Is truth subjective or objective?

JLNobody wrote:

...is what I believe to be...

raheel wrote:

...i believe that when we...

Sure is a lot "believing" going on here.

Don't you good folks ever talk about what you know...rather than what you guess?

0 Replies

what i believe is what i know. if i believe something it is like a fact to me. i can say God exists with as much confidence as i can say i exist or that i am typing at this very moment. when i say i believe 'x' i have obviously thought it through and derived to believing 'x' from what i know- therefore believing in 'x' is no different from knowing 'x'. although this does not mean i am not pen to change my mind.

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

what i believe is what i know. if i believe something it is like a fact to me. i can say God exists with as much confidence as i can say i exist or that i am typing at this very moment. when i say i believe 'x' i have obviously thought it through and derived to believing 'x' from what i know- therefore believing in 'x' is no different from knowing 'x'. although this does not mean i am not pen to change my mind.

Wake up!

If you decide to get serious...I'll be back.

But if you are going to try to peddle your insignicant guesses as knowledge...all I'm going to do is to laugh at you.

And if you do decide to get serious...I would suggest you stop disguising your guesses by describing them as "beliefs."

0 Replies

Raheel, good point. I might still insist that, dualistically speaking, our mystical realization of Ultimate Reality as it is manifested in our experience may be described as subjective by definition of "experience". Your point is well taken, however. If you mean that subjectivity is always some kind of personalized distortion of objective reality your statement is vallid, in that limited--dualistic--sense. I would like to suggest that the universal nature of our true being is both objective and subjective, perhaps neither. We are all ESSENTIALLY the same or one. Our "subjective" (or perhaps intersubjective) realization of Ultimate Reality is thus the same and therefore "objective" because WE and our EXPERIENCE of Reality are one. I hope this attempt at a non-dualistic formulation is not too confusing (or confused).

0 Replies

i agree with you. when it comes to experiencing ultimate reality definitions of subjective and objective must be carefully analysed. subjective opinions can indeed be objective when in relation to ultimate reality.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Wake up!

If you decide to get serious...I'll be back.

But if you are going to try to peddle your insignicant guesses as knowledge...all I'm going to do is to laugh at you.

And if you do decide to get serious...I would suggest you stop disguising your guesses by describing them as "beliefs."

I DO NOT MAKE INSIGNIFICANT GUESSES! MY KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT COME FROM DAYDREAMS OR FANTASIES. I TAKE TIME AND EFFORT OVER MY BELIEFS AND DO NOT APPRECIATE YOU CALLING THEM GUESSES!

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Wake up!

If you decide to get serious...I'll be back.

But if you are going to try to peddle your insignicant guesses as knowledge...all I'm going to do is to laugh at you.

And if you do decide to get serious...I would suggest you stop disguising your guesses by describing them as "beliefs."

I DO NOT MAKE INSIGNIFICANT GUESSES! MY KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT COME FROM DAYDREAMS OR FANTASIES. I TAKE TIME AND EFFORT OVER MY BELIEFS AND DO NOT APPRECIATE YOU CALLING THEM GUESSES!

Why not???

That is what they are...guesses about the unknown!

0 Replies

in a way they are guesses- but THEY ARE NOT INSIGNIFICANT! my guesses are not made at random, they are logically reached conclusions andtheorys- yes thats what they are theories. they are conclusions which i have constructed and which i have no reason to doubt as i have thought them through. guesses are made at random and imply no effort input at all!

0 Replies

Raheel, I think you've identified what it is that I object to in Frank's insistence that all of our conjectures are guesses. He disparages virtuallly all thought that is not "proven" or based on a substantial amount of "unambiguous evidence." In Science the experimenter's "evidence" must be unambiguous, in fact precisely measureable. This is not so with the "elements" of a philosophical or theological effort. One might insist on a strict logical standard, but the Ps and Qs of the effort are linguistic elements with fuzzy boundaries (i.e., they are connotatively complex). As such all our philosophical efforts are inherently imprecise. Like art, they contain a degree of necessary ambiguity. And that does not bother me a bit. Usually when we "reduce" an argument to unambiguous elements, we trivialize it. Our theories, and those of famous philsophers are unavoidably fuzzy; that does not reduce them, as Frank would have, to mere "guesses." They are, or can be, the result of complex and careful theoretical work. I agree with you that "guesses" (or guesswork) has more the epistemological status of merely flipping a coin, of making an arbitrary choice between two options. I once said something to this effect to Frank, but I don't remember his response, probably because it was clothed in abusive verbage.

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

in a way they are guesses-

Yes they are.

Quote:

...but THEY ARE NOT INSIGNIFICANT!

I think they are...but rather than argue that, I'll leave it be that they are not insignificant.

Quote:

...my guesses are not made at random, they are logically reached conclusions andtheorys- yes thats what they are theories.

Yes...guesses. We agree on that. If you want to call them theories...that is okay; that does not make them any less guesses. If you want to call them hypotheses...that is also okay; that does not make them any less guesses.

But I might call you your attention that most "theories" and "hypothoses" are there merely to be tested and attacked. I'll finish that thought in a second.

Quote:

...they are conclusions which i have constructed and which i have no reason to doubt

If you have "no reason to doubt them"...stop calling them "theories."

In any case...you have done a very poor job of "logically" dealing with them if you honestly can say you have no reason to doubt them.

And if they are theories...as I started mentioning up above...rather than declare that they are something you have no reason to doubt...but instead, doubt them...and question them.

Quote:

...as i have thought them through. guesses are made at random and imply no effort input at all!

Nearly as I can see...you have put lots of effort into this...and then randomly decided on a guess.

And calling a thing a "guess" does not in any way imply no effort. I often make guesses about who is going to win a particular football game...and then stake money on the guess. I put lots of effort into the guesses. That doesn't make them any the less guesses. Said another way: An informed guess....is a guess.

In any case...one of the pitfalls of dealing with this matter the way you are...is that you end up with statements like this:

Quote:

what i believe is what i know.

No...what you "believe" is not what you KNOW. That is obvious delusion on your part.

Or statements like this:

Quote:

... if i believe something it is like a fact to me.

Yeah...I can see that. And it is also like a guess.

You want to treat your guesses as facts. (That is what JL wants to do also.)

They may be...you may guess correctly. But they may not be...you may guess incorrectly.

There either is a God...or there is not.

Simply because you have made a guess that there is....A BLIND GUESS...does not mean there is a God. And no matter how blind you are to this...IT IS NOT A FACT...not to you or to anyone else. It is merely an unsubstantiated, blind guess.

And it makes about as much sense as the guesses atheists make....that there are no gods.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Raheel, I think you've identified what it is that I object to in Frank's insistence that all of our conjectures are guesses.

The only reason I insist that your conjectures are guesses, JL....is because definitionally...conjectures ARE guesses.

FROM WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY: Conjecture: a: inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

Quote:

He disparages virtuallly all thought that is not "proven" or based on a substantial amount of "unambiguous evidence."

No I don't...I just call a spade a spade....and a guess a guess.

Quote:

In Science the experimenter's "evidence" must be unambiguous, in fact precisely measureable. This is not so with the "elements" of a philosophical or theological effort. One might insist on a strict logical standard, but the Ps and Qs of the effort are linguistic elements with fuzzy boundaries (i.e., they are connotatively complex). As such all our philosophical efforts are inherently imprecise. Like art, they contain a degree of necessary ambiguity. And that does not bother me a bit. Usually when we "reduce" an argument to unambiguous elements, we trivialize it. Our theories, and those of famous philsophers are unavoidably fuzzy; that does not reduce them, as Frank would have, to mere "guesses."

No they don't...and contrary to what you are saying, I would not have it that way.

But if someone says to me "There is a God" or "There are no gods"....I goddam well consider those things to be guess. AND THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE.

Quote:

They are, or can be, the result of complex and careful theoretical work.

Many guesses are exactly that. Your problem, JL, is that you want to present your guesses as something more than guesses.

Quote:

I agree with you that "guesses" (or guesswork) has more the epistemological status of merely flipping a coin, of making an arbitrary choice between two options.

You can certainly do that if you want to...but that is nothing more than creating a strawman in this discussion. Often a guess is nothing more than a coin toss; SOMETIMES a guess is the result of a lot more than that.

As I said in my last post: An informed guess....is a guess.

Quote:

I once said something to this effect to Frank, but I don't remember his response, probably because it was clothed in abusive verbage.

I suspect it had less to do with my "abusive verbage"...than with you inability to deal with the truth. You simply do not want your guesses to be considered guesses.

What could I tell ya. You are stoneheaded.

0 Replies

Well, I thank you for reserving your abuse until the last word.
Remember, the quote I made once from Chas. Saunders Pierce about the nature of beliefs? I wonder where it is. JoefromChicago was involved. It makes my point for this discussion, but I'd hate to look it up and type it again. It shows that I agree that all "knowledge" is a matter of opnion. But since that is true of all knowledge, and not just "guesses", it is not something to disparage.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Well, I thank you for reserving your abuse until the last word.
Remember, the quote I made once from Chas. Saunders Pierce about the nature of beliefs? I wonder where it is. JoefromChicago was involved. It makes my point for this discussion, but I'd hate to look it up and type it again. It shows that I agree that all "knowledge" is a matter of opnion. But since that is true of all knowledge, and not just "guesses", it is not something to disparage.

If telling someone that I doubt he/she KNOWS the true nature of the Ultimate REALITY of existence....or that I doubt he/she KNOWS there is a God...or KNOWS there are no gods...

...is disparaging something....then I guess I am a disparaging person.

Frankly...I think I am being honest, logical, and realistic.

But I know you people who want to peddle the notion that you have special knowledge of REALITY...or about the existence or non-existence of God or gods...

...really have a tough time with those three items.

Hey...you gotta live your life the way you want.

0 Replies

Frank,I do not think of theories as guesses. To me, the term, theory, refers to the nomological level of a formal scientific proposition. It may have a tremendous amount of support and general acceptance--as in The Theory of Relativity. I think you are equating "theory" with "an untested hypothesis." Once a hypothesis has achieved much support (probably because it could not be falsified, as opposed to "proven") it advances toward the status of being an element of Theory, Scientific Law, or nomological principle. I think, therefore, of Theory as a logically integrated body of tested hypotheses and other observations--as in Evolutionary Theory.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank,I do not think of theories as guesses. To me, the term, theory, refers to the nomological level of a formal scientific proposition. It may have a tremendous amount of support and general acceptance--as in The Theory of Relativity. I think you are equating "theory" with "an untested hypothesis." Once a hypothesis has achieved much support (probably because it could not be falsified, as opposed to "proven") it advances toward the status of being an element of Theory, Scientific Law, or nomological principle. I think, therefore, of Theory as a logically integrated body of tested hypotheses and other observations--as in Evolutionary Theory.

If you want to think of Raheel insistence that he/she knows there is a God....and that it is a "theory"...in the same way as The Theory of Relativity or the Theory of Evolution....

...go right ahead.

The arguments from your side are getting more and more absurd as the desparation to salvage your position becomes increasingly untenable.

For a while...it was actually humorous.

It is getting to be a bit sad.

0 Replies

DITTO!

I didn't know Raheel was a theist. I was siding with points he made that had nothing to do with religious belief.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I didn't know Raheel was a theist.

Well...maybe he is not. I certainly do not know for sure.

But one of the things I have been questioning with Raheel is his (I'll stick with masculine pronouns unless Raheel tells me differently) statement that he is as certain of the exitence of God as he is of his own existence.

That can be interpreted in several ways...but considering the context (look back to the previous page)...it does appear he means to say that he is certain God exists.

That is the reason we are having this discussion, JL.

Quote:

I was siding with points he made that had nothing to do with religious belief.

I wasn't!

0 Replies

Kristie wrote:

Truth is in perception. Since we all perceive things differently there can be no "one truth".

exactly what i was going to reply with when i saw the topic

"is it half full or...." would be a good simplistic example, there can't be a common consensus on this topic, and if there were, we would all be programmed (worse then some already are) robots, but then again i could be wrong, according to who's reading this

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

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.

beg to defer, a stone to you, might be a boulder to me and vice versa, same with a pebble, or a grain of sand, size is perspective

Is truth subjective or objective?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know