Is truth subjective or objective?

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, you say that:

"The truth is objective.
Perceptions of the truth are subjective.
REALITY is objective.
Perceptions of REALITY are subjective.
Try to keep the two separate."

You seem to be equating The Truth with Reality; at least they are both objective.

I have asserted that truth is objective...and I have asserted that REALITY is objective.

Quote:

But you then say that the perception of both Reality and Truth are subjective.

I have assserted that perceptions of truth are subjective....and I have asserted that perceptions of REALITY are subjective.

Quote:

In contrast to your assertion that both the truth and reality are objective, I say that truth statements are subjective...

Insofar as "truth statments" are perceptions of truth...they are subjective. We agree.

Quote:

... and the Reality to which the truth statements refer are objective.

I have already asserted that REALITY is objective. We agree.

Quote:

As such, I suggest that YOU keep keep the two separate.

Keep what separate?

You have said nothing here that contradicts my assertions.

Truth...absolutely is objective. REALITY...absolutely is objective.

Perceptions of both truth and reality....whether called perceptions or statments...are subjective.

Where the hell is the argument?

0 Replies

Frank, I'm sorry you wrote your response before reading the changes I made in my post.

0 Replies

I'll stick with what I said.

If you disagree with anything I said...just tell me what it is....and we can discuss it.

0 Replies

Frank

When you say that truth is objective and reality is also objective, I suppose you mean they are independent from any human experience.
But since our knowledge is only based in perception and reasoning - and that means a specific nervous system and a specific brain - how can you know of the existence of a truth or a reality independent from our perception and reasoning?
What I mean is this: what is your criteria to assert that truth and reality are objective?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Facts" are also nebulous - it depends on the observer.

i agree that truth has to do with the quality of our interpretations which makes it subjective but there is an ultimate truth which is objective and which is beyond our capabilities to grasp

0 Replies

val wrote:

Frank

When you say that truth is objective and reality is also objective, I suppose you mean they are independent from any human experience.

Not so.

I am merely saying that any perceptions we have of truth or REALITY...are just that...perceptions of truth and/or REALITY!

The REALITY itself...WHETHER WE HAVE PERCEPTIONS OF IT OR NOT...is objective. It is what it is.

The TRUTH itself...WHETHER WE HAVE PERCEPTIONS OF IT OR NOT...is objective. It is what it is.

JL thinks he cannot acknowledge this because JL is devoted to his belief system of non-duality. It appears that as far as he is concerned, acknowledging that REALITY and TRUTH are objective...and that any perceptions we have about either are subjective. I don't think the damage is done...whether his geusses about non-duality are correct...or incorrect.

Quote:

But since our knowledge is only based in perception and reasoning - and that means a specific nervous system and a specific brain - how can you know of the existence of a truth or a reality independent from our perception and reasoning?

Why are you supposing that we have to know?

Perhaps there are things we do not know...and maybe even things we cannot know.

That does not mean that our perceptions of these unknowns become correct.

WHATEVER IS...IS. That is the truth....and that is the REALITY.

That being the case...(and it is a tautology, so it is correct)...truth and REALITY are both objective.

Quote:

What I mean is this: what is your criteria to assert that truth and reality are objective?

As I have said above...it is definitional...and is not dependent upon a belief system I do not know how to explain it any better...but if you still do not understand my point...ask. I'll keep at it.

0 Replies

A rock will always be a rock no matter in what period we have observed it - be it 5,000 years ago or today. That's objective. How any individual perceives it is subjective.

0 Replies

I'm afraid that Frank's (and I presume C,I,'s) orientation on this matter differs so fundamentally from mine that we cannot fruitfully discuss it. We've tried but failed.
If Raheel were to change "truth" to "reality" (see his statement below), we would be in agreement. I do agree that Ultimate Reality exists, but it is well beyond our cognitive reach. The phrase, "ultimate truth," would refer to--in my lexicon at least--some kind of ultimate (subjective) experience. "Ultimate Reality" would refer to that Absolute which includes us but is more than us, unless, of course, the implicit notion I present here of part-whole is false.

Raheel: "there is an ultimate truth which is objective and which is beyond our capabilities to grasp".

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I'm afraid that Frank's (and I presume C,I,'s) orientation on this matter differs so fundamentally from mine that we cannot fruitfully discuss it. We've tried but failed.
If Raheel were to change "truth" to "reality" (see his statement below), we would be in agreement. I do agree that Ultimate Reality exists, but it is well beyond our cognitive reach. The phrase, "ultimate truth," would refer to--in my lexicon at least--some kind of ultimate (subjective) experience. "Ultimate Reality" would refer to that Absolute which includes us but is more than us, unless, of course, the implicit notion I present here of part-whole is false.

Raheel: "there is an ultimate truth which is objective and which is beyond our capabilities to grasp".

As respectfully as possible, JL...the reason we cannot fruitfully discuss this issue is because you are dodging and weaving...trying to work your belief system into this discussion.

The "truth" (whether qualified by "ulimate" or not) IS THE TRUTH...whether we humans know it or not...or whether we CAN know it or not.

The truth....is not subjective in any way. It is purely objective. Definitionally so.

What IS...IS.

What is REAL...is REAL...no matter whether we realize it or not...no matter whether or not we CAN realize it...and no matter what our perceptions about it are. What is real...is real.

What is TRUE...is TRUE...no matter whether we realize it or not...no matter whether or not we CAN realize it...and no matter what our perceptions about it are. What is true...is true.

The REALITY is the REALITY.

What IS...IS.

What is true...is true.

None of the issues of perceptions of any of those things in any way effects any of that.

Instead of trying to foist off the impasse (such as there is) on the fact that we come from different perspectives...

...why don't you just acknowledge all that...and move on to something else?

0 Replies

Frank, I know that what you say seems self-evident to you. You say that my thinking on this matter is guided by my commitment to non-dualism. I agree that my understanding of the non-dualistic nature of immediate experience does ultimately guide much of my thinking, but I would assert that this same principal applies to you and your committment to dualism.

My day is too short to deal with the specifics of your dualistic thinking. I simply do not want to deal with your regular little misrepresentations of my position. You'll have to solve the dualistic "issues" that beset you by yourself. You have consistently (and sincerely) rejected all efforts by Twyvel, Fresco, Coluber, myself and other non-dualists to expand your perspective. So let me just repeat you: "I'll stick with what I said."
I DO enjoy, however, the many agreements I have with you on other topics.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, I know that what you say seems self-evident to you. You say that my thinking on this matter is guided by my commitment to non-dualism. I agree that my understanding of the non-dualistic nature of immediate experience does ultimately guide much of my thinking, but I would assert that this same principal applies to you and your committment to dualism.

I AM NOT COMMITTED TO DUALISM. IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

Try to open your mind to that. I have probably explained that to you IN excruciating detail a couple of dozen times over the years.

I have no goddam idea of what the REALITY is with regard to dualism/non-dualism...and I am not willing to make a guess in either direction.

But I do a huge kick out of you people who pretend that you do.

Quote:

My day is too short to deal with the specifics of your dualistic thinking. I simply do not want to deal with your regular little misrepresentations of my position.

I have not misrepresented anything.

If you want to run off because you see that you can never prevail in this discussion because your position is absurd...do so. But don't try to make it seem that I am driving you off by being duplicitous.

Quote:

You'll have to solve the dualistic "issues" that beset you by yourself. You have consistently (and sincerely) rejected all efforts by Twyvel, Fresco, Coluber, myself and other non-dualists to expand your perspective.

Yeah...you folks have asked me to accept your guesses about REALITY as the worth something other than guesses.

I have refused.

It is to my credit that I have.

Quote:

So let me just repeat you: "I'll stick with what I said."
I DO enjoy, however, the many agreements I have with you on other topics.

Okay.

0 Replies

Frank, you insist that you are "NOT COMMITTED TO DUALISM. IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
Try to open your mind to that. I have probably explained that to you IN excruciating detail a couple of dozen times over the years."

What you do not see, and what nobody has been able to show you, is that even though you, in your committment to a radical agnosticism, have no conscious ideological committment to dualism, you are, nevertheless, unconsciously committed in your cognitive BEHAVIOR (as unconsciously and consistently as you are to english grammar, especially its subject-object structure) to a dualistic perception of the world. We non-dualists have tried to open your mind to the non-dualistic nature of immediate experience and the cognitively necessary but philosophically inadequate nature of dualism. We, too, cannot think and talk discursively in a non-dualistic manner (zen paradoxes do that, but that's not what we want), but we can realize the essential non-dualism of Reality and experience.
Now I know you are going to come back with some aggressive and perhaps insulting retort. Please don't bother. We have tried to persuade each other and failed. Let's rest with that reality.

0 Replies

Blind...absolutely f*****g blind.

It's like in the political threads...where one of those airheads insists that if you are not a conservatives...you've gotta be a liberal.

Trying to explain stuff to you is impossible, JL. Your belief system is more structured than that of most Christians.

0 Replies

Ditto!!!!!
Be well.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Ditto!!!!!
Be well.

:wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

[quote="J
If Raheel were to change "truth" to "reality" (see his statement below), we would be in agreement. I do agree that Ultimate Reality exists, but it is well beyond our cognitive reach. The phrase, "ultimate truth," would refer to--in my lexicon at least--some kind of ultimate (subjective) experience.

ultimate truth is ultimate reality- you cannot differentiate between the two. ultimate truth cannot be experienced by humans and can therefore not be subjective. it is outside our capabilities to grasp

0 Replies

raheel

About your statement that ultimate reality cannot be experienced by humans. If that ultimate reality can not be experienced by us, how can you talk about it?
I deny that ultimate reality. We have our reality, within our experience conditions. No other reality is available to us.
I understand Nobody position -we have discussed it many times - because he has a sort of hegelian conception of an absolute as totality. In this conception ultimate reality will be reality, all the reality (humans being part of it).
To me, reality is the configuration we give to things in our experience and the way we interact with them, truth being just a matter of logical and empirical adequacy.
But your position is more difficult to understand. How can we talk about an ultimate reality that we can never perceive? Do you mean, mystical experience, or something like that?

0 Replies

i never said that we could not experience ultimate reality. what i meant was we cannot experience it as a whole- as we are not capable of doing so as humans. we can only experience part of it.

0 Replies

I understand and appreciate what you mean when you say that ultimate truth IS ultimate reality (I think that is Frank's postition as well). But I disagree that we cannot differentiate between the two. You say that "ultimate truth" cannot be experienced by humans and cannot, therefore, be subjective. I agree that "ultimate" truth cannot be experienced by humans, but that is not the reason it is not subjective. I think that our evolved nervous systems are not capable of achieving the subjective state of a COGNITIVE creation of Ultimate Truth. It is beyond our capapcity (I agree with you in that) . But if it were within our capacity it would, like all other "truths," be our subjective cognitive creation.
You say, however, that we CAN experience ultimate Reallty (in parts, as I understand you) but not in its totality. If we assume that the existence of part/whole difference is ultimately real (and there may be some reason to doubt it) I would agree. But our ability to subjectively "realize" the ultimate nature of our objective reality (as in mystical self-realization) is what I believe to be our potential to "merge with" (religion means re-connect--religare) and thus to see into Ultimate Reality, to wake to what is, as opposed to our illusions about our ego's lives). I repeat: that realization is a subjective experience or objective reality.

:wink:

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

But our ability to subjectively "realize" the ultimate nature of our objective reality (as in mystical self-realization) is what I believe to be our potential to "merge with" (religion means re-connect--religare) and thus to see into Ultimate Reality, to wake to what is, as opposed to our illusions about our ego's lives). I repeat: that realization is a subjective experience or objective reality.
:wink:

i believe that when we experience ultimate reality it is an objective experience. ultimate reality can not be experienced differently by different people. it is objective.

0 Replies

Is truth subjective or objective?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know