Buddhism - Four Noble Truths - Suffering

You don't seem to be following what I'm saying.

I do believe that. But how is what I believe synonymous with objective truth?

Right. And insofar as science employs a finite number of observations, a finite number of subjects, a finite number of scientists, but is unable to control for a nearly infinite number of potential variables, science will never be able to deliver us a truth that meets your definition.

What I meant to ask was -- you still don't believe that we have access to objective truth?

I am saying that the sentence, "I am sitting on a chair and typing right now", is an objective statement that is absent of individual sentiment or opinion. It is a fact.

I'm saying that to believe in an objective statement is to accept the objective truth of such a statement.

I don't think you understand what I mean by objective truth. When I say objective I mean ": of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind." That is all that I mean.

You are confusing my statement of objective truth with a statement of the absolute certainty of knowledge.

hue-man,

The differentiation attempting to be made here is between "objective truth" and "intersubjectively agreed upon objective propositions". Aedes is noting we do not have access to the former, but this does not mean he isn't taking into account the latter. Of course he realizes the latter exists, understanding your example of smaller objects being attracted to larger objects (in terms of mass). Sure, we do regard this as knowledge. But, here's what I believe you're not considering: One can have justified, true belief in something and still be incorrect. You must consider that we have had justified, true belief in many things over the centuries and have been incorrect; knowledge is tentative, our understanding of the world around us is tentative [An example being: Medieval mathematicians believed we could square a circle]. As much as we *believe* we have a grasp on everything, we could be completely wrong.

As for "objective truth", I'm not entirely even sure what it refers. A truth implies a consciousness experiencing, does it not? A truth wouldn't exist without a consciousness experiencing any more than a word would exist without a language. And a consciousness experiencing implies some level of subjectivity. I understand the argument could be made that even without a consciousness experiencing, a "truth" could just... be. But, well, I wouldn't call this a "truth" at all. Hm.

I never said that knowledge (justified true belief) couldn't be wrong. I am being misunderstood here. I've already stated that knowledge (justified true belief) is a provisional and practical concept. Synthetic propositions are always subject to doubt and continued testing. If our knowledge turns outto be wrong then it is no longer justified true belief because it is then known to be false. This really has nothing to do with my point about objectivity.

No, no, no . . . An objective truth needs a conscious mind in order to be experienced, an objective truth does not need a conscious mind in order to exist. That is the point that I'm trying to make.

I didn't say that an objective statement was the same as an objective truth. I'm saying that your belief in an objective statement entails your acceptance of the statement as being true. Are you honestly trying to understand what I'm saying or are you just preparing a counter argument while you read what I type?

Ok, then what exactly is the issue being raised between you and Aedes? It seems everyone is on the same page, then.

I understand what you mean by it (objective truth), but, as I noted, it confuses me (I detailed why it confuses me). I guess the only issue I can see here is that you believe we have access to this "objective truth" and Aedes does not. And I'm out on the sidelines because I really don't even have an understanding of the concept. If something isn't being rationalized, how can it be a truth? Isn't the word by it's very nature subjective? I presume you're using "objective truth" with "just is"; the way reality "just is". But if noone were around to experience it, you'd still call it a "truth"?

I think that the debate between me and Aedes is mostly due to semantics and misinterpretation.

I understand why you may be confused, but I think it's because you're over-thinking the concept, which us philosophers have the tendency to do. Words are like symbols that we use to verbally describe reality. Whether we are around to use terms like truth to describe it does not have an impact on whether that reality will exist or not.

Understood.

Please answer this:

How do we have access to "objective truth", then, if our objective statements are just accepted truth propositions (which you agree are tentative)?

I don't know that truth propositions are tentative, in the sense that we can never be certain of them.

I never said that knowledge (justified true belief) couldn't be wrong

I just think that a synthetic proposition is always open to questioning and inquiry, especially scientific hypotheses and theories. We can, however, be certain of scientific facts in the sense that we can be certain about anything. Those are the objective truths that we can be certain of.

You typed:

Then you typed:

It's been demonstrated we can never be 100% certain (in terms of what we *know*). In fact, most scientific propositions (if not all) carry with them a certain level of uncertainly.

Yes, we can *feel* these objective propositions are certain if we'd like. But, as you note, everything is always up to question, no matter how *certain* we feel we are. The reason why it isn't preferred to use "objective truth" is because the absolute best we can do is come to intersubjective agreement within a certain time in history, believing whatever to be knowledge. To obtain "Objective truth" would imply we can transcend consciousness, feeling, thought, and all human foibles. We wouldn't be alive, let alone human. We would just be, and besides some metaphysical belief system, that doesn't seem probable or possible. This is what Aedes is referring when he says we don't have access to "objective truth".

All this really is just semantic wrangling, because what I just noted, "come to intersubjective agreement within a certain time in history" is synonymous with what you consider "objective truth". We're on the same page, I think we (Aedes and then I) were just taking it one further.

The former's existence is mind-independent

You and Aedes are assuming that because our access to information is through the use of the mind, we somehow cannot know anything thats existence is independent of our perception of it. I really don't think that I can articulate myself anymore.

Surely the existence of anything 'mind independent' is hypothetical, is it not? Isn't this what Kant meant by 'ding an sich', thing-in-itself, which he always held is not experienced or known by us.

Personally I think your allegiance to 'absolute objectivity' is an article of faith or an expression of something you believe or would like to believe, not a statement of fact.

This discussion has gone far from its intial topic .
But as long as you started speaking about objective truth, I should like to remember the father of materialism - Epicurus. He taught that everything that senses discover us is truth. And I also doubt that we can reject this, just because here we take something that we understood from externals (even the very idea that senses may lie) to be real and something dubious. But he also spoke that visions of an insane are also true. Does it mean that we have many realities? Or that my reality is only my reality?
I should like to hear your opinions.

An insane person's hallucinations are not reality, but distortions of it. These hallucinations and delusions of reality can be explained in physical terms. That's why the ideal (idealism) is an inadequate explanation for material (or physical) events and instances.

Try to explain to an insane that what he feels is distorted reality and what thou feelst (and he doesn't) is "real" reality.

Both idealism and absolute skepticism have lost the battle for a reason.