\in-DEL-uh-buhl\,
adjective:
1. That cannot be removed, erased, or washed away.
2. Making marks that cannot easily be removed or erased.
3. Incapable of being forgotten; memorable.
~~~~~~~
Much debate goes into whether or not reality is made subjective due to our subjective experience concerning it--it is true, humans have subjective approaches to the natural world and it is impossible not to do so. Some conjecture, however, that due to this limitation (I wouldn't really call it a limitation--how can one be anything less than omniscient and not have subjective learning?), reality itself is in question.
Personally, I find that take flimsy, but there are some very important distinctions between saying everything is objective and everything is subjective that must be made before tackling the issue entirely. For one, morality. While at a different point in life I was inclined to believe morality was wholly subjective, and based on the circumstance of the moral agent, I now see that, while moral action is often a subjective prerogative, an objective moral standard can be intellectually culled and possibly applied to most scenarios--an objective moral theory would be extremely flexible (as there is no such thing as a moral absolute, I think), but at the same time, I think moral theory stems not from wholly subjective experience but often from recurring interactions between beings capable of harming one another and the natural world around them. Thus, if experience itself is not entirely random, morality cannot be--we can recognize when something is right and wrong, even if those requisites change with each subjective experience.
This is one of the many examples of the subjective and objective encountering one another. But the biggest opposition to such a theory (which would allot humans their obviously subjective experience, but with the ability to recognize objective patterns denied) is the idea that there is no natural world. There are varying degrees of this--from idealism (the special kind mentioned in class) to various widespread beliefs in the so-called "paranormal" and "supernatural", where worlds of spirits and energy live just beneath the surface of everyday reality.
This is not to say such a thing is impossible--the idea of a multiverse is a tentative scientific one, not a mere belief, but often we are inclined to believe this is not the real world, that we are being duped, or tested, or perhaps just too stupid to see the truth. All of these things might be the case, but more often than not, the evidence in the direction of the natural world (that is, the physical world) existing (at the very least, but perhaps alongside other such realities) is strong. Throughout human history I don't believe there's been any conclusive evidence that the natural world does not exist--it is incredible how well we can test that we do indeed live in an objective reality.
Now, of course, we've almost all seen the Matrix, and like I posted on the Phlog, we must always leave an error bar for such theories as ideality, which cling to the (I believe) minimal possibility that we are all being duped, or are not yet smart enough to understand our reality is completely subjective (I want to note that I'm not saying we've figured out the physical world, just that some kind of physical world exists apart of our experiences). If a theory comes along claiming the physical reality we know is fallacious, and has convincing evidence, I would pick it up in a heartbeat--we are not as intelligent as we'd like to think, I think, and it's plausible that our understanding of the universe is somehow inherently flawed. However, a theory in the direction of subjective reality never leaves itself open for proof (as it must not!)--there very much more likely than not exists an objective world.
With an objective world we can derive thousands of theories--we can find patterns and come to conclusions about the nature of things (starting with physics and working our way up), delve into human history and beyond, the psychology of the human mind, the above-mentioned possibility for objective morality, and our (self-propelled or not) "purpose" in the universe. An objective world frees us (and justifiably, not arbitrarily or for this purpose specifically) to understand the universe as it is.
Believing that human experience alone determines the nature of reality, in my opinion, is a rather conceited anthropocentric claim--we've wanted to be the chosen ones since we realized that we were different from the other animals, and never once has the universe looked down and affirmed this insecurity. Instead, we are personal eyes in an impersonal reality, and if anything can be inherently derived from our (seemingly) meaning-less (in the least negative way possible, and concerning objective, not subjective, meaning) existences, it is our curiosity about that which exists that makes such experience worthwhile.
Anyone with a good argument that the physical world does not exist, hit me as hard as you can. I'd love a good shakedown of a belief that's received far more affirmation than criticism in the past few years.
əˈtɛr
