i presume you will have all either come up with it yourself, or heard someone else mention it... the idea that we see colours differently, but can all relate and discuss them because of how we are taught which colour correlates with the names we have given them. for example, i might see green, johny might see yellow, but we both refer to it as what we all refer to as red. [edit] and jane might come along and she sees it like a swirling pearlescent of strange almost cyan-purple-orange like colours that we can't even begin to imagine without legendary doses of psilocybin, or a really high dose of sativa when your tollerence is reset.[/edit] now imagine if we perceive not just colours differently, but, say perhaps, straight and jointed.... for example, say you know that your shin/calf is straight, and your ankle, a joint, and as you grew up, you were taught these words and so refer to them as such, but your friend johny, who also was taught these words, and points to the same area as we percieve our physical reality, he sees what you percieve as joints somewhat more akin to straight bits. and vice versa. can you get your head around that? anyone follow this thought experiment? a challenge to all readers of this thread, amidst our conversation and discussion: can you come up with other ways in which we might be perceiving things differently but share outside of ourselves, a comon understanding strung together by language. but really though... wow, straight bits and joints.... placing your perception inside their reality then... it would surely look all mangled and incomprehensible, right?
.... All this posts reminds me of is the fact that we all have subjective opinions to what might quite possibly be an objective world. As for what your asking... I kinda don't really get it but I'll take a small stab. My friend Alex is red, green, color blind. He can't see red or green, however he differentiates between them and apparently by the way he describes it they appear to him in shades of beige, one being darker and one being lighter. We often discuss what color he is actually seeing and whether or not I have seen the color(the one I call beige..ish). Basically the problem we come down to is the limiting factors of language, essentially I can never understand it because I can't see it, and he can never explain it because well... you try and explain color to a blind man, see how it goes lol.
Not really... in my opinion a subjective opinion in itself could be an objective one to the person who presents it. Meaning that their subjective opinion would've created an objective opinion. I would like to point out that the objective world I speak of, is definite and reliable meaning that obviously we could never know who's subjective opinions were subjective and who's were objective. This also begs the question, can subjective be objective? And among other things, can perception which is subjective even reflect an objective world? I could go on... lol However, back to the thread at hand... don't mean to thread jack
You're talking about people... as if that doesn't validate what I was getting at? People aren't subjects? And objects? Perceiver/perceived. "Objective and reliable"... interesting, but what does that matter if all things relative to it never stop?
I was just showing an example of how a subject might not need an object. As far as whether or not it matters if something is objective and reliable if all things relative to it never stop. I am one who believes it really does matter. How do we know what's relative to what if we don't have an objective and reliable source on it? We think what we say is relative to what we talk about, however isn't that our subj. view on the matter? Whose to say that in the objective reality we look like fools trying to compare two things that really have nothing in common..
I guess my real point is that to believe is to leave room for doubt. As if that's ever not my point lol. But I do see what you're saying...