Objective Reality vs Objectionable Behavior

Philosophers have chased the holy grail of objective reality for centuries. Some treat it as the ultimate goal truth independent of any mind, pure and eternal. Others dismiss it as a mirage, forever out of reach. And a third way sees its value not in capturing “the truth” outright, but in continually reducing what is objectionable, the claims, dogmas, and illusions that collapse under scrutiny.

Let’s break these three paths down.

1. Objective Reality as the Objective

This is the classic pursuit. From Plato’s “Forms” to modern science, thinkers have sought the bedrock of reality, something that stands regardless of human opinion. The aim is certainty, a truth we can all agree on because it simply is.

But this quest quickly runs into a problem: how do finite, biased humans ever fully grasp infinite, objective truth? Each generation gets closer, but never quite arrives.

2. Objective Reality as a Mirage

Nietzsche and later postmodernists flipped the script. They argued that “objective truth” is a comforting illusion, really just a cloak for power, culture, or interpretation. What we call “objective” often turns out to be what the dominant voices have agreed to enforce.

By this account, the search for objective reality is like chasing the horizon: always visible, never reachable. The grail doesn’t exist, and maybe never did.

3. Objective Reality as the Reduction of an Objectionable Reality

Here’s a middle path that resonates with Karl Popper and with my own work. Popper held that while truth exists, we never arrive at it directly. Instead, we inch closer by falsifying and challenging what one considers an error in overly dogmatic thinking. Progress comes not from proving what is “real,” but from exposing what is objectionable, what fails when tested and scrutinized.

This flips the holy grail on its head. Instead of seeking ultimate certainty, we seek to steadily dismantle dogmatic biases, and unfounded belief. Dogma may be comforting, even popular to some, but if it fails scrutiny so easily then were is the safety. What collapses under fair challenge doesn’t need to be mourned, it needs to be replaced by something better.

The Safety in Collapse

But what about psychological safety? If our “truth” can always be challenged and collapse, how can we feel safe? The answer lies in shifting the focus: safety isn’t the guarantee that your beliefs will stand unchallenged, but the guarantee that when they are challenged, the process will be fair and even that can be challenged. Collapse, in this sense, isn’t a threat, it’s a shared act of progress.

From Philosophy to Practice

This way of thinking is more than a philosophical curiosity. It’s at the heart of systems like SpatzAI, which is a concept with a standard structured way for team members to object fairly and proportionately. Teams don’t need to cling to dogma or fear collapse. They only need trust that objections will be heard (or challenged also), and that every collapse builds a stronger, more objective shared reality.

In short:

• Objective reality as the objective chases a final truth.
• Objective reality as a mirage doubts it exists.
• Objective reality as the reduction of objectionable realities or behaviors turns the pursuit into a practical, ongoing process, less about finding the truth, and more about clearing away what fails scrutiny.

That’s where philosophy and practice converge: progress doesn’t come from owning the truth, but from being willing to lose what cannot stand to reason.