Is truth subjective or objective?

fresco-

Well if he did it might explain his fantastic success
which it might pay us to take a note of.
Not that I'm a Maoist mind you.The science of revolution and dragging a billion coolies into the modern age is way beyond my capacities.Then there's the naked courage on top.

spendius.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Kant said of truth:
"If truth consists in the correspondence of a cognition with its object , then this object must thereby be distinguished from others; for a cognition is false if it does not corre-spond with the object to which it is related, even if it contains something that could well be valid of other objects. Now a general criterion [Kriterium] of truth would be that which was valid of all cognitions without any distinction among their objects. [c] But it is clear that since with such a criterion one abstracts from all content of cognition."

There now. That clears that up.

Yep...only I said it better.

Quote:

The "TRUTH" is objective.

Anything else is merely an impression or perspecive of the truth.

0 Replies

Actually I agree Frank. Truth is what it is and not what we think or want or perceive it to be.

0 Replies

I repeat, Foxfyre (and I know we are only discussing definitions here): REALITY is what it is and not what we think or want or perceive it to be. TRUTH consists of the propositions we advance regarding its nature. A "truth" may hold for some time and then be replaced by another "truth." That is the so-called progress of science. But note that in philosophy there is no such progress, just a change in perspectives, almost as a matter of changing fashions. Truths are perspectives expressed in propositions about what is the case, i.e., reality.
I offer this merely as a perspective on the reality of our scientific and philosophical activities.
What was Kant saying, other than by making a truth proposition it must be about a descreet "something", and that a criterion of "truth" (e.g., the logical validity of a proposition) exists independent of any objects it might be applied to? Did I miss something?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I repeat, Foxfyre (and I know we are only discussing definitions here): REALITY is what it is and not what we think or want or perceive it to be. TRUTH consists of the propositions we advance regarding its nature. A "truth" may hold for some time and then be replaced by another "truth." That is the so-called progress of science. But note that in philosophy there is no such progress, just a change in perspectives, almost as a matter of changing fashions. Truths are perspectives expressed in propositions about what is the case, i.e., reality.
I offer this merely as a perspective on the reality of our scientific and philosophical activities.
What was Kant saying, other than by making a truth proposition it must be about a descreet "something", and that a criterion of "truth" (e.g., the logical validity of a proposition) exists independent of any objects it might be applied to? Did I miss something?

I pretty much been agreeing with you in this thread, JL...but I think your differentiation between REALITY and TRUTH here is artificial, contrived, and gratuitous.

The TRUTH is the TRUTH. If it ain't the TRUTH...but is accepted as the truth (as you say, for a time) it is simply something false being inappropriately accepted as truth. It is a perception of truth.

TRUTH...is what is TRUE!

0 Replies

Frank, the distinction I make between truth and reality is helpful and clear to me. "Reality" is whatever is the case; "truths" are understandings or propositions about the nature of the case. Reality never becomes less reality, but "truths" may become, with new knowledge, "untruths". Just a way of looking at it. If we equate reality with truth, then we have to find another word for our theoretical understandings and propositions about reality. They can't be called truths because truth is what these propositions are about (what they are pointing to). It could be that in equating our truth statements with reality we are merely reifying our statements. We must keep them separate so that we can acknowledge their changing nature while assuming the unchanging nature of whatever is. (this is not to say that the world does not change, only that what's the case is an abstract constant, a general that subsumes all changing particulars).

0 Replies

And I draw no distinction between reality and truth other than, for me, the first is perception/belief based on our experience that may or may not be accurate or the whole truth, and the second is what is.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, you say you draw no distinction between reality and truth, but then you tell me the first is subjective (experience) and the second is the objective case, whatever is. I do the reverse. For me the truth is my subjective understanding of what is (or it is intersubjective if it is the consensual understanding of my community) and reality is what REALLY IS regardless of my understanding. But in order not to give the appearance of positivism (that reality is "out there"), I acknowledge that all we can know is our "truths" (or experience) and they exist in reality. Subjectivity is an objective fact, and the objective world is our subjective reality (or objective reality is out subjective world). Ultimately, I guess, they cannot be separated; they cannot only be analytically distinguished.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, the distinction I make between truth and reality is helpful and clear to me. "Reality" is whatever is the case; "truths" are understandings or propositions about the nature of the case. Reality never becomes less reality, but "truths" may become, with new knowledge, "untruths". Just a way of looking at it. If we equate reality with truth, then we have to find another word for our theoretical understandings and propositions about reality.

Why not simply call them what they are: "theoretical understandings and propositions about reality"....or... "perceptions of truths"...or..."perceptions of reality."

Quote:

They can't be called truths because truth is what these propositions are about (what they are pointing to). It could be that in equating our truth statements with reality we are merely reifying our statements. We must keep them separate so that we can acknowledge their changing nature while assuming the unchanging nature of whatever is. (this is not to say that the world does not change, only that what's the case is an abstract constant, a general that subsumes all changing particulars).

I have no problem with keeping this stuff separate...but why call something that ends up not being a truth...a truth...when it isn't.

If, on the other hand, one calls it "perception of truth"...the problem dissolves.

We all know at the beginning that perceptions can change.

It was never a "truth" that night and day were caused by the sun circling the Earth. The reality...and the truth...was that it was caused by the Earth rotating on its axis.

The perception, when it was held, was wrong. But the perception was the "perception of the truth" while it was held.

It makes no sense to say that it WAS THE TRUTH...and that the truth changed.

0 Replies

Frank, I did not say that it WAS the truth and then the truth changed. I said there was a proposal that such and such was the truth, but that with new evidence the proposal was falsified. Reality, i.e., in this case the movements of the sun and earth has always been what is is, even before people made propositions (truth statements) about their movements.
To me all truths are perceptions of and/or understandings about reality.

0 Replies

What we are doing here, gentlemen, is challenging each others' propositions with our opposing propositions and in so doing forcing each other to rethink and refine our positions (whether or not we retain or change them). One cannot do that so easily by oneself. It takes help. THAT'S half the reason I'm here. The other half is the social contact. Very Happy

0 Replies

JL writes

Quote:

Foxfyre, you say you draw no distinction between reality and truth, but then you tell me the first is subjective (experience) and the second is the objective case, whatever is. I do the reverse. For me the truth is my subjective understanding of what is (or it is intersubjective if it is the consensual understanding of my community) and reality is what REALLY IS regardless of my understanding. But in order not to give the appearance of positivism (that reality is "out there"), I acknowledge that all we can know is our "truths" (or experience) and they exist in reality. Subjectivity is an objective fact, and the objective world is our subjective reality (or objective reality is out subjective world). Ultimately, I guess, they cannot be separated; they cannot only be analytically distinguished.

I know, JL, I know, and that's why I was so careful to qualify my opinion and restrict it to refer to myself alone.

There was an old illustration somebody came up with many decades ago--somebody here will probably remember its author--that went something like this:

We are all three people:

1) The person we believe ourselves to be
2) The person other people think we are
3) The person we actually are.

Only the third is truth. The first and second are based on the realities of our experience, intuition, logic, and reason which in all probability do not include more than a piece of the truth.

It goes back to the myriad factors involved in truth: When we think of a man do we think of the newly fertilized egg? The fetus? The newborn baby? The child? The young adult? The old man? The man he will be? The man he could have been? We can know the various realities, but none are likely to be the whole truth of the man.

0 Replies

Yes, we never know the whole truth. But there are essential truths, without which life is less than it should be.

1) The person we believe ourselves to be
2) The person other people think we are
3) The person we actually are.

You say only 3) is truth. Some people would argue that only 1) and 2) are the truth. I would agree except to say the two together comprise 3). The world, as I said, consists of perspectives, like facets or a diamond. Have you read the play, Rashomon?

0 Replies

I see where you are going JL, but I can't agree because at some point I think there has to be all that can be known. That is truth. I don't think we'll ever quite achieve it but it is built into the human spirit to keep trying to get to it.

0 Replies

Interesting notion, Foxfyre. Let's see if I understand you. You are suggesting that if we were ever able to develop an omnicompetent proposition about everything, i.e., Ultimate Reality, we would then have The Total Truth.
Would this truth be the same thing as Reality? If not, where does Reality fit in?
What I mean to say is that if we were to achieve this grasp of The Total Truth, would this not be only a part of Reality. If not, what do you propose we mean by the word, Reality?

0 Replies

I think to achieve the ultimate truth--the absolute truth--the all there is that can be known truth--about something, then that knowledge would become our reality. For me reality is my experience/knowledge/logic/reason at this moment in time. If we are wise we will not confuse it with absolute truth however.

0 Replies

There is, as I see it, considerable depth in your thinking, Foxfyre, and I wouldn't change it. But, as I see it, if we separate what we call truth from the reality of experience, we might short change the value of experience. To compare experience to some ideal notion of Truth is to rob the former of its profound significance. Experience IS life and Reality (whatever else that may be). Truth is truth-seeking: it pertains to our efforts to construct propositions about our reality that serve as means to achieve prediction and control. Experience is an end in itself.

0 Replies

But Foxfyre, what Kant said about truth is that it is impossible to have a general definition of truth, that is not correspondence between cognition and its object.
That means that objective truth cannot exist, because we cannot have a criterion to establish it. Objective truth means something external to us.
The only criterion Kant admits is within the relation between our mind and its object.
And, don't forget that the "object" in Kant's 1srt Critic in a construct of our perception conditions and the cathegories of the mind.

0 Replies

Frank
If truth is something objective, external to us, HOW DO YOU KNOW IT?
How can you claim that something is true no matter what you think or perceive of it?
What's the criteria for establishing that objective truth?

Or is it just a belief Smile

?

0 Replies

val wrote:

Frank
If truth is something objective, external to us, HOW DO YOU KNOW IT?

Because it is defined that way. It is like 2 + 2 = 4.

Truth n The state of being the case; FACT; The body of real things, events, and facts; Actuality.

Quote:

How can you claim that something is true no matter what you think or perceive of it?

If you are talking about a specific "something"...and if that something is an unknown...I never said I could.

Take the matter of whether or not there is a God. And let us assume for the sake of this small discussion that either a) there is a God or b) there is no God.

The "truth" about whether or not there is a God is one or the other of those things...and it does not matter one whit if your perception of the issue is that there is a God...or there is no God.

The "truth"...(the actuality; the state of being the case; the FACT; The body of real things, events, and factS)...IS WHAT IT IS...without regard to anyone's perception of it...and without regard to whether or not anyone can actually have a perception of it.

Quote:

What's the criteria for establishing that objective truth?

Beats the shyt out of me. In fact, I would argue that there are many truths we simply cannot, at our current stage of being, establish at all. Perhaps, never will be able to!

Quote:

Or is it just a belief ?

No "belief" involved here at all.

0 Replies

Is truth subjective or objective?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know