/edu/ - Education

Thus interpretations are generally constructions based on insufficient (as in, not all-encompassing) pieces of information to rationalize the world around the subject, and will probably also contain unproven premises to support it.

Besides that, the only other realm of interpretations are things that are inherently not objective. For example, the question of what meaning an art piece has. There is no objective answer, even if the creator stated a meaning. That in turn doesn't mean that there is no objective reality though, because we have a domain of subjectivity here. Ultimately, the material composition of the art piece in question objectively is the way it is. The question what meaning it has stems from a plane of abstraction.

>>9922
>If there is an objective reality, aren't interpretations of it merely falsehoods
There is objective reality, and there are models of reality, which all have a limited degree of accuracy. Very few reality models are complete falsehoods, even very mythological world-models were earth is the pimple on the nose of the great deity, usually have some amount of truth to it.

> I understand that every perspective is innately subjective
There is no inherent subjectivity, your mental life objectively exists as physiological processes in your brain, subjects are created by class society. Rulers reduce people to subjects by restricting their mental life with subjectivity. If you accept the king's reign because you believe that there is a deity that commands you to obey the king, that means you were subjected to feudal subjectivity. Capitalist subjectivity is different, it is dominated by commodity logic.

When people say subjective, what they usually mean is something like philosophical preference.

The best models that approximate objective reality the most, originates from scientific exploration of the material world. There are limitations of course. The scientific process is not entirely free from bias, or social pressure.

>>9924
>Very few reality models are complete falsehoods
>Very few
If we have an objective reality, which is described by a set of information, then we have enormous amounts of subsets of it. Each can be used to create a model of reality. Each could be strung up in irrational ways. So I would say it's wrong to say only very few reality models are complete falsehoods. Considering the total amount that you could create, we actually have many.

>complete falsehoods
To me, I will call it a falsehood if the interpretation has a falsehood in it and the interpretation, therefore, deviates from the one and only fully truthful description of objective reality. We could also merely have a subset that describes this objective reality. In that case, it is merely insufficient, but not a falsehood. We can draw a distinction between interpretations that don't state a single truthful statement (complete falsehoods) and the ones that at least contain one wrong statement. I don't find that important though.

>There is no inherent subjectivity, your mental life objectively exists as physiological processes in your brain
But that's talking about two different things here. I agree that you mental life objectively exists as physiological processes in your brain, but the experience of reality from your perspective is subjective.

>>9922
>If there is an objective reality, aren't interpretations of it merely falsehoods besides 1 truthful description of reality?
Interpretations touch on various aspects of reality. If I say an apple is green, it's not a falsehood. Light wave from the apple hit my retina and my brain processes the nerve impulses to mean "green“. It corresponds to a quality the apple has, the skin of the apple throws off certain light frequencies. But it doesn't say everything about the apple. What it tastes like. Or what orchard it came from.
>I understand that every perspective is innately subjective, but theoretically, if there is an objective reality, then what we call interpretations could only be falsehoods besides 1 interpretation that actually describes reality as it is.
All interpretations have to leave things out. Otherwise the interpretation would be as big and complex as reality itself. In other words, it would be identical with reality. It would just be a duplicate of reality. It wouldn't explain anything.
Interpretations are reductionist. They either reduce something down to what it's parts are (apples are a green or red outer skin, a tangy core, a stalk, pips,) Or interpretations reduce something "up" to what it's function is. (Apples are a food source.)
Maybe the only interpretations which aren't reductionist are artistic interpretations. Like a still life painting of apples. It seems to capture the essence of what apples are, without reducing the subject matter.
But you could argue that artistic interpretations are subjective. It's about what the subject matter provokes in the artist.

>>9926
>If we have an objective reality, which is described by a set of information, then we have enormous amounts of subsets of it. Each can be used to create a model of reality. Each could be strung up in irrational ways. So I would say it's wrong to say only very few reality models are complete falsehoods. Considering the total amount that you could create, we actually have many.
No this is moving the goal post, we're talking about models of the world that people actually use.

>To me, I will call it a falsehood if the interpretation has a falsehood in it and the interpretation, therefore, deviates from the one and only fully truthful description of objective reality.
Perfectionism is stupid. All model have errors, it doesn't make them falsehoods, it just limits their applicability.

>But that's talking about two different things here. I agree that you mental life objectively exists as physiological processes in your brain, but the experience of reality from your perspective is subjective.
Experience of mental life is still a physiological process in the brain. There is nothing beyond physiological processes in the brain. All the consciousness is included in that, there is nothing that is separate from objective reality.

>>9924
Your insistent misunderstanding and strawmanning of what subjectivity is stems from having read Paul Cockshott, as opposed to Kant or any actual philosopher.

My belief is that there is an actual physical reality (things like where actual physical matter resides in space and time (and etc.?), this is real and non-negotiable, it is beyond the subjectivity of interpretation because it is not an interpretation), and all interpretations by an organic being (human or otherwise) are inherently subjective. No-one has the exact same eyes, the same location, the same brain connections, and thus our realities may be generally congruent but are always a subjective interpretation of our environment that will differ from others in some way.
I also believe that mathematical/scientific interpretations will almost-if-not-inevitably be false for similar reasons. It seems like limitations of measurement alone force any interpretation to be subjective.

>>9940
am i doing it right? I haven't studied this area of philosophy either.

And to link the above to OP's question,
>then what we call interpretations could only be falsehoods besides 1 interpretation that actually describes reality as it is.
This is a very binary view of the situation. The subjective realities most likely have truths in them, even if they contain many falsehoods. I would call them generalizations, for things that aren't even wrong but aren't the full reality. Is there a real 'blue'? It's a relative social construct; yes, even the number of nanometers we collectively decided was perfect blue wavelength. It's a mathematical interpretation of light we felt made sense to label 'blue'.
But, if you must be absolute, interpretations are ultimately different to reality. I wouldn't even say false; what is success in an interpretation?

>>9922
Interpretations are symbolic for reality, some being more correct than others. That is how mythology can still be inciteful. Philosophy is mythology devoid of narrative and expressed in logical categories.