Answer simply "yes" or "no"

[PierreGringoire]

Do you believe (even if you can't put a finger on it) there is some form of objective conformity in the ultimate scheme of things? As a rule explanations (if any) can be no longer than three lines so it can be read fast by everyone who comes to this thread.

[Virgil]

It's called death.

[Redzeppelin]

What's the alternative? Only "subjective reality"? What's that? And can such an oxymoron really have any meaning? Although words are notoriously inexact sometimes in meaning and connotation, certainly they must be part of an "objective" reality because we can all understand what each other is saying?

[ShoutGrace]

:D Uh oh. Too many lines, Redzeppelin. ;)

[Nightshade]

umm explain please what on earth
objective conformity in the ultimate scheme of things means??

[SheykAbdullah]

I believe that there are some things that are objective, namely the physical things around us, but everything created by man is a perception of those things and thus are relative. However, I believe that morality must be objective to maintain a peaceful society, but that can't be forced.

[dramasnot6]

Pretty big area there. Even if there is an "objective conformity" there are so many diferent beliefs and interpretations around it that it kind of defeats the purpose. No one person has the exact, identical context as someone else and therefore no one person can conform to the exact idea with all their perceptions and ideas around it being the same. Hope that was short enough! :)

[Jean-Baptiste]

I voted no. Kierkegaard seems to think that a person might have an entirely subjective experience to which they must remain true in order to live a fulfilling life, in bliss and dispair. I like Kierkegaard. Kant also might be saying that there are many things that cannot be proven empirically, but it's alright to believe in them if doing so helps you in some way. I like Kant also.

[Whifflingpin]

Too many long words in the question. What does it mean?

[Stanislaw]

hmm...objective...love, survive, procreate, taxes, death, and decomposition...afterlife is subjective, so cannot be considered then.

[Pendragon]

Just check any tombstone. It will be something like this: 1918 - 1997. A time of birth, and area of life spent doing whatever you were meant to do, and ultimately a date with The Grim Reaper. Make it count.

[SleepyWitch]

... certainly they must be part of an "objective" reality because we can all understand what each other is saying?
can we? (=line 1)
I find scrapping the notion of an objective reality makes life much easier (=line 2)
Even when i was small, eight or nine, i wondered why people won't stop bothering people and i've been wondering ever since." -Frank McCourt (=line 3)

[Bookworm Cris]

Yes. Call it God, Allah or whatever you believe. Everything has a purpose in this world; just because we can´t clearly see what it is, doesn´t mean this life has no meaning. (and it is true, even if you don´t believe - karma affects everybody)


PS: Pendragon, I agree with you. Make it count.

[Redzeppelin]

:D Uh oh. Too many lines, Redzeppelin. ;)


Oops. I owe a Homer Simpson "D'oh!" here. I read the instructions quickly and thought I had 3 sentences (not that that would save me - I wrote 4 - "D'oh!" [#2]).

Looks like I wasn't the only offender, though...

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Dude...You guys are going past the three lines limit, man!

[Laindessiel]

umm explain please what on earth does


objective conformity in the ultimate scheme of things

mean??

Uh-huh. I may have an idea but I don't get it clearliest.

[Jean-Baptiste]

Dude...You guys are going past the three lines limit, man!

This three lines limit is entirely subjective, based only on the width of your particular computer screen. There are no posts in this thread that excede three lines on my screen.

[blackbird_9]

(Appologies for using the dictionary to support my answer, but it supports my oppinion clearly.) subjective- existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the OBJECT OF THOUGHT. Therefore, there must be an objective reality to be the basis of a subjective reality. No?

[fisherofmen]

hmm...objective...love, survive, procreate, taxes, death, and decomposition...afterlife is subjective, so cannot be considered then.
well taxes for sure, not sure about those others stanislaw :)

[Stanislaw]

well taxes for sure, not sure about those others stanislaw :)

well, I suppose...some of those are a little subjective...but death, taxes, and decomp...those are for sure.:D

[fisherofmen]

well, I suppose...some of those are a little subjective...but death, taxes, and decomp...those are for sure.:D
Is death completely objective? I seem to remember a couple people who never died (enoch and one other), and some who wouldn't stay dead :)

[Stanislaw]

Is death completely objective? I seem to remember a couple people who never died (enoch and one other), and some who wouldn't stay dead :)

well...eventually everyone will die...regardless of how long it takes.

[mtpspur]

Elijah was the other--2 Kings 2:11 (King James vesion)--"And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

Ironically in 1 Kings 19:4 Elijah made this prayer: "But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree: and he requested for himself that he might die; and said It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers."

Pretty much that its best to leave our times in the Lord's hand and not to presume that the blessings are over during a time of trial and disappointment(especially following a great demonstration of God's power during the trial of God vs Baal.

[Gallantry]

I voted no. Kierkegaard seems to think that a person might have an entirely subjective experience to which they must remain true in order to live a fulfilling life, in bliss and dispair. I like Kierkegaard. Kant also might be saying that there are many things that cannot be proven empirically, but it's alright to believe in them if doing so helps you in some way. I like Kant also.

you do realize that Kierkegaard believed in an objective reality don't you? He believed in subjective experiences, which is pretty reasonable considering experiences do tend to be subjective...., but yeah, he definitely believed in an objective reality and I find it curious that you used him to support your answer.

[Jean-Baptiste]

Alright. You caught me! I admit I may have abridged SK to my liking. :lol: Fancy miraculizing existentialism! :lol:

[Triskele]

What's the alternative? Only "subjective reality"? What's that? And can such an oxymoron really have any meaning? Although words are notoriously inexact sometimes in meaning and connotation, certainly they must be part of an "objective" reality because we can all understand what each other is saying?

not necessarily, if you read up on the concept of solipsism there is a possibility of a reality without a universal truth, whether subjective or objective.

[Triskele]

well...eventually everyone will die...regardless of how long it takes.

is that necessarily true? do we all die, or is there merely another level of conciousness we attain, or another drastic physical transformation that we all must undergo, and if that is the case, must we all undergo it, and how would we know otherwise? what if it is true, that "neither seeing nor believing are correct". and do we necessarily see the same thing, or simply assume that all others see the same things. i think that such epistilomic questions must remain unanswered, if heavily debated

[Orionsbelt]

Nakedness,

There are two forms although most people don't let on.

[Triskele]

Nakedness,

There are two forms although most people don't let on.

yeah, male and female

[duriel]

All endeavor is meaningless without a logically consistent, objective reality.

[toni]

One should choose to be an optimist. MAkes you live your life easier.

[Triskele]

One should choose to be an optimist. MAkes you live your life easier.


this, however follows the train of thought that "ignorance is bliss". the question is "is it better to know and despair, or remain ignorant and have hope" i subscribe to the former, in that knowledge in itself is the ultimate objective in life, whether it is knowledge of arcane subjects, or knowledge of other people, the only way we can truly live is to learn.

[Parmenides]

Do you believe (even if you can't put a finger on it) there is some form of objective conformity in the ultimate scheme of things? As a rule explanations (if any) can be no longer than three lines so it can be read fast by everyone who comes to this thread.The "ulitmate scheme of things" kind of takes it out of the worldy realm of humanity anyway doesn't it? Afterall, what does the human species matter to a star a few billion lightyears away? Any signifigance we attach to things of our own experience will tend to fall slightly short of the universes considerations I think.......:alien:

[billyjack]

this, however follows the train of thought that "ignorance is bliss". the question is "is it better to know and despair, or remain ignorant and have hope" i subscribe to the former, in that knowledge in itself is the ultimate objective in life, whether it is knowledge of arcane subjects, or knowledge of other people, the only way we can truly live is to learn.

knowledge=reason=virtue=happiness is greek, its old, and its caused havok in the world. the ultimate objective of life is to live,( as neo said to smith.) this sounded lame to me when i heard it, but upon further consideration, it follows ocamm's razor...and i think ocamm'z razor makes a lot of sense

[billyjack]

What's the alternative? Only "subjective reality"? What's that? And can such an oxymoron really have any meaning? Although words are notoriously inexact sometimes in meaning and connotation, certainly they must be part of an "objective" reality because we can all understand what each other is saying?

we all understand one another through language because we all subsribe to linguistic conventions. that doesnt make a soley objective reality a necessity however. and anyways, linguistics are relative. after all, the eastern languages don't even subscribe to a linear idea of time or a difference between subject and object. objectivity and subjectivity have been unfairly dueled into contraries by language. but language is not reality. mistaking langauge for reality is like eating the fishbone instead of the fish. it leaves us unsatisfied and uneasy.

[Nossa]

My answer would be "No" there's isn't an ultimate objective in life. This assumption will only convey that we're not human but rather robots or machines, driven and lead to a certain end. I believe in death and after life, but to get to it, you lead your OWN life, that makes it clear to me that our ends differ and therefore our plans (or objevtive if you may call it so) differ. Hope that answered the question!

[Redzeppelin]

we all understand one another through language because we all subsribe to linguistic conventions. that doesnt make a soley objective reality a necessity however. and anyways, linguistics are relative. after all, the eastern languages don't even subscribe to a linear idea of time or a difference between subject and object. objectivity and subjectivity have been unfairly dueled into contraries by language. but language is not reality. mistaking langauge for reality is like eating the fishbone instead of the fish. it leaves us unsatisfied and uneasy.

Language is not reality - but it can be used in a way that either clarifies what reality is, or alters how that reality is viewed (e.g. "politically correct" terminology).

[billyjack]

Language is not reality - but it can be used in a way that either clarifies what reality is, or alters how that reality is viewed (e.g. "politically correct" terminology).

maybe, maybe not. language and symbols can alter perception of reality when we put reality into language and symbols. but if your cease to use symbols when experiencing and sensing, then reality isnt altered because reality exist even if symbols dont. so basically, as long as you view reality through the system of symbols known as language, language does alter views of reality. but really, reality cant be altered, only symbols can be.

[Nossa]

maybe, maybe not. language and symbols can alter perception of reality when we put reality into language and symbols. but if your cease to use symbols when experiencing and sensing, then reality isnt altered because reality exist even if symbols dont. so basically, as long as you view reality through the system of symbols known as language, language does alter views of reality. but really, reality cant be altered, only symbols can be.

I agree. If you use symbols and language to express reality, then they both can be considered reality. However, symbols and language differs from one place to another and one age to another, in this sense, they both can be considered in some cases doubtful. But in the general sense of the words, I believe that language and symbols are considered realities!

[kandaurov]

I voted no. I hope there is nothing else besides this life. I hate sequels, they are always worse than the original.

[billyjack]

I agree. If you use symbols and language to express reality, then they both can be considered reality. However, symbols and language differs from one place to another and one age to another, in this sense, they both can be considered in some cases doubtful. But in the general sense of the words, I believe that language and symbols are considered realities!

i also think language and symbols are considered realities--but that doesnt make it so. like you said, reality cant be agreed upon because what we consider to be reality is actually only a representation or symbol for reality--language. language is fickle.

[Nossa]

i also think language and symbols are considered realities--but that doesnt make it so. like you said, reality cant be agreed upon because what we consider to be reality is actually only a representation or symbol for reality--language. language is fickle.

Well, they can be considered realities among those who agree upon certain symbols and language in communicating with each other. For instance, I speak Arabic here in Egypt, language for me and people living with me in my house IS a reality, since we all agree on the same terms, words and so forth. For anyone else who speaks another language, Arabic words can be fickle, since one word can mean more than one thing when translated to English for instance, and so they won't know what i'm talking about, and vice versa with any other form of language,symbols or means of communication. So basically, language and symbols are twofold, you can't say they're realities, because they differ, but on the other hand, you can't deny that they ARE realities, once agreed upon, or else we'll be saying that there isn't any common sense of understanding reached by language and likes of it...Hope that made sense..lol

[billyjack]

Well, they can be considered realities among those who agree upon certain symbols and language in communicating with each other. For instance, I speak Arabic here in Egypt, language for me and people living with me in my house IS a reality, since we all agree on the same terms, words and so forth. For anyone else who speaks another language, Arabic words can be fickle, since one word can mean more than one thing when translated to English for instance, and so they won't know what i'm talking about, and vice versa with any other form or language,symbols or means of communication. So basically, language and symbols are twofold, you can't say they're realities, because they differ, but on the other hand, you can't deny that they ARE realities, once agreed upon, or else we'll be saying that there isn't any common sense of understanding reached by language and likes of it...Hope that made sense..lol

okay, i am picking up what you are throwing down.

but is the pragmattisism of language showing its reality or just its utility in communications. i would say the lat.

[Nossa]

okay, i am picking up what you are throwing down.

but is the pragmattisism of language showing its reality or just its utility in communications. i would say the lat.

I would say both actually. The pragmatic practice of language does show its utility in communication, but when you can easily communicate with people with a certain way, say language of sybmols or whatever, it becomes the reality, since reality itself can't be spoken or expressed through itself. You need to use certain things in order to express reality, and these means, consequently, take the advantage of being 'real' cuz they're repsentatitives of 'reality'.

[billyjack]

I would say both actually. The pragmatic practice of language does show its utility in communication, but when you can easily communicate with people with a certain way, say language of sybmols or whatever, it becomes the reality, since reality itself can't be spoken or expressed through itself. You need to use certain things in order to express reality, and these means, consequently, take the advantage of being 'real' cuz they're repsentatitives of 'reality'.

i agree with you on some of this. however, you said it yourself that language and symbols must become reality since reality cant be spoken or expressed through itself. that is just it, reality cannot be spoken. reality is experienced, felt, sensed. its never symbols or language. by definition, symbols point to something other than themselves. reality points only to itself. so reality is thus, and language and symbols are the opposite of thus--unsuitable.

not to say language doesnt have its place in pragmattics. it does. but the need to express reality does not mean that this expression is truth or reality. it just means its an expression. you wouldnt eat a dollar bill would you? well, mistaking language or symbols or representations for reality is like eating a dollar bill instead of buying a burger. or eating the menu instead of your meal.

[Nossa]

i agree with you on some of this. however, you said it yourself that language and symbols must become reality since reality cant be spoken or expressed through itself. that is just it, reality cannot be spoken. reality is experienced, felt, sensed. its never symbols or language. by definition, symbols point to something other than themselves. reality points only to itself. so reality is thus, and language and symbols are the opposite of thus--unsuitable.

not to say language doesnt have its place in pragmattics. it does. but the need to express reality does not mean that this expression is truth or reality. it just means its an expression. you wouldnt eat a dollar bill would you? well, mistaking language or symbols or representations for reality is like eating a dollar bill instead of buying a burger. or eating the menu instead of your meal.

lol..nice comparison!
You got a point there actually. But the thing is, I believe that when people agreed upon using language, they meant it to be a reality, that expresses something they won't understand without these tools. It's like language and symbols are the means that aid us in understanding reality, or else how are we gonna be able to understand science, nature and so forth.
I agree on that language and symbols are not realities persay, since reality, as you stated, is something else, it's something felt, sensed and experienced, but language and symbols make this experience understandable, by using certain words and terms, that everyone would agree upon. So to wrap it up, langauage&symbols and reality are two faces to one coin.

[billyjack]

lol..nice comparison!
You got a point there actually. But the thing is, I believe that when people agreed upon using language, they meant it to be a reality, that expresses something they won't understand without these tools. It's like language and symbols are the means that aid us in understanding reality, or else how are we gonna be able to understand science, nature and so forth.
I agree on that language and symbols are not realities persay, since reality, as you stated, is something else, it's something felt, sensed and experienced, but language and symbols make this experience understandable, by using certain words and terms, that everyone would agree upon. So to wrap it up, langauage&symbols and reality are two faces to one coin.

i get ya. and i think you might be onto something with the coin analogy. except, what would you call this coin? would you call it understanding?

thing is, understanding and communicating understanding dont have to go hand in hand. for example, i can walk around. i understand how to walk around. but if a pysiologist asked me to get technical and explain every movement and nerve firing, it would take years to explain, and things would probably be left out. but i walk, so i must understand walking. what better way to show knowledge of something than to do it? so understanding doesnt neccessarily mean being able to express that understanding. expressing reality is one thing, reality itself another.

so feeling, sensing, and experiencing are understanding in their own right. however, the conventional idea of understanding is putting reality into words, which is synonymous with thinking, or being able to think reality. like i said, reality cant really be thought totally-rather, reality can only be thought partially, but it can be thought eneogh to express reality in a way that is understandable and communicable. although this communicalbe reality leaves a lot out of the equation in terms of total reality, i guess it could still be called reality. but it wouldnt be true reality, it would be conventional reality. but a more precise term might be ideality. since its not really reality, but an idea or reality that everyone agrees upon.

[Nossa]

although this communicalbe reality leaves a lot out of the equation in terms of total reality, i guess it could still be called reality. but it wouldnt be true reality, it would be conventional reality. but a more precise term might be ideality. since its not really reality, but an idea or reality that everyone agrees upon.

I agree with you on that too actually. But the way I see it, when you say the verb 'walk' it doesn't only mean the action of walking, but it also brings to your mind the walking process itself. When people use terms and words to communicate, they use it to make thier lives easier, with your example of walking, you're saying that if we don't know the detailed, complicated process of walking, then we don't know the whole reality. I disagree with you on this, cuz the fact that I 'know' how to walk, makes it real to me, and therefore the word 'walk' conveys this meaning to me. Hope that made sense. lol..but you totally got a point there and I agree upon some of it!

[billyjack]

I agree with you on that too actually. But the way I see it, when you say the verb 'walk' it doesn't only mean the action of walking, but it also brings to your mind the walking process itself. When people use terms and words to communicate, they use it to make thier lives easier, with your example of walking, you're saying that if we don't know the detailed, complicated process of walking, then we don't know the whole reality. I disagree with you on this, cuz the fact that I 'know' how to walk, makes it real to me, and therefore the word 'walk' conveys this meaning to me. Hope that made sense. lol..but you totally got a point there and I agree upon some of it!

an interesting response, i never thought of it in that way, so this is new turf i am tredding on responding to it . but i'm not saying that if we dont know the whole detailed process of walking that we dont know the reality of walking. i'm just saying that this known reality-this intuitive reality- cant be symbolized.

you know how to walk. this knowledge isnt word based or thought out, its just known in an intuitive way. you are saying that the word "walk" triggers your intuitive understanding of walking. that's an interesting point.

saying or thinking walking, however, is not the act of walking, rather, its a representation of it. so you are kinda saying that the food menu triggers the sensation of you tasting the food. but of course, the idea of food doesnt fill your stomache up, nor does the idea of walking get you from point A to point B. so it seems like there is a diffence between the understanding of words and the understanding that is conveyed through actions.

your intuitive knowing of walking is the actual act of walking. however, conveying the idea of walking to another person with the word "walking" is not triggering this intuitive knowing of walking--which would be walking, but its triggering an idea of walking in the other person's mind. in this case the idea would be past memories of walking, but memories are not really reality, they are ideas of past realities and they tend to leave a lot of little things out and only spotlight things conventionally regarded to as important.

so the word walk portrays a conscious understanding of walking. but conscious understanding and intuitive understanding are different things. the former is thinking for the most part, the latter is doing.

not to say that telling a kid at a swimming pool to "walk" not "run" isnt a good thing. words have their place and we would bump into each other far too much if we didnt have them. but i think words tend to take all the glory and leave nothing for the intuitive side of life.

[Jennylc]

What's the alternative? Only "subjective reality"? What's that? And can such an oxymoron really have any meaning? Although words are notoriously inexact sometimes in meaning and connotation, certainly they must be part of an "objective" reality because we can all understand what each other is saying?


Subjective reality is simply what each person decides it is which is effectively a recipe for anarchy and chaos. If people didn't instinctively believe in objective reality, they wouldn't stop at traffic lights.

[chasestalling]

i don't believe there is an objective reality but if in fact there is one i wouldn't jeopardize my health or sanity for its sake . as james joyce has stephen dadaelus say, "i fear those big words which make us so unhappy."

[ELizabeth McC]

can we? (=line 1)
I find scrapping the notion of an objective reality makes life much easier (=line 2)
Even when i was small, eight or nine, i wondered why people won't stop bothering people and i've been wondering ever since." -Frank McCourt (=line 3)

Here is wisdom :)