Is truth subjective or objective?*

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Of course reality changes. It's called "time."

Time is a subjective thing, too, y'know.

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.

Not really. This all depends on the definitions of "dead" and "alive," and under certain definitions a person never dies, they simply transform. The point is simply that you're misusing the term "absolute." Reality is that which is not predicated of anything, yet you're attempting to predicate reality when you describe it as "absolute". As soon as you predicate it, you're no longer talking about reality, but your ideas about reality.

Like I've already said, reality simply is, it is not "true" or "false" or "absolute" or "non-absolute." These are attributes of statements that we make about reality.

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

Given your penchant for error and misconception, I think I can safely take this as a complement.

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[/quote]
That's not necessarily true, and it is why your argument fails. Like everyhting else it seems, you do not understand solipsism. To a solipsist, the figments in his mind are what are called "living persons."

therefore any "communication" is the equivalent of an individual talking to himself.

Again, not necessarily. There is nothing inconsistent about the solipsist deciding that the figments in his mind are "not him" and holding meaningful conversations with them.

That is not communication.

Sure it is, except where you define "communication" as "something a solispsist cannot do." You need to realize that in order to rationally examine a solipsist's perspective, you must leave your prejudicial concepts like that one behind. Communication may still happen, it just means something different than it does from a non-solipsist's perspective.

I'd like to see you try to prove that solipsism is false, incidentally. Absent that, you can't prove that you're not just talking to yourself right now, yet you still call it communication. It would be the same for a solipsist.

I expected this argument from you, and it is flawed.

No, it's not. You're just fumbling about trying to prove that I wasn't right when I characterized you as a layman.

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.

The difference is that I realize that there is no such "recognition." There is only presupposition.

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.

Facts have a way of being forceful.

As a moral subjectivist, I can only assume that your politics border on the socialist, and THAT is pure force.

Well, again, and still, you are wrong.

For example, if you truly are a moral subjectivist, then I think I can safely assume that you would support a ban on smoking.

Again and still: wrong.

After all, it's for the smokers' own good, so who cares about their feelings?

I do. What's inconsistent about that? There are no derivable moral beliefs from the statement "I am a moral subjectivist." I could (subjectively) hold individual autonomy as the highest moral ideal, so why would I want to ban anything in that instance? (why do I have a feeling you will avoid answering these questions?)

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.

Sure I am. As in every previous instance, you simply do not know what it means to be a moral subjectivist. There is nothing implicit in moral subjectivism that requires them to desire to impose their beliefs upon others.

I think it's safe to say that the one absolute in your subjective perceivable reality is that you are never wrong.

No, I just don't make claims that I don't know are true, and I don't contest arguments that I don't know are wrong. You just see so much of me because you are wrong so often, and I know more about it than you do.

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.

It only takes one counter-example to falsify a hypothesis. I am that counter-example.

Far fetched to say the least.
Quite frankly, you validate her claims completely.

Yes, you would think that, because as it seems, you habitually decide to believe exactly that which is contrary the real state of affairs.

-Garth

 

[Netopia]

Truth is absolute

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Of course reality changes. It's called "time."

Time is a subjective thing, too, y'know.

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.

Not really. This all depends on the definitions of "dead" and "alive," and under certain definitions a person never dies, they simply transform. The point is simply that you're misusing the term "absolute." Reality is that which is not predicated of anything, yet you're attempting to predicate reality when you describe it as "absolute". As soon as you predicate it, you're no longer talking about reality, but your ideas about reality.

Like I've already said, reality simply is, it is not "true" or "false" or "absolute" or "non-absolute." These are attributes of statements that we make about reality.

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

Given your penchant for error and misconception, I think I can safely take this as a complement.

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

That's not necessarily true, and it is why your argument fails. Like everyhting else it seems, you do not understand solipsism. To a solipsist, the figments in his mind are what are called "living persons."

therefore any "communication" is the equivalent of an individual talking to himself.

Again, not necessarily. There is nothing inconsistent about the solipsist deciding that the figments in his mind are "not him" and holding meaningful conversations with them.

That is not communication.

Sure it is, except where you define "communication" as "something a solispsist cannot do." You need to realize that in order to rationally examine a solipsist's perspective, you must leave your prejudicial concepts like that one behind. Communication may still happen, it just means something different than it does from a non-solipsist's perspective.

I'd like to see you try to prove that solipsism is false, incidentally. Absent that, you can't prove that you're not just talking to yourself right now, yet you still call it communication. It would be the same for a solipsist.

I expected this argument from you, and it is flawed.

No, it's not. You're just fumbling about trying to prove that I wasn't right when I characterized you as a layman.

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.

The difference is that I realize that there is no such "recognition." There is only presupposition.

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.

Facts have a way of being forceful.

As a moral subjectivist, I can only assume that your politics border on the socialist, and THAT is pure force.

Well, again, and still, you are wrong.

For example, if you truly are a moral subjectivist, then I think I can safely assume that you would support a ban on smoking.

Again and still: wrong.

After all, it's for the smokers' own good, so who cares about their feelings?

I do. What's inconsistent about that? There are no derivable moral beliefs from the statement "I am a moral subjectivist." I could (subjectively) hold individual autonomy as the highest moral ideal, so why would I want to ban anything in that instance? (why do I have a feeling you will avoid answering these questions?)

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.

Sure I am. As in every previous instance, you simply do not know what it means to be a moral subjectivist. There is nothing implicit in moral subjectivism that requires them to desire to impose their beliefs upon others.

I think it's safe to say that the one absolute in your subjective perceivable reality is that you are never wrong.

No, I just don't make claims that I don't know are true, and I don't contest arguments that I don't know are wrong. You just see so much of me because you are wrong so often, and I know more about it than you do.

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.

It only takes one counter-example to falsify a hypothesis. I am that counter-example.

Far fetched to say the least.
Quite frankly, you validate her claims completely.

Yes, you would think that, because as it seems, you habitually decide to believe exactly that which is contrary the real state of affairs.

-Garth
[/quote]
Wow... you have a great way of making stupid sound smart, don't you? I have no time to point out your logical flaws, but (as usual) they are legion. They really should implement year-round high schools. That way, dumb young fools like yourself wouldn't pollute the boards every summer.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Wow... you have a great way of making stupid sound smart, don't you? I have no time to point out your logical flaws, but (as usual) they are legion. They really should implement year-round high schools. That way, dumb young fools like yourself wouldn't pollute the boards every summer.

Yeah, yeah... same song-and-dance as last time. You can't refute my arguments, but nevertheless they're flawed, and I'm an idiot. You just *know* my arguments are wrong, but you just can't say why. Blah blah blah.

It seems more like all you have is bluff and bluster, and I had you pegged from the beginning. You're invited to prove me wrong about this hypothesis of mine, but I reckon your ineptitude is even more far-reaching than your arguments would indicate. I won't be holding my breath.

-Garth

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Vic: When a person is dead that just means we can't interact with them. Take for example in religion where certain people believe in afterlife or heaven, etc. The body may be motionless, but the person's spirit is still well alive.

Death is still subjectivity. Whether there is heaven or hell or afterlife or not, our concept of death is merely the inability to interact with the body. Remember: mind and body are two distinct things. Body cannot be without mind, but mind does not need a body. The "I" that I refer to myself as is really referring to my soul, not just my body. Like I said there can very well be no external world or material objects around us. So death to us is still a subjective matter.

Time is the most subjective item ever. It is once again a human derived concept marking an interval during 2 events. If you look at the clock striking 12:00:00 as one event and 12:00:01 as the next, this is the concept of time. The idle period between these two events count as time. You can't say objectively that 1 second passed when it is really just our own invention of what 1 second is.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth
Yeah, yeah... same song-and-dance as last time. You can't refute my arguments, but nevertheless they're flawed, and I'm an idiot. You just *know* my arguments are wrong, but you just can't say why. Blah blah blah.

It seems more like all you have is bluff and bluster, and I had you pegged from the beginning. You're invited to prove me wrong about this hypothesis of mine, but I reckon your ineptitude is even more far-reaching than your arguments would indicate. I won't be holding my breath.

-Garth

I'm just doing the same thing you do.

I might add that, in the foolish arrogance that is a key component of both your personality and your argument style, you make the mistake of assuming that I consider you a worthy appointment, or worthy of the time and effort. Quite frankly, you are not, and I have already told you this. Why should I waste any more time and effort "proving you wrong" when after I have done so, you will simply reach into that logical fallacy bag of yours and claim that your latest fallacy proves you right? That you actually believe it...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Vic: When a person is dead that just means we can't interact with them. Take for example in religion where certain people believe in afterlife or heaven, etc. The body may be motionless, but the person's spirit is still well alive.

Death is still subjectivity. Whether there is heaven or hell or afterlife or not, our concept of death is merely the inability to interact with the body. Remember: mind and body are two distinct things. Body cannot be without mind, but mind does not need a body. The "I" that I refer to myself as is really referring to my soul, not just my body. Like I said there can very well be no external world or material objects around us. So death to us is still a subjective matter.

Time is the most subjective item ever. It is once again a human derived concept marking an interval during 2 events. If you look at the clock striking 12:00:00 as one event and 12:00:01 as the next, this is the concept of time. The idle period between these two events count as time. You can't say objectively that 1 second passed when it is really just our own invention of what 1 second is.

It is still "death." You (and Garth) are basically admitting that you're still too young to have yet acquired a sense of your own mortality.

As to time, you're confusing time with the measurement of time. A lack of human understanding and an incorrect perception does not cause actual objective reality to cease to exist.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

I'm just doing the same thing you do.

Oh, really? Where have I simply dismissed your arguments without addressing them or providing counter-arguments of my own?

I might add that, in the foolish arrogance that is a key component of both your personality and your argument style, you make the mistake of assuming that I consider you a worthy appointment, or worthy of the time and effort.

That's precisely what I would expect person to say who is frustrated by the inability to refute his opponent's arguments and is being made to look silly in the process.

Quite frankly, you are not, and I have already told you this. Why should I waste any more time and effort "proving you wrong" when after I have done so, you will simply reach into that logical fallacy bag of yours and claim that your latest fallacy proves you right? That you actually believe it...

I dare you to show me where I have committed a logical fallacy. I triple dog dare you. To date, you have been the only one of the two of us to commit any logical fallacies in our discussions, so it makes it seem very much like you're just projecting, hoping not to appear so incompetent in comparison.

-Garth

 

[Vic]

"I triple dog dare you".... LOL

 

[skace]

Ok I got tired of reading all the responses, Truth IS REALITY. And because of that it is also objective. The only thing that is subjective are people's statements where they will wrap several opinions around a single fact and try to present everything as true.

For the record:

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard.

Reality; actuality.
often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

- dictionary.com

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: skace
Ok I got tired of reading all the responses, Truth IS REALITY. And because of that it is also objective. The only thing that is subjective are people's statements where they will wrap several opinions around a single fact and try to present everything as true.

For the record:

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard.

Reality; actuality.
often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

- dictionary.com

Wrong for reasons already given.

-Garth

 

[LeiZaK]

I want to die

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Garth
Wrong for reasons already given.

-Garth

I don't consider what I posted wrong simply because your opinion differs. You think reality is subjective.

 

[Eli]

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

This thread is big, but I agree with this the most so far.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Vic

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."

Perfect Rand.
If A then B
If B then C
therefore
D

It sounds like good logic, but it is not.

 

[JetsFanatic]

Originally posted by: LoKe
Subjective.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Garth
Wrong for reasons already given.

-Garth

I don't consider what I posted wrong simply because your opinion differs.

That's the only way he knows how to argue, to simply say that you're wrong and call that "proof." Even worse when he does so on topics even the greatest minds on earth cannot agree on, but he knows. :roll: Good luck with it.

Originally posted by: Eli

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

This thread is big, but I agree with this the most so far.

It's pretty much the same thing I said, Eli, and am arguing for. Oddly enough, Garth is also arguing the same thing, except that his insecure need to be right is so strong that he's unable to see that he's simply using a different label.

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Perfect Rand.
If A then B
If B then C
therefore
D

It sounds like good logic, but it is not.

Nope. That is not her logical path. It's much better in full context anyway (which is several pages long in this instance). No, I won't post it, do your own research.

Regardless, disprove it. Garth didn't. He used a false anecdote (based on opinions he has about himself and his ideologies, where either his opinions are false or his labels are) and called it a counter-example.


This is subjective truth. If you murder someone, and you think it wasn't murder, then it wasn't. Subjective truth says that if you bury your head in the sand, then other people can't see your ass in the air. That is subjective truth.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Vic: When a person is dead that just means we can't interact with them. Take for example in religion where certain people believe in afterlife or heaven, etc. The body may be motionless, but the person's spirit is still well alive.

Death is still subjectivity. Whether there is heaven or hell or afterlife or not, our concept of death is merely the inability to interact with the body. Remember: mind and body are two distinct things. Body cannot be without mind, but mind does not need a body. The "I" that I refer to myself as is really referring to my soul, not just my body. Like I said there can very well be no external world or material objects around us. So death to us is still a subjective matter.

Time is the most subjective item ever. It is once again a human derived concept marking an interval during 2 events. If you look at the clock striking 12:00:00 as one event and 12:00:01 as the next, this is the concept of time. The idle period between these two events count as time. You can't say objectively that 1 second passed when it is really just our own invention of what 1 second is.

It is still "death." You (and Garth) are basically admitting that you're still too young to have yet acquired a sense of your own mortality.

As to time, you're confusing time with the measurement of time. A lack of human understanding and an incorrect perception does not cause actual objective reality to cease to exist.

I think you are wrong once again. I have come to accept my mortality. When I go to funerals for loved ones I know what that means. I won't be seeing them in person anytime soon. But you must examine the concept of death. It is merely the ceasing of the pumping of the heart, the stopping of blood flow, the "life" drained away from the body. So a dead person to us is just what we observe. If we can observe these things, we call that person dead. If the heart is still pumping then no, that's not death.

The correspondence theory of knowledge states that in order to know something, we must go outside and examine it. We know we're dreaming when we wake up and you recognize that you didn't actually fly over NYC and get into a lightsaber battle with Darth Vader. You know that you were lying in bed. You get outside of your experience (the dream) and you test the theory of truth. There's no way to test everything we do today. How do you get outside our experience to prove that Kennedy is dead or the sky is really blue? You can't... and this is where the theory breaks down.

I'm not saying our perception of time is incorrect or anything. Our perception of time is merely one event proceeding the other. Is that not true? Use Kant's example. The boat is sailing down the river towards you. You see a small image, and then you see a larger boat as it approaches you. This cannot be the other way around. When a fire is burning, you start with an intact house and then a burned house. You can't have these things the other way around. But in the end, time is dependent on us. It depends on someone to perceive Event #1 and Event #2 just like a red apple requires our eyes to perceive it.

Defending objective truth is much like defending Plato's forms. Then you must believe that there are these abstract concepts out there like a Dog, a Cat, a House, etc. And Fido, Spike, my house in Berkeley, etc are just examples because they partake in the form of a house or animal?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

And you know what? There's no possible way to disprove objective truth. There could very well be an objective truth out there.

When Locke talked about 2 objects not occupying the same space and occuring at the same time, this was a matter of pragmatism. He said that there could very well be 5 tables in that 1 table that's in front of you. When I push my desk I could very well be pushing 5 desks at once. However, to my knowledge and for all practical purposes, it's just 1 table.

Similarly, is there an objective truth? When 9/11 occured maybe no one died for all I know. Maybe it was all an illusion, and we were all deceived. Maybe there was no WTC to begin with. However, for all practical purposes we defend against terror today.

The truth that we can grasp is merely the truth that is available to us. It is certainly not objective and we will never know if an objective truth exists or not. It is purely subjective.

 

[Vic]

Which was why I brought up solipsism in the first place. Garth didn't get (I found it quite amusing when he asked me to disprove it, as I never took a stance against it, except to imply that it was rude to bring it up), but DLeRium you obviously do. No matter how much we fight a subject like this, there is no proving or disproving, no right or wrong, because such things are not within the realm of human understanding. Perhaps this is not real, perhaps it is all just a dream. Perhaps. BUT I will argue that if you live your life in such a fashion, then you are doing so with the assumption that other people are not real, and if you carry out in your actions such an assumption to the fullest logical extent, then you are essentially immoral. After all, what harm is there in harming a figment of imagination? So, eventually, you do have to be pragmatic, or else those "figments" will harm you back. And that need to be pragmatic tells us something, does it not?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: skace

I don't consider what I posted wrong simply because your opinion differs.

But that wasn't the reason I gave, so your your decision is based on a false premise.

You think reality is subjective.

I know reality is subjective. It's a priori knowledge.

-Garth

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic
No matter how much we fight a subject like this, there is no proving or disproving, no right or wrong, because such things are not within the realm of human understanding. Perhaps this is not real, perhaps it is all just a dream.

The fact that no experience is inconsistent with solipsism is sufficient to refute the proposed objectivity of truth. It makes the statement "truth is objective" at best a presupposition, not a rational conclusion.

BUT I will argue that if you live your life in such a fashion, then you are doing so with the assumption that other people are not real and if you carry out in your actions such an assumption to the fullest logical extent, then you are essentially immoral.

Which is why I know that you haven't really thought rigorously about solispsim.

After all, what harm is there in harming a figment of imagination?

Whatever harm that a solispsist wants to believe it is. That means it is equally conceiveable to live as a moral solipsist, despite your claim. Everybody already lives as moral solipsists, anyway. The do so by pretending that they're not solipsists like I already said.

So, eventually, you do have to be pragmatic, or else those "figments" will harm you back. And that need to be pragmatic tells us something, does it not?

I doubt very much that what it "tells" you bears even the slightest resemblence to reality.

-Garth

 

[Neurorelay]

There is truth and fact, fact is agreed upon by reproducible events; truth is whatever you want it to be as long as you have another person to agree with you on it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: skace
You think reality is subjective.

I know reality is subjective. It's a priori knowledge.

-Garth

Which means (for the sake of others here) deductive knowledge without experimentation, evidence, or facts. In other words, bullsh!t. Garth is basically claiming to have secret powers of reasoning to which skace (and thousands of prestigious philosophers throughout history, I might add) must therefore be deprived of. As that is extremely unlikely, this is what I mean when I say that he makes stupid look smart.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Neurorelay
There is truth and fact, fact is agreed upon by reproducible events; truth is whatever you want it to be as long as you have another person to agree with you on it.

Precisely. We evaluate the truth of statements according to the extent to which they are constructed with proper form, definitions, and semantics. Since we decide first of all what proper form, definitions and semantics are, we decide what truth means. That is the very definition of subjectivity. Anyone disagreeing is invited to re-visit my post in which I demonstrated this very fact with the examples of kilflibbles, plazookie and sputz (on the first page of the thread, for Christ's sake), and to explain to me what bearing reality has on the truth of that conclusion.

-Garth