Reality

[Contemporary Protestant]

          Reality is independent of the observer, and continues to exist without acknowledgement or being understood. Unreality is dependent upon the observer, and only exists in the mind. When individuals cease to put cognitive effort into a subject that is unreal, the topic no longer has influence on the real world. For example, if a significant number of people have faith in a flying purple unicorn, then the purple unicorn has influence merely because people make certain actions in regards to such a thing. So when these people no longer behave as if there are purple unicorns, then the purple unicorn will not have influence. In contrast to the purple unicorn, say that a certain village in India denies the existence of a man-eating tiger. Whether or not people have faith in the tiger and if the tiger is acknowledged, the tiger retains the power to consume the flesh of man. The tiger exists independent of the village while the purple unicorn is dependent upon the general consensus of the village. 


   Despite most aspects of reality having evidence, reality existed before evidence and does not require evidence to exist. For example cellular life had existed for billions of years, but people only knew about them upon the invention of the microscope. Cells existed before the microscope and continue to exist today. This shows that observers can have limited perceptions, and in some cases a flawed perception or understanding. Einstein initially rejected the Big Bang theory in favor of a static universe. Considering that a significant percentage of the population disregards commonplace scientific theories, a question is raised. How does one correctly perceive reality? With the understanding that if something is real then it exists independent of the observer, and exists whether or not it can even be observed. Before the prior question can be answered, the concept of an objective reality must be proven, because without an objective reality, there cannot be a correct perception of it.

   First let it be established that concepts should be argued instead of arguing from the English language. For example the statement “it is not legal to not pay taxes” is grammatically incorrect because it’s a double negative. The statement despite being written poorly is correct. To argue from grammar is wasted breath, and it is illogical. Say there is a field with only two farmers and no livestock, one farmer says, “there are no animals in the field”, the other responds with “incorrect, there are two animals in the field.” While the latter statement is correct, and the other false based on the technicality that people are animals, it is a waste of time to argue in such a way. The initial farmer used the word animal in regards to livestock such as cows or pigs, so the concept the initial farmer was trying to convey was correct, but he was technically wrong for making the assumption that people are not classified as animals.

   Under the condition that technicalities regarding the English language are being disregarding, continue on to the original goal of proving an objective reality.
Returning to the field with two farmers, the statement “there are two farmers” is an objective statement about reality. There are exactly two farmers in the field, not three, and not one, but two. If an individual says, “in my opinion there are three farmers” that individual is wrong, because there are only two farmers. Reality is not subjective, if there are two contradicting statements, both can’t be right. Despite the objectivity of reality, the perception can be subjective or false. For example if an onlooker is blind, and at the field, his statement regarding the farmers is dependent upon whether he interacts with them or if the farmers are making noise. So if the blind man does not interact with the farmer and one of the farmers does not speak, the blind observer will state that there was one farmer. Based on his perception, the blind fellow is correct, but he is incorrect because there are two farmers.  Arithmetic is objective; it is independent of the observer. However not all observations are objective, and not all observers are effective.  Despite these things, reality is objective because it isn’t dependent on the individual; it is the individual that is dependent on reality. Noting that, there is little to be sure of, the statement “there is an objective reality” is a premise. A premise defined as an assumption in regards to understanding the world around us. 

[_Xenu_]

Reality is independent of the observer, and continues to exist without acknowledgement or being understood. Unreality is dependent upon the observer, and only exists in the mind.

I think you're going about this the wrong way. There's an old paradoxical question about a tree that falls in the forest, whether anyone is around to hear it, and whether or not it makes a sound.  You are correct to state that reality is independent of the observer, but then you go on to contradict yourself with the rest of your premises. Your exact statement:

"When individuals cease to put cognitive effort into a subject that is unreal, the topic no longer has influence on the real world."

Actually, the events being discussed still exist in matter, energy, space, and time. Our acknowledgment of them has nothing to do with anything beyond our own awareness of them, which you acknowledged when you said that "reality is independent of the observer."

If you want to make some sort argument that belief or knowing equals reality, you should sign up for Scientology, because that might be more up your ally.

[Contemporary Protestant]

I don't see how when stating that when people stop talking about a lie that the lie loses its influence on the real world is contradictory to my intial statement. This isn't a case for christianity, it's about relativism. I think relatviism is false because there is an objective reality

[_Xenu_]

I don't see how when stating that when people stop talking about a lie that the lie loses its influence on the real world is contradictory to my intial statement. This isn't a case for christianity, it's about relativism. I think relatviism is false because there is an objective reality

If you wish to make a statement about moral relativism, I respectfully suggest you get to that point more directly. Having said that, I somewhat agree with you, and somewhat don't, but I'm kind of drunk and don't feel like getting into deep arguments right now.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Well more of relatvism in general, it's about how people who say more than one stance on God can be right. My point is that is false, if there is no God, nothing can change that. The concept of God, assuming there isn't one, only has as much influence as believers give it. Likewise if there is a God, he or she doesn't need followers to be real

[Hakurei Reimu]

The question of whether something is real is a separate question towards whether that something is germane to anyone's life. An existing, but indigent God has exactly the same effect on the universe as a nonexistent God of any stripe. That is to say, none at all.

Also, relativism is not only true to some extent, but it is also unavoidable to some extent. The universe is not moral or immoral in character; it is amoral â€" it acts with neither concordance nor in defiance to morals. It just acts. Morality is only meaningful when applied to a context with moral actors, beings that are able to make judgements about what they intend to do or what has already happened, and that judgement is highly dependent on the being in question. That is not to say that objective reality can't inform moral decisions, but objective reality cannot dictate morality, for morality â€"like it or notâ€" has no independent existence apart from ourselves.

[stromboli]

The question of whether something is real is a separate question towards whether that something is germane to anyone's life. An existing, but indigent God has exactly the same effect on the universe as a nonexistent God of any stripe. That is to say, none at all.

Also, relativism is not only true to some extent, but it is also unavoidable to some extent. The universe is not moral or immoral in character; it is amoral â€" it acts with neither concordance nor in defiance to morals. It just acts. Morality is only meaningful when applied to a context with moral actors, beings that are able to make judgements about what they intend to do or what has already happened, and that judgement is highly dependent on the being in question. That is not to say that objective reality can't inform moral decisions, but objective reality cannot dictate morality, for morality â€"like it or notâ€" has no independent existence apart from ourselves.

That was just the best fucking post ever. 

[Green Bottle]

Aye Stromboli, he answered the question very well.   

[Solitary]

   Hakurei Reimu, bravo! 

[Contemporary Protestant]

I agree with you the relevance of something is separate from whether it exists or not. However the point of my post is that individual opinion does not dictate what is real and what isn't. It is perhaps impossible to perceive what is real and what is a lie due to the limitations of the human mind, making relativism "inevitable". However just because perceptions are all relative doesn't change the fact that some people's ideas about the world are just incorrect.

I wasn't talking about morals, thats another topic, my initial post was about reality.

I don't think that specific rules can be objective but I do think moral principles can be objective; such as mercy, compassion, et cetera

[the_antithesis]

However the point of my post is that individual opinion does not dictate what is real and what isn't.

Quite right.

Individual opinion supported by evidence has a better chance of comporting with reality.

Individual opinion pulled out of one's ass or born out of one's arrogance does not.

[Contemporary Protestant]

I agree, if one truly believes they saw a purple unicorn, I won't bother them about it because they could have, however if said person were to make a formal assertion I would ask for proof

[the_antithesis]

I agree, if one truly believes they saw a purple unicorn, I won't bother them about it because they could have, however if said person were to make a formal assertion I would ask for proof

That's an odd distinction to make.

I don't think I would care if a person was making a formal assertion or not. You want to be taken seriously in any context, be prepared to back your shit up or shut the fuck up.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Sorry, I should specify that this person is a casual believer in unicorns, and sometimes talks about it, Im cool with that, but if they tried to convince me that unicorns are real, I would criticize them

[Mr.Obvious]

I'd counter it everytime he/she brought it up. And normally only when he/she brought it up. If the person brought it up more often, there'd be more argument, I suppose. And I would try to criticize his/her ideas, not him/her.