There are many forms of objective reality, depending on the needs of the consensus group.
Government has laws which are sometimes informed by judges whose decisions are informed by “the people” who were informed by a process of prosecutor and defense upon a particular issue whose truthvalue must be determined.
Objective reality as determined by the sciences, for example, is an ever-changing objective reality. Through the rigor, there’s the hope that this sieve will keep the wheat and leave behind the chaff as it were.
But it is a messy process. Most scientific papers, to put it in a blunt way, are wrong. Yet even those that are right have the potential to be wrong in the future. Such is the process.
Logic is a system created by humans. It’s traceable historically to the philosophies of several humans who once walked the earth and whose ideas have become influential in Western Civilization.
It is a practical methodology of “winnnowing” (the name of the process I mentioned before with the sciences) and through 19th century refinements has allowed us to construct a system powerful enough to construct “logic machines” to make speedy work of the excluded middle based process.
A process that was once invented by humans, traceable historically and has an earthly root.
This is why I mentioned the disconnect earlier : I prefer to use the “common sense” sense of “reason” rather than the one mentioning “logic” because we have a disconnect in our views on the causation and nature of logic.
This does not mean there is no objective standing. But, to make a metaphor, we can walk confidently on firm enough sand without worrying about it most of the time.
Issues I have start with the first sentence:
“The phrase “objective reality” means that reality exists independent of our minds.”
Reality includes our minds. We’re a part of objective reality.
Our *beliefs-about” reality don’t necessarily match up to a consensus-view of reality.
When our beliefs-about reality don’t match up to our consensus-view of reality (which I consider “objective reality”) this can be referred to as delusional and other things.
I see humans as social creatures primarily, even when we try not to be. Our ability to move from physical concepts such as catching a ball with our hands, linking that process up to an oft-repeated word such as “catch!”, leading to the transformation of the physical process linking to the language formation process (through social engagement)…
…and through a process of novel concepts being added through our ability to form metaphorical connections between things we don’t at first understand…
…we can end up with marvelous concepts such as “catching a cold”.
Belief-construction, including the belief of objectivism being the only accurate system through which one can discern truthvalues, I think follows a similar process as that of concept formation.
So, you can see how we have a disconnect : We’re utilizing distinct narratives, even though they may end up being described using the same phrases, such as
“the ability to think and make decisions based on logic”
If I wanted to understand objectivism, I would not be satisfied with an Objectivism 101 but would instead approach it historically. What were the various schools of objectivism that led to the current school objectivism? Who were the founders? What are their assumptions? Where else can their influences be found today, apart from Objectivism 101?
We’re coming at things from entirely different approaches.
I see Rhetoric (as in University of Constantinople) as the “king”. Not rhetoric in its modern usage but rhetoric as inclusive of all knowledge, including logic within it.
Logic as a convincing tool, to put it simply.
What are we doing (objectively) in this conversation for example?
Logic? Rhetoric? Mythmaking?
Speaking for myself (who else can I speak for?), this conversation is rhetoric with an eye to diplomacy. My expectations are not mutual agreement but mutual understanding, although agreement is nice too.