Those things were never objective. They were just judged on a different basis. It's foolish to think anything is particularly objective when we throw out easily 99.99999999% of the incoming stimulus before it even reaches any part of the brain that can process things rationally.

Hi hedwards,

Are we disagreeing? I think we are, but not superficially. Of course they weren't fully objective, I'm precisely pointing that we have decided to subject those concepts to a new postmodern lens increasingly divorced from objective reality.

Equality likewise is both subjective and has an objective foundation. The difference being, postmodern equality is idolized, whereas the concepts I mentioned are disregarded, almost schizophrenically.


Now, please correct me if I'm going offtrack, but interpret your percentage comment as our source of disagreement. External stimuli may be perceived differently by each separate human individual, but there are process commonalities, and even if there were zero commonalities the underlying reality is unique, and I believe can be, let's say, communicated with.

To me the fundamental postmodern mistake is to extrapolate from we all perceive things differently, to there are multiple underlying realities. Keyword underlying. That there are multiple created realities is obvious (fantasies). And that is precisely why I think legitimacy, authority and respect are necessary to function in society.

The point I'm making is that whether or not there's an objective reality underlying everything, it's impossible to whittle down 100 million pieces of information per second down to the 10 that our brain can cope with at the higher levels and agree with other people about what the reality is. Even people who see the same event are often not able to agree on the large details, good luck on any of the smaller details.

Objective reality works out OK, if you're not involving yourself with science or generally society of any sophistication. Tthe larger the number of people that are observing things and the more precision and recording that goes on, the more it breaks down. Sure, we can agree on major things like the fact that the world is a sphere. Oh wait, we can't agree on that, well we can, but there are people that still believe the world is flat. Likewise there are people who still believe that President Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim. It all depends upon how you measure and what you chooes to verify and to what extent.

IPost-modernism and Quantum Physics gave it that final push off the cliff, but it was something that has been degrading for almost the entire lifetime of the human race.

Don't forget shared experiences are always a great connection when applying for a job. My first job out of the military I got because I came out of the same branch of service as my immediate supervisor. I'm sure there were other factors, but I know that was the key. I had the experience, but I had no degrees, certifications, etc and I am not very good at patting myself on the back with accolades during interviews.

As for the friends during High School, perhaps if you have a wide array of friends. Most of my close friends had different career goals than me. One was a brainiac that wanted to become a physicist, another a police detective, and me computer programming/technician. There is no longer any overlap in our circles, just those great memories from HS and the few times after graduation.

As for most of the assholes in HS, I had no interest in friendship then nor do I have any now, and I sure as hell wouldn't ruin my rep in my company by recommending them because they threw an awesome party in HS.

I really appreciate this. This is getting to a point where I see the possibility of understanding the ontological beliefs which probably led us to our worldviews, and that's something I find very positive.

Paraphrasing you below. Please correct where needed:

It doesn't matter if there is objective reality. Humans can't always know objective truths. Because different interpretations exist.

Sometimes humans can know the truth, but not for the complicated stuff. The more people involved, the more objective reality changes. Because different people interpret it differently.

Post modernism and quantum mechanics revealed the above to be true.

I hope that's not a too large miscommunication, I trust it's not strawmaning you.


I didn't expect to start an ontology argument over this topic, but it's a good conversation to have, because as you have noticed I believe ontological mistakes are at root of the societal decadence that I pointed earlier and the OP described. Do you think this is arrogant? I guess so, BUT any ontological belief requires some arrogance, because these are the kind of truths where objective proof is often impossible.


Onwards, your whole first paragraph, if qualified as per my paraphrasing I agree 95%. I disagree with your implication that objective reality does not matter. Because if it is possible to sometimes be right (not morally, but as regards being literally correct - aligned with reality) then it's worthwhile to try for it. I'll get back to this.


Your second paragraph you half agree with me - that it is possible, not that it is worthwhile, to pursue the truth. Your qualifier about complexity is where we start to disagree more strongly:

First, complexity reinforces objective reality, in terms of averages and observable, repeatable, consistent natural laws. Sure, you might not know what one electron does exactly, but get a million or so together and suddenly you know (and can predict) a lot very well. One could argue the same also applies to humans - a mob being often more predictable than an individual.

Second, the observer does not modify reality through the act of observation. This is a tricky point, where the semantics need be precise. It is not observing, with its implied meaning of human (or conscious) perception, that causes quantum collapse. It is a form of material interaction. The sun "observes" other stars, an atom "observes" another atom, a wave "observes" another wave. There is nothing in the equations about human conscience deciding which outcome becomes from the probabilities that are feasible. I do agree however, that correctly interpreting reality is fundamentally more difficult when human decisions are involved. I'd actually enjoy if you want to talk about free will and determinism in the brain, anyway reality without humans provides a good enough first ontological model to discuss, and simpler.

So at bottom line, no, lack of agreement does not prove multiple realities are correct. It only proves we are messy and that it's hard to interpret THE reality and be correct. IT does not depend on how you measure, only your interpretaion of IT does.


And here we get to the crux of the matter. On quantum mechanics I have commented. My interpretation may be incorrect, but I believe it. Postmodernism... Postmodernism (as normally understood) is arrogance to the power of 3. It is arrogance that humans determine objective reality. It is arrogance that humans modify objective reality. It is arrogance that objective reality is.

That objective reality is, I have no issue with. I am likewise arrogant. The alternative is to believe this is an illusion, but if so, what or who is deluded? Cogito ergo sum and all that...

That humans modify reality, likewise no issue. I won't say much - but I believe our vertigo at the technological power we have is one of the root causes for the following. Like a child being cruel, choosing to believe she isn't. Basic denial...

That humans determine reality... Well, we might have killed god, but I wouldn't go so far as agreeing we replaced it. :) The logical issue with this position is obvious. Given how you correctly pointed out that we can't agree anything as groups, who exactly is determining what? I guess when I die the universe will cease to exist, and before I was born you all popped into existence as decorative elements. Or there are superimposed subjective realities which collapse into... something objective?

This position is logically inconsistent unless one assumes some form of extreme solipsism. And here we get back to the ought argument. For me postmodernism is incompatible with a lot of moral concepts. I mentioned a few when we started this dialogue. The critical one: how can you tolerate or respect another that is part of your subjective reality yet not objectively real and independent of you? You can't.

If you really believe reality is objectively subjective ;) then you believe everything is SUBJECT to you. Consider the etymology of subjective here, I find it very revealing of the power game being played, even if unconsciously, by most postmodernists. It's all subjective effectively becomes it's all mine.


So there you go. Trust that provides enough detail to justify my position. Believing in a unique accessible objective reality is a requisite for correct morals. Otherwise there is nothing to measure, and nothing to measure with. Without measuring there is no scale and no comparison, there is only ego. It's ALL mine.

Of course, agreeing to this is not the end of the story. If you do, we can get back OT around the politics of being correct and how to find what is true - when it is even possible. I expect we would agree more on that, and having the recourse to objective reality will permit us to be... objective. ;)

If you don't agree, then I'm sure I'll enjoy your perspectives. I can't say I have a lot of respect for the usual conception of postmodernism, and if you can change my mind to any degree I will gain from it.

High school is primarily a place for keeping kids away from the productive members of society during those high-maintenance teenage years :) Define 'value'.
If money and power are value, people can get those with connections alone. Personally, I attribute more value to skill for the sake of skill itself because the development of skills gives me real satisfaction and connections just levels you up artificially by proxy but not intrinsically.
Grades beyond the minimum to pass are of no real importance once you're out of school, however any useful skills you learn are more valuable than connections because connections can get lost due to higher powers (e.g. people moving away/dying), keeping and improving skills on the other hand is a matter you yourself can control fully. It's universal, virtually everyone takes advantage of each other in some way.

You are in general only as valuable to the people in your life as long as you are useful to them in some way, shape or form. Most people aren't even consciously aware that they are thinking that way and would feel highly offended if you'd tell them that.

A close relative of mine is very sick. He used to have a huge amount of connections and many friends but over the years as he became sicker and sicker, people gradually turned away from him until there were only about 3 left. None of his health problems are contagious but people are always subconsciously afraid that the bad luck will rub off on them somehow. They also believe the opposite which is why they love to hang around successful / rich / good looking people and bask in their glow.

On the bright side of things, it's easy to see through the intentions of people. Look at who sticks around when you're not doing so well, those few people are the ones that count. Everyone else likely saw you as an asset/upgrade if even in the most subtle way.

EDIT: All this doesn't mean people are evil, it's just important to keep this in mind to save yourself a big amount of disappointment. What I've seen happen to my close relative shook me to the core.

Why do I feel like hedwards and Brasas are having a philosophical debate up there? Not that I don't enjoy it.

Note: I've added the fact that the previous coworker who commented on the point of high school was from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who learned about humanity through the "give me some or I'll tell on you" experience.

The worth of some thing.