Good grief. Belief in objectivity also allowed us to make countless medical advancements, explore beyond our solar system, and produce the many wondrous technologies we enjoy today. Have some perspective.

I wasn't asking for an explanation of the post, I was asking for an explanation of the view objectivity doesn't exist, and from another user in fact. I see that you also responded to it and I think your analysis and the way you link it with the post is clear and correct. I especially appreciate how your conclusion arrives at a deepening compassion and relation to the other although you don't explain exactly how to arrive at this, but if I missed that point in your response, I apologise. In my view is achieved not through decimation of the concept, but through unification of subject and object into a monist whole. But otherwise I agree with you, the existence of epistemological difference does not negate the entire field of ontology; it merely suggests a multitude that is socially determined and fluid.

I assume you were giving such a long and detailed explanation in the interest of accessibility, and not doing a bit -- for this I deeply appreciate your effort.

You're raising some important points about the limitations of reason, empiricism, and mysticism when it comes to accessing objective truth. Just as reason relies on premises that are themselves based on unproven axioms, our understanding of the world through perception is also shaped by social biases rather than direct access to an objective reality. This connects to the situation with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, where their use of internet slang to describe an otter tapped into shared cultural constructs—"thicc," "chonky," "absolute unit"—that, while seemingly lighthearted, carry deeper social meanings rooted in body image and social perception.

As you pointed out, our perception of the world is not neutral; it’s learned and socially constructed, much like how people perceive gender or body size based on cultural schemas. For instance, when the aquarium used these terms, they likely saw them as fun, memetic ways to engage with their audience. But these words are loaded with social meanings related to body image and cultural attitudes toward weight, and they triggered reactions that reflect those deeper social biases. Some people were offended by the terms because they associate them with body-shaming or outdated, inappropriate language, while others found the use of these memes to be awkward and out of touch.

This situation illustrates your point perfectly: we don’t simply "see" the world as it is—our interpretations are filtered through cultural frameworks. The aquarium’s description of Abby the otter wasn’t just a neutral or innocent observation; it was steeped in language that evokes certain attitudes and assumptions about body size, humor, and social relevance. Their post became problematic because it engaged with a set of socially constructed perceptions without fully considering their implications.

As you suggest, the limitations of these frameworks—whether reason, perception, or memes—mean we cannot access an objective truth, but rather interpret the world based on the systems we’ve inherited or adopted. This is why, as you mention, the best way forward might be to consciously choose the frameworks we use, in a way that aligns with the world we want to create. If we accept that perception is always influenced by social biases, like the bias toward binary gender or body stereotypes, then we can also see that memes or cultural symbols are never neutral—they reflect and reinforce the ideas of the society that produced them.

In the aquarium’s case, they ultimately apologized because their use of these terms didn’t align with the values they likely want to promote—such as inclusivity and respect. This supports your argument that, rather than clinging to a belief in objective truth, we should focus on the ethical and practical implications of the frameworks we adopt. The aquarium learned that the memes they were using weren’t just playful—they carried connotations that clashed with the values of many of their audience members.

So, by consciously choosing the language, symbols, and schemas we use, we can shape our world in ways that are more compassionate and just, rather than passively reproducing harmful or outdated social biases. This is why the aquarium’s situation is a good example of how social constructs shape perception, and how choosing more carefully can help us imagine and create a better world.

I agree with you in a lot of ways. I think you've correctly identified the problems of subject/object dualism as well as epistemic crisis which is probably the most prominent philosophical problem of our era. It creates all sorts of social problems some of which you correctly identify.

I think when you criticize objectivity, what you are actually criticizing is positivism, or empiricism. When you eliminate objectivity you eliminate the object. I don't think you're a solipsist who believes that nothing exists "out there" and that the entire physical universe and everyone in it are reducible to your mere experience of it. You acknowledge a whole variety of ontologies or ways of determining truth, and that contradictions emerge between different ones. This is all extremely important to understand. The piece I think is missing, the flaw in your logic is that you never really escape subject/object dualism by doing away with objectivity; you merely concentrate totally on the subjective. I assume you're working a lot of this stuff out on your own, which is amazing and precious -- I don't have much if any formal education beyond hs and a little art school myself and at one time not long ago arrived at very similar conclusions as yours. The formal logic I was missing was dialectical reasoning, the conclusion of which is a unity and interrelation between the subjective and objective. IMO fixation on the noumenal, that the physical world is inaccessible, is a dead end.

But I'm annoyed by all the down votes you are receiving when I think you are correct in identifying the problems -- you're still working out the solutions which is okay and good. But rather than have a discussion, we just down vote and go. Its incredible how attached people are to their deeply problematic ontological assumptions, despite not really understanding them. The fact is subject/object dualism as the basis of scientific inquiry (and hence industry) is woefully insufficient for interrogating reality. At one time it was historically progressive and relevant, but now it only serves to sustain existing power structures and the status quo.

I wish we had a chance to discuss this face to face, I'm sure it would be a lively debate and sharing of ideas! Given the medium unfortunately, I guess I'll just see you around. Thanks for the detailed explanation and keep on questioning. In my experience, immediately after believing I have things figured out I gain a new perspective that changes everything. Really keeps things interesting for those of us who want to understand things and aren't content with just taking it as it comes.