0

I understand objective reality to include all objects and phenomena, whereas subjective reality only includes 'subjects' understanding of reality. Given that understanding, objective reality includes subjective reality as an object (noun) and phenomena (verb), but what is the term for all objects and phenomena that are not subjective. This simple illustration suggests the word Asubjective.

enter image description here

For example, if I see a tree lying on the forest floor, I can reason that it fell.

  • My reasoning would be a phenomena and my understanding would be an object, but both of them would be subjective since I was not the object.
  • My subjective reasoning and understanding are objective phenomena and objects, and therefore part of objective reality
  • The tree is an object, and if it fell it was a phenomena, but because both the object and the phenomena were not dependent on any subject, they would also be asubjective.

A broader example would be classifications of all reality as subjective (dependent on subjective understanding) and asubjective (not dependent on subjective understanding). In this sense, all reality is asubjective except subjective understanding.

Christopher
  • 123
  • 5
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/123966/discussion-on-question-by-christopher-what-is-a-word-or-term-that-represents-non). – Geoffrey Thomas May 08 '21 at 09:10
  • 1
    Searle's use of the term "brute fact" comes to mind. "John Searle developed Anscombe's concept of brute facts into what he called brute physical facts—such as that snow is on Mt. Everest—as opposed to social or institutional facts, dependent for their existence on human agreement.[6] Thus, he considered money to be an institutional fact, which nevertheless rested ultimately on a brute physical fact, whether a piece of paper or only an electronic record." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact#Searle – user4894 Jun 10 '21 at 00:22
  • Who experiences 'objective reality'? If no one does, how can you verify it is real? It's not the only option: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net and in modern parlance, 'peer to peer reality', is a meaningful alternative to the cartoonishly presented alternatives to 'objective reality', in a way that replicates our experiences without (countably) infinite local subjective realities – CriglCragl Jun 10 '21 at 20:18
  • 1
    @CriglCragl consider reality in terms of 0-10, where 0=completely subjective (pure imagination, for example), 9.9 is as objective as one can be and 10=asubjective. As subjects, we cannot be asubjective, but the more asubjective we can be, the more objective we are. Asubjective is not attainable, but it is certainly something in the abstract...that which is not subject to anything. Take the past for example, it is absolute...there is no changing it by any natural means, so it is asubjective. Our recollection or study of it, however, is subject to us or our instruments...do you see that? – Christopher Jun 11 '21 at 02:34
  • 1
    I see that you think that. The same fundamental quantum limits on certainty apply to the past as well, not of our measurements but imposed by the uncertainty principle. Objectivity is just reified intersubjectivity. I don't belueve in it, it's a hangover from monotheism, and implicitly requires a 'mind of god' perspective. Tactics like consilience, or blind trials, increase intersubjective agreement, they don't iterate towards noumena. – CriglCragl Jun 12 '21 at 06:43
  • @CriglCragl if you see my answer below, you will see I agree with you about noumena, how it is impossible to subjectively experience it, but I do not see how that is connected to monotheism. If I predict something in the future that actually happens based on sound science, the future event is noumena prior to my experiencing it, it is objective when it relies on proven science, and it is subjective where the science has not been proven. Can you see that? – Christopher Jun 18 '21 at 23:56
  • Object and subject are the nominal identifiers of the role of the two members of an interaction. Without an interaction, there's no object or subject. That is, there's no 'asubjective' or 'anobjective'. In any case, this seems close to _methaphysical objectivism_, _objectivism_, _thing-in-itself_ and _noumena_. Google for them. – RodolfoAP Oct 08 '21 at 11:09
  • Whats wrong with 'objective reality' or 'realism'm? Whilst the former suggestion is two words, the latter suggestion is just a single word. – Mozibur Ullah Oct 14 '21 at 18:52
  • @MoziburUllah objectivity is relative to subjectivity...both need a person/subject to determine. My aim is to differentiate an object from what we recognize (perception) to what it truly is, independent of us. Idealists don't believe there is any difference, but everyone else does--things that exist, exist with or without our perception...that is the term I'm looking for, and Asubjective seems to be the closest word to me...until someone gives me a better one. – Christopher Oct 22 '21 at 19:22

1 Answers1

-2

I HOPE this a better illustration of the term I AM trying to convey?

enter image description here

All reality (blue) includes objects in or out of motion in space, but only some of it is experienced (pink), commonly referred to as phenomenal; the rest is noumenal. Some of those objects can perceive things, referred to in this image as 'subjects' (purple) who understand their experiences more subjectively (based on their perception) or objectively (based on properties of the objects themselves). BUT OBJECTS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PERCEPTION ARE ASUBJECTIVE (gold).

Because all understanding is either subjective or objective, it is not the objects in focus, it is the understanding of the objects. The objects themselves (or their motion in space) are neither objective or subjective, UNLESS THE OBJECTS IN FOCUS ARE THOUGHTS, FEELINGS, BELIEFS, ETC., which are subjective to perception.

PS This is a psychological application, based on the philosophical constructs of Object (any physical, mental, temporal, possible and supernatural thing) and Subject (any object with the ability to cause change), and the object of focus is Understanding, not Knowledge (recorded experiences).

And finally, these are the terms the author is using to illustrate his thoughts, and hoping those with greater philosophical education will provide more philosophically accurate terms that reflect the logic conveyed.

Christopher
  • 123
  • 5