Truth and Belief

@de Silentio,

boagie wrote:

To whom might the question involve, is there no subject present, the lights are on but there is no one home. You are simple silly.Silly and pretentious.

However, fortunately, with nobody else at home it is not then an issue, except to stuff your head up your arse to make it so.

:eek:

1 Reply

@perplexity,

Pretention will get you in trouble perplexity, it is not a safe place to be.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

What is objectively true can only be subjectively known. The object in question does not know what you think of it.

Whether I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador can be tested objectively. It is either true or false that I know that the capital is Ecuador. So what make my knowledge subjective? That I believe I know what the capital is, is subjective. But that I know it, is objective. Whether I know it depends on whether I meet three conditions: 1. I believe it. 2. That belief is adequately justified. 3. That belief is true (Quito is the capital). If I meet those conditions, then I know that Quito is the capital. And since whether I meet those condition is an objective matter, whether I know that Quito is the capital is an objective matter.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

There is only one way of knowing and that is subjectively.If the object was doing the knowing I suppose it would be objectively knowing.

0 Replies

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

< :eek: >

Obviously enough, an objective truth that can only be be subjectively known is an oxymoron.

The objective truth is a belief, not a truth

"Objective" means "believe this or else"

"Subjective means, "go away, your opinion is not convenient"

Sophisticated abuse.

The question is, what does "subjectively known" mean? If it means that when I claim that I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, I is the subject of that sentence, then of course, whenever I claim to know something, that something is subjectively known (supposing it is known). But, in what other sense is something "subjectively known" except that when I know something, it is I who knows it rather than you or he?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

boagie wrote:

There is only one way of knowing and that is subjectively.If the object was doing the knowing I suppose it would be objectively knowing.

Unfortunately it is not logically possible to communicate except to presume an objectivity. To discuss is to presume a sufficient communality of experience to make some sense of it.

The moot question is then indeed "what does "subjectively known" mean?

It is then and therefore ludicrous to objectively suppose it possible to differentiate in practice, as if to demand

"Give me an example of your knowing that is not subjective"

while it is simply not logically possible anyway to confer a subjective understanding apart from the albeit remote possibility of some sort of communal objectivity, which is to agree to such as some sort of truth.

In the mean time then, what is truly "subjectively known" is impossible to confer.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/icons/icon3.gif

For want then of a reasonable proof of objectivity, the only way to discuss the notion meaningfully is in terms of human behaviour, what actually happens when the words are used.

---

0 Replies

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

Observed - Definitions from Dictionary.com

The only willful intent I see in your definition is in the observation of a ritual. That doesn't apply.

0 Replies

@de Silentio,

So, then, what does "knowledge is subjective" mean other than that when I say, that I know this or that, I am saying that I know it rather than someone else knows it? It certainly does not mean what it would ordinarily be thought to mean, namely that if I think that I know something, then I know it, for that is obviously false. We often believe we know what we in fact do not know. So, "knowledge is subjective" does not mean the same kind of thing as, "morality is subjective" means, which does mean that I if I think that something is right or wrong then it is right or wrong. So, what does "knowledge is subjective" mean? Perhaps we should settle that (if we can) before we discuss whether or not it is true.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

Perception is biased by prior experience, whether or not another person is immediately involved or subsequently concerned.

......

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/icons/icon2.gif

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

So, then, what does "knowledge is subjective" mean other than that when I say, that I know this or that, I am saying that I know it rather than someone else knows it? It certainly does not mean what it would ordinarily be thought to mean, namely that if I think that I know something, then I know it, for that is obviously false. We often believe we know what we in fact do not know. So, "knowledge is subjective" does not mean the same kind of thing as, "morality is subjective" means, which does mean that I if I think that something is right or wrong then it is right or wrong. So, what does "knowledge is subjective" mean? Perhaps we should settle that (if we can) before we discuss whether or not it is true.

kennethamy, Smile

Subjective knowledge is particular to the individual, it does not state that I know it rather than someone else, it is your independent experience, if you find a group which agrees with you, it is a collective of independent subjective experiences, a double check of independent experience. Subjective experience is not infalliable, nor is group agreement but it is the best we can do. Only death and taxes seem to be eturnal realities. Subjective knowledge simply means the subjective knowledge acquired by the individual, in that perception itself is not infalliable so to is the said knowledge acquired. Think about it this way, everything that is not you, is object. From here is the spiritual realization that subject and object can never be considered separate, as the Upanishads say,"Thou Art That,"or as Schopenhaur said, "Subject and object stand or fall together."

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

kennethamy,

Subjective knowledge is particular to the individual,

Yes, so it is subjective in the sense that some particular individual knows it. And I agree. Of course, that doesn't mean that other individuals don't know it. Nor does it mean that entire groups do not know it. So, to say that knowledge is subjective in that sense is, while true enough, not particularly important, and quite obvious. But what is important is that it is not subjective in the sense that if I think I know it, then it is true. Isn't that right? So I may think I know that Rio is the capital of Brazil and it not be true that Rio is the capital of Brazil (as it is not). When philosophers say that knowledge is subjective, it usually means that if someone believes he knows something, then he does know it, but you don't appear to mean anything of the sort. Or do you?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Yes, so it is subjective in the sense that some particular individual knows it. And I agree. Of course, that doesn't mean that other individuals don't know it. Nor does it mean that entire groups do not know it. So, to say that knowledge is subjective in that sense is, while true enough, not particularly important, and quite obvious. But what is important is that it is not subjective in the sense that if I think I know it, then it is true. Isn't that right? So I may think I know that Rio is the capital of Brazil and it not be true that Rio is the capital of Brazil (as it is not). When philosophers say that knowledge is subjective, it usually means that if someone believes he knows something, then he does know it, but you don't appear to mean anything of the sort. Or do you?

kennethamy,

That an individual or a group for that matter are not infalliable means necessarily that mistakes both in perception and/or judgement are an everyday reality. You may think something is cool to pickup when in fact it is whitehot, if your perceptions is that is will be cool to the touch, then your perception is wanting and your judgement will aline with that wanting perception, the object is indeed whitehot.

"When philosophers say that knowledge is subjective, it usually means that if someone believes he knows something, then he does know it, but you don't appear to meaning anything of the sort." quote

I have little idea of what you are hearing, the fact the perception and judgement are not infalliable should make it apparent that one can be wrong about what one believes to be true.

0 Replies

@de Silentio,

Boagie, subjective in philosophy usually means known to a subject (a person or being). Subjective also has a second meaning (which you seem to voice), namely that something is not obejctively true: false. This is a meaning that is used in science. For their intents and purposes it mostly fits the bill. It is not entirly accurate though (in my opinion).

Anyway, this just to eliminate the miscommunication.

1 Reply

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

Boagie, subjective in philosophy usually means known to a subject (a person or being). Subjective also has a second meaning (which you seem to voice), namely that something is not obejctively true: false. This is a meaning that is used in science. For their intents and purposes it mostly fits the bill. It is not entirly accurate though (in my opinion).

Anyway, this just to eliminate the miscommunication.

Arjen,

Thanks for the input. In what way might this defination of subject and object not be accurate? If all meaning is the property of a subject certainly objectively there is no true or false.

3 Replies

@boagie,

Isa wrote:

Perhaps the lesson in this is that the subjects are to learn as much about themselves as they do about the objects they are observing.

........... Smile

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Arjen,

Thanks for the input. In what way might this defination of subject and object not be accurate? If all meaning is the property of a subject certainly objectively there is no true or false.

Hi Boagie,

If there is no objective truth, where does truth reside?

If truth resides in the subjective, there can be no falsehood: one in the same view cannot be subjectively true and subjectively false in the same subject. If there can be no falsehood, there can be no truth.

1 Reply

@Isa,

Isa wrote:

Hi Boagie,

If there is no objective truth, where does truth reside?

If truth resides in the subjective, there can be no falsehood: one in the same view cannot be subjectively true and subjectively false in the same subject. If there can be no falsehood, there can be no truth.

Hi Isa,

There is no true or false, good or bad to be found in the objective/physical world, and only the subject/individual is a knowning entity. These things are value judgements/meanings and only a living entity holds these. There was an old buddhist whom held up a flower to his class, asking them what is the meaning of a flower---------uneasyness and silence--- Then one student indicates to his master he understood. The understanding was this, that the flower had no meaning, it simply is. It is logical however, as you stated above, a thing cannot be true and false at the same time. All meaning is subjective, so necessarily true and false are subjective value judgements of an individual.

2 Replies

@boagie,

If all meaning is subjective, what does the self mean to the self, apart from another self to validate?

"Value judgement" begs the question.

Is the value judgement true or false?

:confused:

The point is that there is no true or false, except that belief should make it so.

QED

1 Reply

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

If all meaning is subjective, what does the self mean to the self, apart from another self to validate?

"Value judgement" begs the question.

Is the value judgement true or false?

:confused:

The point is that there is no true or false, except that belief should make it so.

QED

If there is no true or false, how can you even have a point to make? What is it you are pointing to? How can your subjective experience be any more right than any other subjective experience?

If you see a red rose, it is a subjective experience; there is no right/wrong or true/false, it just is. But once you make an inference about a subjective experience; like planting a red rose in red soil will make it more red; then for the inference to be true, it must line up with reality, or it is a falsehood.

Believing that something is false, if it is false, is not a falsehood. If a subject believes something that does not line up with reality, that belief is a falsehood.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hi Isa,

There is no true or false, good or bad to be found in the objective/physical world, and only the subject/individual is a knowning entity. These things are value judgements/meanings and only a living entity holds these. There was an old buddhist whom held up a flower to his class, asking them what is the meaning of a flower---------uneasyness and silence--- Then one student indicates to his master he understood. The understanding was this, that the flower had no meaning, it simply is. It is logical however, as you stated above, a thing cannot be true and false at the same time. All meaning is subjective, so necessarily true and false are subjective value judgements of an individual.

Hi Boagie,

A fact of logic is if a statement is to be considered to have a truth value, either to be true or false, it has to have the possiblity of being either. And as it has been pointed out, subjective experience cannot be either true or false, it just is; so subjective experience cannot be the "seat" of truth.

Subjective meaning, without truth, is meaningless. Without truth and meaning, there is no thought, only experiece. Without truth, meaning and thought, there is no communication. Without truth, meaning, thought and communication; there can be no agreement.

There is truth.

1 Reply

Truth and Belief

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know