<br>This video presents a more [[Rational|rationalist]] perspective.
<br>This video presents a more [[Rational|rationalist]] perspective.
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J-0YJ_rVag||center|Is There Objective Truth? Or Is Reality Subjective, Or a Social Construct?|frame}}
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J-0YJ_rVag||center|Is There Objective Truth? Or Is Reality Subjective, Or a Social Construct?|frame}}
== Peterson, Harris, and Objective Morality ==
Since [[metaculture]] has the application of [[science]] to questions of [[morality]] as one of its core tenets, addressing what is meant by "objective morality" and how one might determine it is a useful exercise.
The first video below has a long response to Sam Harris's Moral Landscape and rejecting the notion of "objective" [[morality]]. It is unfortunate that he and [[Jordan Peterson]] have been linked by their various appearances together, and that Harris's criticisms of Islam have been used to support [[racist]] [[politics]] and policies. He has otherwise been a leading voice regarding the [[scientific]] approach to [[spiritual]] subjects like [[morality]] and [[meditation]], offering a version of [[atheism]] that is significantly more open-minded than your [[wikipedia:Christopher_Hitchens|Hitchens]] or [[wikipedia:Richard_Dawkins|Dawkins]]. The idea that [[science]] can be applied to questions of [[morality]] should be strongly considered.
The [[utilitarian]] [[ethics]] of [[metaculture]] avoids these criticisms by recognizing the [[subjective]] nature of self-reporting [[happiness]] and measuring it on the aggregate instead of the individual level. We can know statistically whether one [[society]] or [[culture]] is [[happier]] than another, and whether changes to various policies or beliefs have an impact on that measure. It doesn't claim an objective [[morality]], but rather one that can be [[Self-correcting|improved over time]] with study and comparison. If an "objective" [[morality]] exists it can only be approached and never reached, and each moral grey area must be considered individually--no simple rules apply universally (see [[Gödel]]).
The [[happiness]] page provides a resolution for [[wikipedia:Is–ought_problem|Hume's is/ought]] problem that Harris doesn't address in a satisfactory way.
The [[metaculture]] [[wiki]] also takes a [[perspective]] that fundamentally opposes [[war]] and the use of [[power]] to enforce [[ideology]], and that all [[religions]] and [[cultures]] should be embraced. The argument could be made that certain passages in the Quran form a [[generating equation]] that create a pattern of violence, and significant text could be dedicated to supporting that argument. However, it is inherently divisive and against the [[Perspective|spirit]] of [[universalism]] that [[metaculture]] is striving for. But even if there was strong evidence to support such a view (not saying there is), there would be absolutely no implication that [[discrimination]] or [[violence]] could ever be an acceptable response to it.
So, instead of the [[perspective]] that "Western [[culture]] is objectively better than others because we invented [[science]] and [[democracy]]" it's more like "[[Science]] allows people of all [[cultures]] to discover their shared humanity and speak about it with a common [[language]]. Let's use this to adopt a [[universal]] system of [[ethics]] so we don't kill each other, and we can solve global problems like [[climate change]] together." It's looking at the same set of facts from a different [[perspective]].
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEMB1Ky2n1E||center|Jordan Peterson & The Meaning of Life - Philosophy Tube|frame}}
<br>
Since a good part of the above video uses Sam Harris to make [[Jordan Peterson]]'s philosophy intelligible, here's the video being referenced.
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww||center|Science can answer moral questions - Sam Harris|frame}}
== Beauty is Truth and Vice Versa ==
== Beauty is Truth and Vice Versa ==
Revision as of 18:42, 4 January 2025
It's not true because it's beautiful, it's beautiful because it's true
Is it important to you that your beliefs are objectively true? Or do you care more about whether they are emotionally satisfying? Or whether they conform to the norms of your in-group?
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." -Galileo Galilei
This short video is a good example of the argument that subjectivereality takes priority over the objective, and uses the placebo effect as an example. However, there is still an objective reality in the brain that produces that experience from the action of neurons, and the placebo effect doesn't just make you "feel" better, it produces chemical changes in the body. Otherwise there would be nothing to feel! Plus, it has been shown that honest placebos are often just as effective, implying that it may not be necessary to believe our myths literally for their metanarrative to still be powerful.
The fact that our experience of subjectivereality can be changed by our beliefs is not evidence that reality itself is subjective, but that is the conclusion many people draw from it.
Is there an objective reality outside of our beliefts?
This video presents a more rationalist perspective.
Is There Objective Truth? Or Is Reality Subjective, Or a Social Construct?
Beauty is Truth and Vice Versa
If Beauty is Truth and Truth Beauty, then Fractals represent the essence of both.
