Is truth subjective or objective?*

[Toasthead]

Doesnt it have to be objective to be a TRUTH? People use truth too loosely, most peoples 'truths' are just beliefs.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: effee
subjective, the truth can be distorted, warped to suit each person. a truck crashes, that is reality. how that truck crashed though might be different for each eyewitness

Incorrect. If it's really the truth, the "how's" and "why's" will be consistent for all onlookers.

How would it even be possible for the cause of the crash to differ among observers? It's not possible.

There is inconsistency in our lives. There are views about taxes from the left and right side. But more importantly, consistency doesn't spell truth. I guess there is the coherence theory which states that if statements cohere enough that they spell out truth. This can be seen in court cases and what not. You build evidence against a criminal and you finally put him behind bars. Are there not mistakes though? What if your statements cohere but they are consistently erroneous? Then we have an faulty conclusion.

Someone replied to my earlier post by saying Truth is in itself objective. Is it? You're saying there's this idea called TRUTH that is external to us. It is outside of our sesnses outside of our brains, outside of the world we perceive, outside of even the objects (if they do so exist). We may or may not grasp this Truth, but reality is just what we experience. It is nothing more than the imagination of our minds combined with our senses which give us this world. This world MUST be mind dependent as Berkeley points out. An external Truth cannot exist and is merely a figure of imagination.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Toasthead
Doesnt it have to be objective to be a TRUTH? People use truth too loosely, most peoples 'truths' are just beliefs.

Well what is knowledge? Knowledge is true just belief.

We're not talking about my opinion that you are stupid being a truth. I'm talking about that car weighing 2000 lbs or that apple which is red. IS there a truth behind those. Is fire hot? Is the sun far away? etc etc.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Toasthead
Doesnt it have to be objective to be a TRUTH? People use truth too loosely, most peoples 'truths' are just beliefs.

Well what is knowledge? Knowledge is true just belief.

We're not talking about my opinion that you are stupid being a truth. I'm talking about that car weighing 2000 lbs or that apple which is red. IS there a truth behind those. Is fire hot? Is the sun far away? etc etc.

Your post prior to this one was much better laid out and not quite as rude.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Toasthead
Doesnt it have to be objective to be a TRUTH? People use truth too loosely, most peoples 'truths' are just beliefs.

Well what is knowledge? Knowledge is true just belief.

We're not talking about my opinion that you are stupid being a truth. I'm talking about that car weighing 2000 lbs or that apple which is red. IS there a truth behind those. Is fire hot? Is the sun far away? etc etc.

Your post prior to this one was much better laid out and not quite as rude.

I didn't mean he was stupid. I in no way think that. I just used that as an example. I just referred to opinions in general and I used an example to illustrate that I'm not discussing opinions but more like general ideas we have in this world about things like apples cars sky, etc

Edit: Yea so sorry for using that example. No hate everyone =P

 

[jjzelinski]

AH ok I try to avoid inflamatory terms in conversation like this because a.) people seem to become naturally defensive and B.) it's difficult enough to communicate with eachother without potentially inflamatory terms.

For the record I tend to agree with you.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
We do agree on standards, but it's possible that people process stimuli slightly differently from one another. I see a color and if you were to see through my eyes it mike look a shade or off from what you woud've otherise interpreted it as. Again, everything is an estimate. Some differences in our estimation or even our estimation abilities may flucuate almost imperceptably or wildly.

The fact that all stimuli, and therefore all realiztion, is actualized by our brains means everything we experience is fallible. It's a tired argument, yes, but it remains valid.

But that's wouldn't indicate that the truth itself fluctuates, it just means that a person's *perception* of the truth may differ from someone else's. But the truth, itself, is absolute.

It means that we have no reason to believe that the truth does NOT fluctuate. To say from this standpoint that Truth is absolute is simply faith, with no logic to back it up. Given this we must come to the conclusion that since our perceptions of Truth might fluctuate, then Truth itself might also Fluctuate. This gives us reason to belive that Truth is subjective.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Someone replied to my earlier post by saying Truth is in itself objective. Is it? You're saying there's this idea called TRUTH that is external to us. It is outside of our sesnses outside of our brains, outside of the world we perceive, outside of even the objects (if they do so exist). We may or may not grasp this Truth, but reality is just what we experience. It is nothing more than the imagination of our minds combined with our senses which give us this world. This world MUST be mind dependent as Berkeley points out. An external Truth cannot exist and is merely a figure of imagination.

I don't believe that, though. The basics of math and science are the truth. They can be proven. You don't ever see people claiming that the laws of physics or mathematics don't work for them. They work for everybody. That's what math and science is all about- a set of universal truths that define the universe we live in.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

It means that we have no reason to believe that the truth does NOT fluctuate. To say from this standpoint that Truth is absolute is simply faith, with no logic to back it up. Given this we must come to the conclusion that since our perceptions of Truth might fluctuate, then Truth itself might also Fluctuate. This gives us reason to belive that Truth is subjective.

Then how do you explain math/science, which define known truths in the world? You can't just proclaim that for you, 1+1 doesn't equal 2, because it does... it has to, it's the truth. It remains constant for everyone.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

I don't believe that, though. The basics of math and science are the truth. They can be proven. You don't ever see people claiming that the laws of physics or mathematics don't work for them. They work for everybody. That's what math and science is all about- a set of universal truths that define the universe we live in.

I once met a man that claimed that he could fly by flapping his arms. Could he do so? I don't know, I never witnessed him flapping his arms. But I know he believed it. He claimed to fly around town every night, and just because one else ever saw him do it, that was no proof that he couldn't.
Study psychology, you will find that there is a much larger variance in the perception of the laws of math and physics then you seem to think, we just tend to label people with to much of a variance in perception as having some type of problem.
For the record, I happen to agree that the Laws of Math and Physics are universal truths, but I know better then to say that everyone experiances them the same.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Then how do you explain math/science, which define known truths in the world? You can't just proclaim that for you, 1+1 doesn't equal 2, because it does... it has to, it's the truth. It remains constant for everyone.

But do you see that you can't give a logical argument for WHY it does, you just have to proclaim that it is the truth, with no reason. We assume that 1+1=2 for all people, we don't actually have much to prove it.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Then how do you explain math/science, which define known truths in the world? You can't just proclaim that for you, 1+1 doesn't equal 2, because it does... it has to, it's the truth. It remains constant for everyone.

But do you see that you can't give a logical argument for WHY it does, you just have to proclaim that it is the truth, with no reason. We assume that 1+1=2 for all people, we don't actually have much to prove it.

No, you can directly test test the results to see if they're valid. It's not some untested theory, it's tested every day by millions of people doing math. Has anyone ever had it NOT work? No. It's valid, and we know that through direct testing. We have proven it over and over again.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

It means that we have no reason to believe that the truth does NOT fluctuate. To say from this standpoint that Truth is absolute is simply faith, with no logic to back it up. Given this we must come to the conclusion that since our perceptions of Truth might fluctuate, then Truth itself might also Fluctuate. This gives us reason to belive that Truth is subjective.

Then how do you explain math/science, which define known truths in the world? You can't just proclaim that for you, 1+1 doesn't equal 2, because it does... it has to, it's the truth. It remains constant for everyone.

1+1 = 2 only because we define it that way. That two 1s make a 2. Now. How do you know that these are true? How do you know for certain? Using math and science proofs use the things we are trying to prove to prove something else. I don't see how that works.

How do science and math represent truth? They are truth because we see 1+1 = 2 on a calculator many times? I think as David Hume put it, we connect 2 events together to define truth. This is the whole concept of cause and effect. We see the cue ball hit the 8 ball and the 8 ball get pocketed. There are 2 images. We see the 2 balls collide and then the second image is the 8 ball getting pocketted. These 2 events are simply CONTIGUOUS. They follow each other. Continuity in time DOES NOT imply truth.

Furthermore, the rules of math and science are only applied to the small world we live in. This means Earth and wherever we have gone in the solar system. What about another galaxy? What about another planet? Are you sure they are universal, or only applicable in our world?

Finally. As Descartes wondered... how do we know that we aren't being deceived by an evil genius. Perhaps there is an evil god and this evil god fools us into thinking a triangle has 3 sides when it has 4 and 1+1 = 2 when it equals 3. We could be deceived our whole lives.

I accept 1+1 = 2 only because it is better for me to than to not.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

1+1 is not really a universal truth. I could invent that qwerasdf is a asdfqwer and what the hell does that mean? Well if I was the first to make that up then I say that's true. All I have to do is spread propaganda and you guys would accept that as universal truth?

We came together to design a number system which involves mathematics. Does this mean it's true? It's more human created than it is true. If you say this is true, then you agree truth is subjective. There is no objective truth saying 1+1 = 2. We invented this and we accept what we humans created as true. Subjective huh....

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

No, you can directly test test the results to see if they're valid. It's not some untested theory, it's tested every day by millions of people doing math. Has anyone ever had it NOT work? No. It's valid, and we know that through direct testing. We have proven it over and over again.

No, I can indirectly test the results. As we have already been over, I have no reason to believe that my 2 is the same as your 2. I know that I am flirting with Nihilist philosophy here, but I can see the point. Ultimatly I am reduced to an assumption that is based on a subjective belief and not objectivity.

Well, anyway. I am done Neffing for the day and have to go home and try to not think about if my beer exists or not. :beer: Thank you for the intelligent conversation.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

No, you can directly test test the results to see if they're valid. It's not some untested theory, it's tested every day by millions of people doing math. Has anyone ever had it NOT work? No. It's valid, and we know that through direct testing. We have proven it over and over again.

No, I can indirectly test the results. As we have already been over, I have no reason to believe that my 2 is the same as your 2. I know that I am flirting with Nihilist philosophy here, but I can see the point. Ultimatly I am reduced to an assumption that is based on a subjective belief and not objectivity.

Well, anyway. I am done Neffing for the day and have to go home and try to not think about if my beer exists or not. :beer: Thank you for the intelligent conversation.

Your beer is a composite of a monad.

 

[JoeKing]

the truth is subjunctive

 

[91TTZ]

The truth is out there

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
We do agree on standards, but it's possible that people process stimuli slightly differently from one another. I see a color and if you were to see through my eyes it mike look a shade or off from what you woud've otherise interpreted it as. Again, everything is an estimate. Some differences in our estimation or even our estimation abilities may flucuate almost imperceptably or wildly.

The fact that all stimuli, and therefore all realiztion, is actualized by our brains means everything we experience is fallible. It's a tired argument, yes, but it remains valid.

But that's wouldn't indicate that the truth itself fluctuates, it just means that a person's *perception* of the truth may differ from someone else's. But the truth, itself, is absolute.

It means that we have no reason to believe that the truth does NOT fluctuate. To say from this standpoint that Truth is absolute is simply faith, with no logic to back it up. Given this we must come to the conclusion that since our perceptions of Truth might fluctuate, then Truth itself might also Fluctuate. This gives us reason to belive that Truth is subjective.

Likewise, we have no reason to believe that truth does fluctuate. We know well the limitations of perception and how inaccurate it is, to use it as a basis for extrapolation regarding the nature of truth itself would be most foolish.

To be perfectly honest, we have no evidence whatsoever regarding truth itself, even to believe it exists is at least a small act of faith. The only sane thing to do is to choose to believe nothing about truth. To believe in neither objectivity nor non-objectivity of truth. The wave function has not collapsed. The cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

ZV

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
We do agree on standards, but it's possible that people process stimuli slightly differently from one another. I see a color and if you were to see through my eyes it mike look a shade or off from what you woud've otherise interpreted it as. Again, everything is an estimate. Some differences in our estimation or even our estimation abilities may flucuate almost imperceptably or wildly.

The fact that all stimuli, and therefore all realiztion, is actualized by our brains means everything we experience is fallible. It's a tired argument, yes, but it remains valid.

But that's wouldn't indicate that the truth itself fluctuates, it just means that a person's *perception* of the truth may differ from someone else's. But the truth, itself, is absolute.

It means that we have no reason to believe that the truth does NOT fluctuate. To say from this standpoint that Truth is absolute is simply faith, with no logic to back it up. Given this we must come to the conclusion that since our perceptions of Truth might fluctuate, then Truth itself might also Fluctuate. This gives us reason to belive that Truth is subjective.

Likewise, we have no reason to believe that truth does fluctuate. We know well the limitations of perception and how inaccurate it is, to use it as a basis for extrapolation regarding the nature of truth itself would be most foolish.

To be perfectly honest, we have no evidence whatsoever regarding truth itself, even to believe it exists is at least a small act of faith. The only sane thing to do is to choose to believe nothing about truth. To believe in neither objectivity nor non-objectivity of truth. The wave function has not collapsed. The cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

ZV

The cat... yes! THE CAT!!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth
"Truth" is a word in human language. As such, it's meaning, like the meaning of all words, is subjective.

In other words, reality isn't "true" or "false." Reality simply is. The statements we make about reality are true or false depending on the extent to which the symbols and syntax employed in the construction of statements accord with our already-accepted definitions.

Those that think truth is objective confuse the map with the territory.

-Garth

You realize that "reality" is also a word in a human language, right?

Yes, I do. So what?

Before you go tail-swallowing, I hope you would recognize that therein lies the difference between actual reality/truth (which is objective) and the perception of reality/truth (which is subjective).

There is no difference. Imperceptible reality is indistinguishable from, and therefore identical to, unreality. If you feel differently, then you are invited to explain to us how you can know reality without perceiving it.

-Garth

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Welcome philosophers.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth
There is no difference. Imperceptible reality is indistinguishable from, and therefore identical to, unreality. If you feel differently, then you are invited to explain to us how you can know reality without perceiving it.

-Garth

"Actual" reality is perceptible. And as such, objective and absolute.

I always enjoy people who argue "absolute" subjectivism (i.e. that everything is subjective). It's like bringing solipsism to a religious discussion. They cannot be reasoned with because the core of their beliefs makes reasonable communication impossible.

On this subject IMO, Ayn Rand said it best:
"If a man believes that the good is a matter of arbitrary, subjective choice, the issue of good and evil becomes, for him, an issue of my feelings or theirs? No bridge, understanding, or communication is possible to him. Reason is the only means of communication among men, and an objectively perceivable reality is their only common frame of reference; when these are invalidated in the field of morality, force becomes men's only way of dealing with one another. If the subjectivist wants to pursue some social ideal of his own, he feels morally entitled to force men 'for their own good,' since he feels that he is right and that there is nothing to oppose him but their misguided feelings."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

"Actual" reality is perceptible. And as such, objective and absolute.

I will accept your premise that objective reality exists, with the qualification that such can only be assumed, not proven. I do not accept that reality is "absolute." If there is one thing we know about reality, it is that it changes constantly.

I always enjoy people who argue "absolute" subjectivism (i.e. that everything is subjective). It's like bringing solipsism to a religious discussion. They cannot be reasoned with because the core of their beliefs makes reasonable communication impossible.

Non-sequitor. Care must simply be taken to establish agreed-upon definitions.

On this subject IMO, Ayn Rand said it best:
"If a man believes that the good is a matter of arbitrary, subjective choice, the issue of good and evil becomes, for him, an issue of my feelings or theirs? No bridge, understanding, or communication is possible to him. Reason is the only means of communication among men, and an objectively perceivable reality is their only common frame of reference; when these are invalidated in the field of morality, force becomes men's only way of dealing with one another. If the subjectivist wants to pursue some social ideal of his own, he feels morally entitled to force men 'for their own good,' since he feels that he is right and that there is nothing to oppose him but their misguided feelings."

With all due respect to Ayn Rand, her say-so doesn't amount to much. Two solipsists can meaningfully communicate, despite her claims. Like I said above, they only need to establish agreed-upon definitions. The reality is that we are all solipsists pretending that we're not, yet we communicate.

Furthermore, I am a moral subjectivist, and I do not feel "morally entitled to force men 'for their own good,'" nor do I feel that "there is nothing to oppose {me} but their misguided feelings." Obviously, then, her claims are falsified.

-Garth

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth
I will accept your premise that objective reality exists, with the qualification that such can only be assumed, not proven. I do not accept that reality is "absolute." If there is one thing we know about reality, it is that it changes constantly.

Of course reality changes. It's called "time." But if a person dies in a plane crash, then they are absolutely dead, whatever perception of the experience that person may have nonwithstanding. That is absolute reality.

With all due respect to Ayn Rand, her say-so doesn't amount to much.

Honestly, I don't care about your opinions of ANY other person. My impression of you thus far is considerably less than favorable.

Two solipsists can meaningfully communicate, despite her claims. Like I said above, they only need to establish agreed-upon definitions. The reality is that we are all solipsists pretending that we're not, yet we communicate.

No, they can't. To a solipsist, another individual does not actually exist as a living person, therefore any "communication" is the equivalent of an individual talking to himself. That is not communication. I expected this argument from you, and it is flawed. If you are unable to recognize that other human beings are actual real consciousnesses like yourself, then you are not living in reality, but a fantasy.

Furthermore, I am a moral subjectivist, and I do not feel "morally entitled to force men 'for their own good,'" nor do I feel that "there is nothing to oppose {me} but their misguided feelings." Obviously, then, her claims are falsified.

-Garth

Your argument style is pure force. As a moral subjectivist, I can only assume that your politics border on the socialist, and THAT is pure force. For example, if you truly are a moral subjectivist, then I think I can safely assume that you would support a ban on smoking. After all, it's for the smokers' own good, so who cares about their feelings? Or substitute banning smoking for some other similar issue, if you so choose (there are many, so you know the one that fits you). If there is no such issue, then you quite simply are NOT a moral subjectivist as you claim.

I think it's safe to say that the one absolute in your subjective perceivable reality is that you are never wrong. After all, you went so far as to broadly proclaim that Rand's was falsified on the basis of the singular anecdote of your personal opinion. Far fetched to say the least.
Quite frankly, you validate her claims completely.