A Peek on Objectivity - Is it your Mind or Reality?

Things are because they are, or is it because of what we perceive? 

Past theories attempting to resolve this dissension seldom find a consensus, due to the ambiguity behind whether there is a true reality consisting of pure objects at all, and if we can access it. A popular example is the chair and the table; they each have the potential to be turned into each other depending on how we use them. Then what distinguishes them, besides the way we assigned their meanings? Is there an essence to these categories independent of human perception? The most notable philosophical views introduced below will serve as a rough starter on this age-old ontology and epistemology debate.

Perceptual Realism

Often seen as the most straightforward way to understand how we perceive, it assumes that our experience directly corresponds to that of which exists in an objective reality. In short, there is no questioning what our sensories tell us. It thrives on the presumption that all objects are mind-independent and their perceivers do not alter their ‘thingness’ in any sense. Of course, common critiques with this system include: the struggle with explaining illusions, disregard of human variance in neurological processing and the misguided assumption that there’s a complete lack of intent, desire, or bias that may tamper with our judgement of said objects. 

Subjective Realism

Also referred to as immaterialism, founded by George Berkeley, material things do not exist according to this system, but rather everything is contingent on the observer. Being on the extreme end of denying a pure objectivity, subjective idealists posit that reality is only formed and fathomed by the human (and/or God’s) mind, advocating the sole importance of individual and collective interpretation. Berkeley articulated this idea in one succinct phrase: “To be is to be perceived” – Esse est percipi.

Transcendental Idealism

Developed by Immanuel Kant in his work ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, transcendental idealism strikes the balance between subjective and objective idealism systems. Whilst proposing that there undoubtedly exists an objective external world, our minds prevent us from fathoming that reality, instead we remain limited by the boundaries of subjective perception. Truths that we know of are merely synthetic, being ‘true’ insofar as human logic. Kant put this as “the object conforms to the nature of our faculty of intuition.” The table you can see or feel exists not as itself in the aforementioned external world, however does in the spatiotemporal one we are experiencing it in. Due to our reliance on conditions such as space and time to process the noumena (things that are in their uninterpreted pure forms), it’s impossible to cognise anything beyond their appearances.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual to settle on their proposition. Considering the convoluted nature of this discussion, it would be a miracle if someone ever reaches the truth. Respectable philosophers throughout history could only, after all, develop arguments without ever coming close to a definite answer. Aside from the three prominent theories above, if you wish to delve deeper into similarly-fascinating ideas then begin by visiting the field of ontology.