Images, both visual, mental or coneptual, are essential to understanding complex society. However in modernity, the prevalence of the image becomes ever larger, while the capacity for simulation emerges: An image, called a simulacrum, that is a representation of a simulation, ie a reality which does not exist. This establishes a whole new layer for dialectical understanding of reality: Not just a dialectical process of what we perceive, but of perception itself, ie whether that which we perceive is an image of reality or an image of a simulation. In postmodern thinking, the incapability to differentiate simulation from reality in our perception (due to the unwillingness of having a dialectic process regarding perception itself, in turn brought about due to not acknowledging the existence of the simulacrum and the simulation) is then channeled by poststructuralist thinking into relativism, which leads to the creation of an emotional reality, an image of a reality that does not exist but is to be perceived as if it were reality itself.
If you have ever wondered how people can be so deluded to live in their own reality, where Trump is literally Hitler, Covid is a deadly plague and Ukraine dindu nuffin, that's how such simulacra are rationalized.
Up until before postmodernity, as our subjective sensorial perception directly perceived the objective reality, this required but one layer of dialectic to get rational knowledge of the objective reality out of limited perception. As our perception moves to a massive predominance of images being perceived rather than perceiving objective reality straight away, the formation of those images becomes a meta-sensorial act, a new layer that perceives objective reality in a subjective way, and which is then in itself perceived by our subjective sensorial perception.
>as our subjective sensorial perception directly perceived the objective reality Prove to me there is an objective world which exists separately from our subjective perception. You're the anti-relativist; this should be easy.
You are the one who made a claim with regards to the nature of reality. I haven't claimed anything.The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate according to your own empirical standards the existence of a subject-object division
Objective reality is self-evident and has never been disproven.
Ryan Jenkins
"du dun dun dundun" >so many words "dun dun dun dundun" >too bad im not reading em "dudududu dudu du dudududu dududu"
Joseph Morgan
Good post op, glad I stopped for the read >dont watch tv >not jabbed >dont get hysterical of culture war nonsense Feels good brothers
Evan Baker
You're shifting the goal posts now. I didn't ask you to prove the existence of an objective world; I asked you to prove the existence of a divide between our subjective perception and objective reality. This is the fundamental ontological claim in your OP
but to your credit you talk about subjective reality and that's actually the point of objective realty, objective reality is bait, subjective reality is where you can be a slippery frog not a dry toad but with humans these are psyhcological forces more than anything, spiritual, game and people don't realize how meme they are but they're meme for a reason as well
Lol this is like a Christfag demanding people disprove the existence of god
Jason Clark
Isn't the inherent logical consistency and reproductibility of empiricism proof enough?
Levi Cooper
By your own standards of empirical evidence it is not.
Daniel Smith
Our own incpacity of assertaining the definitive existence of objective or subjective reality is proof of the divide between subjective perception and the hypothetical objective reality.
Anthony Gonzalez
Except the question between objective and subjective reality isn't between no and yes, or 0 and 1, exists or does not exist; but a question of either - or. It has to be one or the other.
Alexander Morgan
You're saying that our inability to prove something thereby proves the same thing? That's sounds illogical.
But I'll let you in on a secret OP: people have actually undergone experiments in a laboratory setting related to this subject. And the results are potentially uncomfortable for empiricists.
When you look at the subatomic world in a laboratory setting, the behaviour of particles changes as soon as you introduce human perception. This is known as the double-slit experiment. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)
So what is my point? In contrast to your claims of detached objectivity, your position fundamentally rests on unprovable metaphysical assumptions. The only way you can actually substantiate this position is if you make an allowance for other epistemologies than empiricism.
You are like a pagan who worships the object like a stone idol, and who ascribes it with metaphysical characteristics
>You're saying that our inability to prove something thereby proves the same thing? No, that's not what I said. I said that our incapacity to assertain one or the other is proof of the divide between our perception and said hypothetical. I'm not even making a claim about the hypothetical there. I can't proof beyond any doubt that objective reality exists, I'll give you that one. But I can proof without any doubt that there's a divide between our perception and reality precisely because our perception cannot assertain subjective or objective reality.
Dominic Brooks
Yes. The image for post-modernity becomes a crucible for meaningful expression when the decontextualized conversational space of where reception meets signal is at large. Expression and form have a tendency for mutual binding, as the hitchhiking prostitute is guttarly all symbolic, with no inner-life in the making to be premised upon: the signal defines imagistic thought in the setting where language comes from combat derivation. Read Kittler: The Truth of a Technological World if your interest gravitates from simulacrum as it was for Baudrillard, but what it is you seek is a historically rounded analysis of the world most presententially occupied (best recommendation you will ever recieve). The dialectical inversion of perception stems from the original instance's ability to pivoted onto a new axis of meaning through re-generative intent excercised through the addition of content forwarded onto the real world. The synthesis of perceptual inversion is just the inherent ambiguity of the event space, a necessarily modernistic conception that disintegrates uniquely once post-modernity has entered the scene and has dismantled the floatimg experiments of non-deducibility.
Your method of reasoning is flawless with regards to the simulacrum's reification into the objective bounds of reality. This emotional relativity forwarded as indiscernable reality channels the gridwork for a new kind of modernity where euclidian geometry, linear equationd and traditional vector spaces cannot be unveiled as something deeper. I'd like the see the formal equation modeling the perception of perception of hostage reality as a formalized, crippling, uniform condition. Well done.
Andrew Scott
>I can proof without any doubt that there's a divide between our perception and reality precisely because our perception cannot assertain subjective or objective reality. I'm not the other guy, but I do want to be autistic for a moment and point out this isn't empirical proof; it's speculative reasoning
A good post, op. I'm not quite smart enough to use such pretty language sufficient to describe it but you're hitting at some of my own observations. It was initially driven by alienation, people with high functioning autism often face heavy discrimination by neurotypicals for not being able to see the emperor's new clothes. I know well that whether the clothes are actually there or not matters not one lick. Autists can't lie and in stark contrast to neurotypicals, many even hold beliefs that deceit, lies, and dishonesty are immoral. I have tried to be rational and tell myself reality is what the majority has agreed to believe, or that it's a sort of utilitarian thing to pretend otherwise but the internal conflict leaves me deeply uncomfortable. Unable to find a way to make everything fit together I've just dropped out. I try to avoid NTs because I dislike their disingenuous and antisocial behaviors and belief system. I avoid most media with a few exceptions. I think that the main reason for these shared delusions is specifically to seek out and hurt autists. They get upset when I don't want to play gang rape and they are somehow incapable of understanding why it's not fun for me when they only allow me to play the part of holes every single time.
