Entered into a discussion on 4chan (/x/) about reality. Things became somewhat deep, with people who had education in a variety of fields chiming in. Eventually, the philosophy nerds began entering their opinions, and naturally the objectivists couldn't stand the thought of reality being anything but real.The beginning of the conversation was based on the vague statement that we are all memories; knowing what I do, I agreed, based on the following:
First, an event happens.
Second, our nerves perceive it.
Third, our brain processes it.
Forth, it is processed in with other information that makes up our consciousness.
To make matters worse, the information is delayed, first by whatever limitations it has on reaching us (speed of light for sight, speed of sound for hearing); then physical limitations on brain-processing speed; nerves fire lower than the speed of light, after all. This means that everything you see actually happened prior to being seen. The brain attempts to overcome this by filling in the gaps, giving information based on projected perception, that is: what we experience is based on what our brain knows has happened, and what it thinks will happen. We live in a mix of delayed information and constant delusion.
This is when the objectivists came in, spouting their nonsense about how reality is absolute and what we perceive must, therefore, be absolutely real.
So I hit them with this:
Objectivism is a 19th century philosophy created in response to Kant's response to what he saw as drawbacks of realism, idealism, and empiricism. Objectivism is not, however, a branch of realism. Objectivism tends to state that a thing that exists does not require the precense of conciousness to go on existing; simply put, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it makes a sound because our understanding of reality is such that we know it must make a sound.
However, our understanding of reality is, as has been accurately stated, limited to what we are able to perceive. If, for example, I see two men in the distance walking in my direction, one seeming of average height, the other seeming quite tall, I could assume that they will go on being these heights, whether or not I continue to see them. But if they come closer, and I realize through comparison of myself (being of average height) that one is average, and the other is extremely short. What I would have accepted as objectively true was tainted by perceptual misunderstanding.
Further, then, any information we accept as objective is potentially subject to the same errors in comprehension, be it the shape of the earth, the state of matter; anything we require our senses to percieve is, in fact, subjective; that is, potentially flawed, or skewed by the way in which we wish to see reality, as opposed to the way it really is.
Therefore nothing can be objective, because all things are based on subjectively perceived sensory information; what we accept as objective can often be wishful thinking, even on confirmation; or a simple lacking of the ability of our minds to process the incoming information in the proper way. Even what we think of as objectivism is subject to personal bias, making a shared definition impossible to guarantee; objetivism itself is a subjective philosophy.
That's right. In a few paragraphs, I made objectivism a subjective philosophy. Enough so that the thread was, in a few short minutes, reduced to mindless flames over how correct or incorrect my point could be, as well as arguments over the origin of objectivism (I was right, some attempted to date it before Kant, which is entirely inaccurate).
Man, I miss taking philosophy. If nothing else, it's very good for mindfucking the unprepared.
For my next trick, I'll prove that black is white and get at a zebra crossing.