Reason offers no path to objective truth. Syllogism requires premises. Premises require axioms. Reason and logic cannot create knowledge ex nihilo. They can only create knowledge within an already extant framework.
Empiricism is equally flawed, for the ghost in the machine problem is bidirectional. Many philosophers have asked how a construct of information, such as the human mind, can control a construct of matter such as the body. But I ask the reverse question, how can information perceive matter? How can matter act upon information? As we can see from the difficulty babies and children have with perceiving the world, perception is a learned process. How do we know we’ve learned it correctly? How do we know we’re not just reproducing social biases? The answer is that we certainly know that our perception is indeed a reproduction of social bias. For example, our perception of other people as men or women is quite immediate to us. We notice it before we can name any details that lead us to this perception. Yet some people are nonbinary, and transphobes perceive others as male or female when it is untrue and they are both or neither. The symbols that make up our perception, our schemas, are indeed founded upon social bias. They are not the source of truth.
And am I to point out the flaws with mysticism as well? I’m sure you are already familiar with those.
Thus the only answer is to consciously choose our axioms and our schemas, with the aim of imagining into being a better world, or at least the tools to create one. We cannot do this if we chain ourselves to belief in the objective.
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.
Reason offers no path to objective truth. Syllogism requires premises. Premises require axioms. Reason and logic cannot create knowledge ex nihilo. They can only create knowledge within an already extant framework.
Empiricism is equally flawed, for the ghost in the machine problem is bidirectional. Many philosophers have asked how a construct of information, such as the human mind, can control a construct of matter such as the body. But I ask the reverse question, how can information perceive matter? How can matter act upon information? As we can see from the difficulty babies and children have with perceiving the world, perception is a learned process. How do we know we’ve learned it correctly? How do we know we’re not just reproducing social biases? The answer is that we certainly know that our perception is indeed a reproduction of social bias. For example, our perception of other people as men or women is quite immediate to us. We notice it before we can name any details that lead us to this perception. Yet some people are nonbinary, and transphobes perceive others as male or female when it is untrue and they are both or neither. The symbols that make up our perception, our schemas, are indeed founded upon social bias. They are not the source of truth.
And am I to point out the flaws with mysticism as well? I’m sure you are already familiar with those.
Thus the only answer is to consciously choose our axioms and our schemas, with the aim of imagining into being a better world, or at least the tools to create one. We cannot do this if we chain ourselves to belief in the objective.
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.