Objective reality serves as the unchanging truth that exists independently of our perceptions or interpretations. In today’s complex world, however, the concept of reality often becomes distorted, leading to misunderstandings and conflicts. While some argue that the existence of multiple perspectives proves the absence of objective reality, it is crucial to maintain a firm grasp on the fundamental concept of objective reality. By doing so, we can avoid devolving into tribalistic beliefs and ensure effective communication and decision-making. Let’s explore the intricacies of perspective, interpretation, and consensus within the context of objective reality and shed light on their importance in our increasingly interconnected society.

In today’s world, the idea of reality can be a murky concept. Many people misunderstand perspective, interpretation, and objective reality. One of the telltale signs that an individual doesn’t quite understand the position they hold is when they cite the idea that several individuals, free from any other variables, will often give completely different recounts of the same situation. This proof is used to argue that objective reality does not exist. However, it is more important than ever to remain laser-focused on the universal baseline of objective reality if we don’t want to devolve into tribal beings believing everything is magical in origins.

Objective reality is independent of all else. Everything has an objective truth, regardless of whether it is known, unknown, unintelligible, or indistinguishable. The confusion starts when we introduce the numerous variables objective reality often depends on. This, however, does not mean that there is no objective truth. It simply means that the question posed to seek the objective truth requires reformulating. As one can see, this issue starts with the investigation stage rather than the fundamentals.

Given that we know that objective reality is independent and issues arise during the human exploration stage, what is that called? Often we call this interpretation, however, we can place an important stage just before, which is known as perspective. An individual’s perspective provides the lens through which they view all information through. On the empirical level, much of this is mitigated through the scientific method. However, on the primal level, it is the default evolutionary method. The left has co-opted the term ‘lived experience’. However, if we remove the ideological capture of this term, it applies well to this stage. ‘Lived experience’ and ‘unconscious bias’ are two captured terms, however, applied to this example, it simply describes the fact that as humans, our perception of the objects and experiences we interface with are viewed through a lens that is informed by our experiences. This is important on a primal level so that we can recognise what is safe and what poses a mortal threat.

Interpretation, on the other hand, is how we take the information and then how we process it based on how we perceived it. Interpretation works like an algorithm in that ascertaining the objective truth is its purpose, and our perception is the data we input to then get the output, which is our interpretation. Interpretation becomes another area where we, as humans, can disagree with the objective truth of an object or event. If our input data (perception) does not match, then the result (interpretation) will never match exactly.

So given that we all have our own unique ‘lived experiences’ and ‘unconscious biases’, then how do we ever agree? This is called consensus. As humans, we must agree on some basic level so that we can communicate effectively. One will notice that some of the fundamentals in society are largely universally agreed upon, and where consequential issues such as climate ‘public health’ have varying interpretations, communication between the different adherents breaks down to an extreme extent. On a day-to-day basis, we disagree on many topics such as “when is the best time to put the milk in tea?” or “should rice be washed before cooked?”. There is a technically correct answer for both of these questions, however, given that these are in no way earth-shattering, they largely go unnoticed. The greater impact a phenomenon has on society as a whole, the more deleterious effect disagreement on its objective truth can have.

So, it is objectively true that there is an objective reality. However, based on one’s perception and then interpretation, one may disagree. Objective reality is something we cannot afford to have a subjective view of. It is more important.