Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How Does Self-Realization Affect Objectivism?

  1. Aug 31, 2011 #1
    The philosophy of Self-Realization loosely refers to a "one-ness" of you with everything and with nothing that is realized through experience instead of knowledge.

    It is related to ideas espoused in several old Eastern religious teachings, but is not actually a religious idea itself in that modern proponents of self-realization such as Gangaji (AKA Merle Antoinette Roberson) and Ramana Maharshi suggest that all things have meaning in that they exist, and through existence you must experience meaning no matter how it is presented to you by reality.

    Self-Realization as a concept implies that consciousness in some way transcends both reality as we experience it and objectivism as we understand it, meaning that the concept of objective reality is neither wrong nor right, simply meaningless.

    How does self-realization as a concept interact with the ideas of objectivism, reality, and meaning in the ways we try to convey it to other people, (such as with language, math, science, laws, structure, etc.)? My understanding of self-realization is that attempts to communicate these things using objective structures are not meaningless, it is just impossible for them to contain exact meaning within the context of objective truth.

    Is self-realization incompatible with objectivism, or simply incompatible with communicated objectivism?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 2, 2012 #2
    Objectivism is not possible as a contrast to subjectivism. It is only possible as a subset of subjectivism.

    Everything is subjective, and some of those subjective things are more probable than others (due to opposing realities negating each other.) Things that are so probable that we all seem to experience them, are considered to be objective, even though they are still fundamentally subjective.

    So then, objectivity is simply the widely common elements of our direct experiences. https://www.amazon.com/Gestalt-Psychology-Wolfgang-Kohler/dp/045160279X

    How does self-realization imply transcension of reality and objective experience? Whose idea of self-realization are you referring to?
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 2, 2012
  4. Jan 2, 2012 #3
    The minute you start bringing metaphysical concepts like "oneness" into the picture all bets are off, but that's a separate issue from the basic concept of self-realization. Among Taoists the idea is to become more spontaneous and aware by promoting inner harmony. In other words, to become a calmer person among other things which most certainly can enhance objectivity.
  5. Jan 2, 2012 #4
    After some more research I see your point.

    And I agree with wiliheron, except for one thing-- oneness is not a metaphysical idea, it's a basic fact of existence. It's been described as metaphysical, but that's incorrect-- oneness is simply a theoretical representation of an inertial frame of reference
  6. Jan 2, 2012 #5
    I've heard of evolutionary theory, quantum theory, and string theory but never "oneness" theory and assuming such a thing exists I'm not convinced that was what the op was talking about.
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2012
  7. Jan 3, 2012 #6
    Isn't knowledge a function of experience?

    Then self-realization is, imo, not a useful concept. But the concept of 'objective reality' is useful, imo, because it's what gets us on the same page, ie., its quantitative definition is what allows us to communicate unambiguously.

    Imho, the 'philosophical concept' of self-realization is just a bit of wordplay or manipulation of agile terms that represents an approach to 'understanding reality' that's inferior to the scientific method.

    One doesn't need to meditate in solitude for a certain amount of time to come to the notion of holism. Are we all 'one with the universe' in the sense that our universe is a seamless contiguous whole with everything being of, fundamentally, the same stuff? Who knows? As far as I can tell it's a reasonable, but untestable, idea which isn't, in itself, incompatible with objectivism.
  8. Jan 4, 2012 #7
    I think the poster is leaning towards existentialism, not holism.

    Anyway, I looked up some of the topics. I didn't know objectivism (sorry, I find it utterly horrible), just existentialism (which also has bad parts), didn't know one-ness.

    I would basically say that you're mixing spirituality with philosophy here. The first sentence on existence is a philosophical view -but doesn't dive into what all words mean, so it again leans towards spirituality,- the second sentence is spiritual.

    Personally, I would say go with the spirituality, and -for C's sake- dump the objectivism - it is the philosophy of a sociopath.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2012
  9. Jan 5, 2012 #8
    He's saying you can't "know" oneness, that you can only experience it and then realize it. It's not testable

    The second half of this quite isn't entirely correct, which negates the first part.

    Self-realization entails several things, including "understanding reality" among other things, such as understanding one's place in reality, and one's goals. This is compatible with objectivism, as long as you don't let that part of the quest for self-realization distract you from the part that requires you to understand reality as a whole. One can easily get caught up in details of individual situations and fail to see the objective truth

    Marco-- You're confusing concepts a bit. Though I think this might be happening with other people here.

    I'm not talking about the doctrines of specific philosophers or writers here. I'm talking about general ideas. I'm using these words as they are part of the english language, not cultural history.

    When I refer to objectivism, that has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. It has to do with the idea that reality exists separately from our individual perception of it and we can work toward understanding of that through logic and sharing of thoughts

    When I talk about oneness-- I'm not talking about the spiritual concept, but a semantic concept. It's a matter of what we're referring to. An individual part of a system, or the system as a whole. The system as a collection of parts, or the system as a singular entity. There need be no argument as to the validity of the idea that the system can be referred to as a singular entity, because I just did it. It has nothing to do with what it's made of, or the nature of it.
  10. Jan 5, 2012 #9
    ...to my standing self realization is what is objective in the first place...that is to say you objectively are what you do and not what you think or believe you do or are doing or intend to do...that of course is part of the larger process of realization itself from which the self only represents the systemic conscious part of a larger necessary process...the self is always an incomplete reflection or a low resolution mirror of the world even if the world was only to be in your brain which in its wholeness is more then yourself as the experiencing or the agent...minds are incomplete seekers while brains are doers...

    ...the thing about "oneness" is that it is not repeatable...not computable if not by a lower resolution subset approximation of itself as a form, thus necessarily a farse...truth is always trivial or non informative if truth at all...symbols are very much about that, about compressing data in lower resolution self reflecting imagery which cannot fully justify their cause of being while attempting to reproduce it...

    ...thus the thing about logic is that it reports to the noumena or the substantive LAW rather then the phenomena which is always seen as local...logic as reality itself is not to be logical just what happens to be the case...correspondence is always an evading ilusion !
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook