Truth and Belief

If there is no true or false, how can you even have a point to make?

What is it you are pointing to?

Plato was deeply concerned with the difference between belief and truth.
What are some of your thoughts?

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.

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.

@ Isa, Perplexity & Boagie:
Subjectivity has no bearing whatsoever on true or false. Objectivity doesn't either. They are terms for something else entirely. They are most frequently used to deduce reasons for claiming something is true or false however.
The explenation for this lies in the following thought:
I may, in a subjective way (for I am a subject) experience something. Let's say I experience heat. If I would claim that I was experiencing heat another could say that this was a subjective remark for what I experienced as heat the other may experience as a chill. If I would remark that I experienced a wind of 20 degrees (on whichever scale) the other would only be able to agree with me (if indeed the wind was 20 degrees). That I experienced it subjectively as warm has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the matter: it was 20 degrees. That is an objective truth. We can reach objective truths by abstracting from teh subject (according to Immanuel Kant...and I second his opinion).

We see that there are three distinctions to be made in this matter:
- a subjective (and therefore possible) perception
- a subjective perception which is equal to (and therefore really exists) an objective experience
- an objective (and therefore necessary) experience

I suppose this is not something which can be explained so quickly. If you would like to learn more on this theory just follow the link to Immanuel Kant...or start a topic on him.

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.

Reality is thus a belief.

It is all a matter of agreement.

The better way to agree is to discard this peculiar attachment to the myth of the absolutely eternal single reality.

It is so much more sensible to agree to the truth of an infinite variety of realities.

We see that there are three distinctions to be made in this matter:
- a subjective (and therefore possible) perception
- a subjective perception which is equal to (and therefore really exists) an objective experience
- an objective (and therefore necessary) experience

I suppose this is not something which can be explained so quickly. .....

< :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.

Does that mean that it is not true that the speed of light is not greater than the speed of sound?

If it is true that because meaning is the property of a subject (if that is true) and it that implies that (for instance) it is not true that light is faster than sound, then I would urge you to give up the view that meaning is a property of the subject, because I am far surer that it is true that light is faster than sound, than you or anyone can possibly be sure that meaning is the property of the subject (whatever that might mean). (I need not, I am sure, point out that if you think, as you must, that it is true that all meaning is the property of the subject, and that it is true that implies that there is not truth, then you really cannot think that there is no true or false, since you have just told us that you believe that there are at least two true propositions).

If, as you say, the truth is that there are an infinite variety of realities from which to choose; why do you insist on discarding only the one that states the absolutely eternal single reality?

If, as you say, the truth is that there are an infinite variety of realities from which to choose; why do you insist on discarding only the one that states the absolutely eternal single reality?

And if there are an infinite variety of realities, then it is all fiction, so what meaning does "myth" have?

And if there are an infinite variety of realities, then it is all fiction, so what meaning does "myth" have?

There are as many realities as there are subjects.

The first part of your statements, subjective experience does indeed come to some conclusions, it is only the physical world as object which by itself has no meaning because no one has given it any meaning.

People discern for themselves what is true or false about the relationship they have with the physical world as object. Try to look at it this way, the physical world as object is potential, potential meaning to a subject/person. The physical world without a person/subject would remain nothing but potential. Only the person decides meaning, true or false up or down, good or bad it is the property of humanity as subject.

"Myth" alludes to a concern with deities or demigods, associated ritual and the justification of a social institution:

Myth - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Hi Boagie,



It seems from this statement, that truth does not reside in the object nor does it reside in the subjective meaning, but rather it resides in the relationship between subject and object.


The initial subjective experience (simple sensory perception) does not have a conclusion, only when one attends to and makes an inference about the perception is there a conclusion. When reading a book, and attending to the reading, you still perceive the light coming off the pages. You may make conclusions about what you are reading, but not about the light that is simply a sensory perception. Once you are attending to the light, you may attempt to make some inferences about some property of light, and then conclusions come into play.



Let's use an example from Descartes: an individual is cut off from all sensory perception with only thought left (and has never known anything other than this state); what can this person discern for them self as to what is true or false about the relationship they have with the physical world as object?

It seems that though meaning is given by the subject, whether this meaning is true or false depends on how the subjective meaning corresponds to the relationship with the objective reality. So it seems that truth, at least in part, resides outside of the subject.

You sure are getting a handle on this! The individual that you pose here, cannot have known no other state, with complete sensory deprivation one would self-destruct. In total sensor deprivation, the relationship with the subject is cut off from object, the individual or subject would not be able to discern anything, and kept in this state would perish..

"So it seems that truth, at least in part, resides outside of the subject."quote

This is the finer point, a true or false conclusion on the part of a subject is a conclusion about his relationship to object, it is hot, hard or small depending for the concept of hot, hard or small relative to the temperature of the individual, the permability of the individual or the stature of the individual. There is only large or small by comparison, there is only hot and cold, soft and hard by comparison too the subject, and/or the subjects judgement between two objects. .

Hi Boagie,



It seems that modern medicine would be able to keep this individual alive, at least for some time, on life support. Surely sensory deprivation will not cause this individual to spontaneously implode. And it would not be unreasonable to assume that some thought would take place before this individual would perish.

But the fact that an individual would deteriorate without object experience, again seems to indicate that subjective experience requires the relationship with object reality. So too, it seems that subjective meaning cannot be entirely independent of the relationship with object reality.




"Is this rock hard enough to break this egg?" Is the term "hard" relative to me as the subject, or between the two objects?

.

Surely sensory deprivation will not cause this individual to spontaneously implode.

:eek:

Sensory deprivation is otherwise known as death, a notoriously difficult experiment to monitor in terms of the eventual outcome, unfortunately.

:rolleyes: