itself is a subjective reality. As I have stated before, existence is not objective reality. To exist you must have a place in objective reality. Time and space is objective reality. You cannot experience time and space. Just because your body deteriorates and dies does not mean you experience time. It means your body has a space in time. Space is the distance between to points. In time two points are places in time. In matter two points are defined as nouns. A noun is a person, place, or thing. You don't experience space without those nouns. If you don't experience space, you get confused because you don't know where you are. We don't experience objective reality or existence only the place we have in it. Thus we identify our existence. To bring it all together, we argue because we argue over existence itself. We don't experience existence itself, but rather the objects that have a place in objective reality, or what exists. To experience something means you observe it through one or all of the five senses. This is what "evidence" is. Until one can give another person enough evidence of a particular existence, one person will not be able to convince that person that existence is true. Being that I cannot produce evidence of time and space, you will not agree on its existence. However, we can agree on the evidence of the objects that exist in that time and space.  |