RE: Subjective or Objective: What is the true nature of reality?
There is external objective reality/existence (universe grouping-order concept of everything "rolled-into-one"), and internal subjective reality/existence (multiverse word-play on universe about how we can create any number of made-up worlds because of our power of imagination). Post-modernism, subjectivism and solipsism are a result of confused thinking that doesn't factor in how things are demonstrably operating. It's just magical thinking.
Here is a recent post where I define the terms so that they can be used properly rather than be twisted to mean things they don't: Objective and Subjective Defined. Then from definition of terms an accurate understanding of things can be developed upon.
Here is someone else tackling the poison of solipsism: Pointless: Solipsism
I also have other work on clarifying how objective and subjective work that is demonstrably understandable, not fantasy thought-games that are detrimental to obtaining quality knowledge about how things demonstrably function.
Basic philosophical understanding will provide understanding that consciousness exists in existence, and existence comes first before other things can develop within it like consciousness. This is how things are demonstrably operating, not where consciousness is first. That is a belief, not verifiable.
Here is Mark Passio on how dangerous solipsism is to rational thinking:
Very interesting reply! Thank you for posting your views, @krnl! After reading several of your posts, I admire your clear reasoning & communications, but I must differ with you on this.
I am well aware of Mr. Passio's views. While I do agree with him on many topics, this is not one of them. Here's my reasoning: If you can find a logical refutation that does not entail relying on my own sense perceptions or my own belief systems to understand & ultimately accept or refute, I would be more than happy to adopt it. I contend that existence without consciousness is meaningless, as you cannot process the experience without having a subjective experience first. I cannot understanding anything without first referring to having an "I." I am just going on my own subjective experience, it is true. But I don't know how to consider the truth value of any claim without resorting to & relying upon my own consciousness to do so.
Incidentally, Descartes, Plato, Leibniz, Berkeley, Kant & many other rationalist philosophers have come to similar conclusions based on the analysis of how they perceive & experience reality. I would be very intrigued to hear how we can verify the existence of an external reality without using our own consciousness. What techniques do you use to verify this pre-existing external reality without reference to subjectivity & a belief system that either accepts or rejects said proof? It is true that this is a priori reasoning, but again, how to demonstrate the truth of an external reality without it?
I am not being facetious - I'd really like to know....