Student or Learner
"Unless we postulate that somehow each person is creating reality on their own, then we must consider that whatever happens is what it is, and what we grasp of it is subject to limitation or alteration."
--- Can someone try and paraphrase the above sentence for me. I'm not sure I understand it correctly. Does the word "then" after the first comma is a correct one???
So in other words the author is saying that: Those who claim that reality is not subjective must accept the fact that it is objective and that it cannot be understood because it changes ...
Those who claim that reality is not subjective must accept the fact that it is objective and that it cannot be understood because it changes ...
We could postulate: what we call 'reality' is a wholly subjective creation, existing within our minds, and thus, since our mind created it, we must be aware of 'reality' in all its totality.
If not, then 'reality' is objective, 'out there', and we are each merely trying to apprehend/grasp this objective reality. Since it is not of our own creation, we can never be sure that we have grasped the totality of this objective reality - our subjective capacity to grasp it all has "limitations", and in trying to understand and grasp this objective reality, our perception/conception/understanding of this reality is going to be distorted, altered - "subject to alteration" - since each person is doing so in terms of their own subjective experience.
Thank you guys. It's much clearer now!
In other words he's saying that: reality is only objective (there is no subjective reality), and to the extent that something is subjective, it is a distortion of the objective, a distortion of the real.
Unless we postulate that somehow each person is creating reality on their own
Look at this sentence:
"I don't believe her story. Unless she's Wonder Woman, there's no way a 5'4" female could carry a 6'2" 200lb dead body from the car, into the house, up the stairs, and into the bedroom. She must have had an accomplice."
unless: used to introduce a case in which a statement being made is not true or valid
So - your author is saying, 'unless you want to suggest that what we call 'reality' is solely the creation of each individual in his own mind - which I do not think is true/valid - (is really preposterous)...then 'reality' must be objective - 'it is what it is' quite independent of each person - and that each person tries to grasp/apprehend reality as a subjective experience.**
Each person does have a subjective reality: I am subjectively aware of how my body feels, my mood, my thoughts and plans - and part of that subjective reality is seeing/grasping/thinking about the objective reality 'out there'. I go to see the objective reality of an art exhibition, or a movie, and the experience of that movie becomes part of my subjective reality, talking about how good it was with friends.
That subjective reality is a distortion of the real, is seen when different eye-witnesses to a crime describe the action in very different ways. One experiment had two men run in during a lecture, brandishing a weapon, but instructed to have blank facial expressions. When the class was asked to describe the perpetrators, the number of students who reported "the murderous look in their eyes" and hostile threatening facial expressions!
** This does not preclude that what is now objective reality was once one person's subjective reality: before St. Paul's Cathedral was built, and could be seen by all, it was solely in the mind of its architect, Christopher Wren.
Last edited by David L.; 28-Apr-2009 at 14:28.