[zxcmx]

You just keep asking “why” until you hit axioms.

In a dictionary, all the words are defined by other words.

Observe that all experience is subjective, anyone can have any set of axioms they like and “voila”, there can be no “objective” truth.

It’s true in this kind of tautological way, and kind of interesting.

On the other hand no one I know truly acts as though this is true. Also I think the world is a lot more interesting and frankly simpler to think about if you assume objective truths exist.

[RikNieu]

> In a dictionary, all the words are defined by other words.

> Observe that all experience is subjective, anyone can have any set of axioms they like and “voila”, there can be no “objective” truth.

Hmmm,ok. So does this mean it's a critique on how language models the world instead of the world itself?

My axioms doesn't affect yours. Or a rat's, or a cats. Yet we'll all interact. Where does the interaction happen if not in an objective overlap, that which the subjectivity attempts to describe?

The words we use can described by other words, but other words do describe them.

[ThomPete]

You and I both know what an apple is conceptually. We do however not refer to exactly the same apple. We refer to something that similar enough that we can get away with calling it an apple because we reduce reality to categorize things around us. (our brains are wired to be economical about how we understand the world otherwise we wouldn't be able to think a single thought)

[RikNieu]

Yet eating the apple will nourish, regardless of how we refer to it.

The cells in our digestive tract do not care if we think the apple poisoned or not. They will respond to the amount of arsenic present in the fruit though. Is that response subjective?

[ThomPete]

Yes, that is subjective.

That's one narrative, there are many others (in fact an infinite amount of other perspectives). You are just choosing one way by reducing the reality of the interaction of the apple, the cells, atoms, time, how it gets in your body how that suddenly help you burn energy and run faster which then means your footsteps are a little deeper in the soild you run which kills a few ants which then turn into soil and goes back into the ecosystem.

There isn't an objective perspective on this only reductions into narratives.

[RikNieu]

Ok, one more question(sorry!), so is it merely about point of view?

How does postmodern thinking define objective and subjective, and contrast the two to come to the conclusion that an objective reality does not exist?

[ThomPete]

This is a great question but you need to think about it a little differently.

Postmodern thinking doesn't come to a conclusion that an objective reality doesn't exist per se.

Don't think about it as a proposition about how the world is.

Postmodernism shows through ex. deconstruction how language isn't as solid a foundation to talk about the world objectively as we might want to believe.

So, in other words, it's a critique of the idea of the absolute and objective frame of references.

It doesn't say that we can't use classical physics just that the second we start to formulate proposition about how the world is we are ultimately using an axiom to do that.

Now, this axiom is useful enough that it might allow us to build spaceships to fly to Mars but it might be that it doesn't allow us to do faster than light travel to reach Alpha Centauri.

Not sure I answered your question satisfactorily if not let me know and I will try again. It's worth spending time on.

[ringbugger]

> I know truly acts as though this is true.

Because how true could that be by defintion?

I do believe in objective truth, even if not realistically achievable and perhaps not philosophical mainstream. But if it is also simpler and more interesting, that is an additional plus and probably more correct.

I also admit to having premises and no problem to reflect upon them. Only to some of them I keep a sentimental relationship. A frame of reference might always be needed. But why should the frame be special?

Subjective to me is the relevance of the assumption about truth. The same can be said about a lot of discussions about conscience and general perception.

[ThomPete]

They don't have to be objective to be useful though.

The flat earthers don't fall off the planet just because they think the world is flat and believing it flat still allow them to find the way from village A to B if close enough.

It's just not a good enough model to build ex. a GPS satellites.

So I agree that we will, of course, assume a lot of things are "objective" even though they aren't from a philosophical point of view and that's all good. Philosophically though you can't really get around the postmodern philosophy if you want to discuss reality to it's full extent we can.