Is truth subjective or objective?*

[iroast]

Truth should be objective, but can be phrased in such a way that it's subjective.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Many assume that it is objective because they have a religious belief, but one which can't be proved. Sometimes these will say truth is whatever they say it is. Others, who don't share that point of view say it is subjective and yet will argue some points as if there is a standard. Most people, it seems to me, don't spend too much time examining their basic assumptions, in fact, don't seem to realize they operate on unexamined assumptions. Care to present and defend yours.*

The truth is objective, but what you think about it is subjective.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

nothing like a big ol epistimology sammich in the middle of a otherwise boring day.

 

[jjzelinski]

I think the term truth is way overused; abused even. People have a hunger for certainty or clarity and when it's too difficult to reach a truly satisfying level of clarity or certainty then assumptions are made to cheat that lack of clarity or certainty. It's a coping mechanism. Bbesides being incapable of fully encompasing the full realiztiontion of "truth" (an infinitly complex level of interconnectedness perhaps), even our best estimations are based on probabilities and narrowly defined criteria to "prove" those assumptions are truth.

Actual truth is quite rare because only rarely do we find an instance that is truly, fully comprehendable.

 

[Saint Nick]

i dont know the difference between subjective and objective.

:barf;

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: HotChic
Many assume that it is objective because they have a religious belief, but one which can't be proved. Sometimes these will say truth is whatever they say it is. Others, who don't share that point of view say it is subjective and yet will argue some points as if there is a standard. Most people, it seems to me, don't spend too much time examining their basic assumptions, in fact, don't seem to realize they operate on unexamined assumptions. Care to present and defend yours.*

The truth is objective, but what you think about it is subjective.

But you don't have access to anything other than what you think. Therefore, the truth is subjective to subjectivities of the thinker.

 

[ggnl]

Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: HotChic
Many assume that it is objective because they have a religious belief, but one which can't be proved. Sometimes these will say truth is whatever they say it is. Others, who don't share that point of view say it is subjective and yet will argue some points as if there is a standard. Most people, it seems to me, don't spend too much time examining their basic assumptions, in fact, don't seem to realize they operate on unexamined assumptions. Care to present and defend yours.*

The truth is objective, but what you think about it is subjective.

But you don't have access to anything other than what you think. Therefore, the truth is subjective to subjectivities of the thinker.

So you're saying that all inputs we receive have to go through a process of subjectivation before we can comprehend them?

(note: I don't really have anything to add, I just wanted to make up a new word)

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: ggnl

Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: HotChic
Many assume that it is objective because they have a religious belief, but one which can't be proved. Sometimes these will say truth is whatever they say it is. Others, who don't share that point of view say it is subjective and yet will argue some points as if there is a standard. Most people, it seems to me, don't spend too much time examining their basic assumptions, in fact, don't seem to realize they operate on unexamined assumptions. Care to present and defend yours.*

The truth is objective, but what you think about it is subjective.

But you don't have access to anything other than what you think. Therefore, the truth is subjective to subjectivities of the thinker.

So you're saying that all inputs we receive have to go through a process of subjectivation before we can comprehend them?

(note: I don't really have anything to add, I just wanted to make up a new word)

I think that's fair way to sum it up actually

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Truth itself is objective, but we are wholly unable to perceive anything that is objective because all perceptions are subjective. Our inability to perceive the objective truth does not negate its existence.

ZV

Truth is an accepted actuality that can differ from culture to culture. Universal truth is what is perceived to be the supreme reality. Subjective. Before you can argue that there is an objective truth you have to prove there is a reality, and define what that reality is. The only way to know if objective truth exists is for one to exist outside of it.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Truth itself is objective, but we are wholly unable to perceive anything that is objective because all perceptions are subjective. Our inability to perceive the objective truth does not negate its existence.

ZV

Truth is an accepted actuality that can differ from culture to culture. Universal truth is what is perceived to be the supreme reality. Subjective. Before you can argue that there is an objective truth you have to prove there is a reality, and define what that reality is. The only way to know if objective truth exists is for one to exist outside of it.

In order for there to be any reality truth must be objective. And if there is no reality then there is no truth.

You seem prepared to argue that there is no reality. I am not.

ZV

 

[jjzelinski]

Reality implies realiztion.

So does truth.

Human comprehension is based an estimations and probabilities.

 

[ggnl]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Truth itself is objective, but we are wholly unable to perceive anything that is objective because all perceptions are subjective. Our inability to perceive the objective truth does not negate its existence.

ZV

Truth is an accepted actuality that can differ from culture to culture. Universal truth is what is perceived to be the supreme reality. Subjective. Before you can argue that there is an objective truth you have to prove there is a reality, and define what that reality is. The only way to know if objective truth exists is for one to exist outside of it.

In order for there to be any reality truth must be objective. And if there is no reality then there is no truth.

You seem prepared to argue that there is no reality. I am not.

ZV

My thoughts exactly

At some point we have to take a leap of faith and assume that there is something out there. That something is what it is, and that, by definition, is objective truth.

 

[jjzelinski]

Leap of faith /= truth.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude


But you don't have access to anything other than what you think. Therefore, the truth is subjective to subjectivities of the thinker.

I disagree. I think that many things do remain consistent and objective regardless of the observer. People are not free to form their own version of the truth since the truth must remain consistent to all who observe it. If it didn't, mathematics and physics would not be possible.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Truth itself is objective, but we are wholly unable to perceive anything that is objective because all perceptions are subjective. Our inability to perceive the objective truth does not negate its existence.

ZV

Truth is an accepted actuality that can differ from culture to culture. Universal truth is what is perceived to be the supreme reality. Subjective. Before you can argue that there is an objective truth you have to prove there is a reality, and define what that reality is. The only way to know if objective truth exists is for one to exist outside of it.

In order for there to be any reality truth must be objective. And if there is no reality then there is no truth.

You seem prepared to argue that there is no reality. I am not.

ZV

I agree that truth is objective. It is reality. There are not different versions of reality, there is just one, which everyone can see.

As I stated before, if reality differed based on the observer, there would be no solid facts, math, language, or anything. Everyone would be out of sync and there would be no standardization.

Not being able to see reality is lunacy. Take a person on acid for instance. What they're seeing isn't really happening. While they're tripping, the "reality" that they comprehend isn't really reality at all, it's just their brain malfunctioning. If the human mind operated like that all the time, we'd never progress and learn languages, math, science, etc. Everyone would just be in their own distorted world.

 

[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

 

[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?

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).

 

[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 might look a shade or two off from what you would've otherwise interpreted it as. Again, everything is an estimate. Some differences in our estimation or even our estimation abilities may flucuate 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.

 

[jjzelinski]

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?

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).

Nicely put, but I must digress in saying that the term "truth" is overused.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[jjzelinski]

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.

It can differ by varying degress in which circumstantial interconnections are appreciated. One person looks at the accident and says it occured because one of the parties involved failed to obey the traffic signs. Another might take that realization a step further and realize that the person who failed to obey the traffic sign did so because they were distracted by dropping a ciggaratte in their lap. And yet another person may smehow realize that the other party who was not in the wrong didn't use enough caution when reacting to the green light and as opposed to checking for traffic irregularities just pressed the accelerator.

Things are only as simple as we allow, or to a point, require them to be. There are so many interconnceted circumstances that contributed to the incident that occured with varying levels of overt significance over the entire passafe of time tha tlead up to it that it is utterly impossible to comprehend in its entirety. Intead of dwelling on the all-encompassing truth of the interconectedness of "events", we boil the incident down into something more practical at the expense of the full comprehension of the "truth" of the incident.

Cliffs: Complexity, a product of our limited cognitive ability, prevents the realization of objective truth but allows for varying degrees of accuracy for subjective truth.

 

[jjzelinski]

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.

Truth is a paradox because it is both born of our cognition and yet is incomprehensible. It's by no means elegant, rather, it is intrinsicly flawed.

Existance (creation, whatever), on the other hand, can exist independantly from realiztion and the falacy of truth. Who's to say.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

It can differ by varying degress in which circumstantial interconnections are appreciated. One person looks at the accident and says it occured because one of the parties involved failed to obey the traffic signs. Another might take that realization a step further and realize that the person who failed to obey the traffic sign did so because they were distracted by dropping a ciggaratte in their lap. And yet another person may smehow realize that the other party who was not in the wrong didn't use enough caution when reacting to the green light and as opposed to checking for traffic irregularities just pressed the accelerator.

Things are only as simple as we allow, or to a point, require them to be. There are so many interconnceted circumstances that contributed to the incident that occured with varying levels of overt significance over the entire passafe of time tha tlead up to it that it is utterly impossible to comprehend in its entirety. Intead of dwelling on the all-encompassing truth of the interconectedness of "events", we boil the incident down into something more practical at the expense of the full comprehension of the "truth" of the incident.

Cliffs: Complexity, a product of our limited cognitive ability, prevents the realization of objective truth but allows for varying degrees of accuracy for subjective truth.

I see what you're saying in that case. That's why humans tend to break things down into easier to digest ideas and make laws (whether legal laws governing actions, or mathematical/scientific laws stating observations)

 

[jjzelinski]

:beer:

EDIT: and thank you for seeing past my spelling and gramatical errors.