Is truth subjective or objective?

fresco wrote:

Since this thread seems to be running round in circles heres a potentional circle for you Frank.

If as you say "truth is a definitional thing", and since all definitions rely on on words which themselves need defining, where do you go from there ?

You can't appeal to "facts" because you seem agree that "perception" filters them and "perception may be wrong". But what does "wrong" mean other than appeal to consensus ! The step taken by Husserl and other philosophers at this point is to say forget about "facts" ....all we will ever have is perception and its fickle allegience to vested interests, shared or otherwise. This leap is similar to the rejection of "the ether" in physics as an absolute frame of reference (which was Newtons vested interest). All becomes relative to the observer's vantage point and its associated (social) history.

Actually...I did not say truth is a definitional thing...I said "the truth is the truth" is a definitional thing. Earlier, I called it a tautology...and I probably should have stuck with that.

Quote:

Of course, to concede the point you might have to re-examine your own vested interest in the word "guess".... :wink:

I will concede the points you made...and I don't think I have to "re-examine" any "vested interest" I have in the word "guess"...

...probably because I do not have a vested interest in the word "guess." :wink:

0 Replies

Thanks for a provocative post, Fresco.

I distinguish Truth from Reality in the following way: Reality is the word I use for that which exists in the ultimate sense (in this sense all terms like "exist" and "non-existence" are limited and problematical). To me "Reality" denotes the human and extra-human situation and is, for that reason, a mysterious ?. We can only know a portion of Reality as it is immediately expressed in our nature (after all, we are not outside of Reality). Hence the appeal to me of mysticism as the only "religious" method available to humans. Truth, on the other hand, is always, and only, human truth. It pertains to "knowledge" in human cognitive/linguistic terms and human interests and efforts. This universe of ideas, (e.g., theories, mythologies, methods and logical and mathematical formulae for doing..., etc.) both enables us and constrains us, metaphysically speaking. But in our efforts to achieve truths our inventory of "knowledlge" cannot go beyond its inherent boundaries (even if we can expand them) to grasp extra-linguistic non-human Reality.
Now when I argue for non-dualism, I am not saying that by means of a non-dualistic framework we can escape or transcend the boundries described above. Dualism and non-dualism are both competent for complementary tasks. I am behaving dualistically right now, but when I stop my thinking and simply (pre-reflectively) observe the phenomenon of this moment I am behaving non-dualistically. We humans cannot avoid doing both. My complaint is that most of us, due to our cultural conditioning, only recognize our dualistic bent and therefore starve our life experience of its concrete and sensuous immediacy, the source of its flavor or joy. And it is only through non-dualistic observation (an aspect of Eastern meditative practices) that we "realize" or sense (but do not cognitively "know") our portion of Reality. Most of us, however, would gladly spend our lives in the intellectual pursuit of abstract Truth, without any epistemological concern for the nature of that pursuit.

-edited twice 2:30 and 4:20 PM, 1-16-05

0 Replies

JLN,

Yes - the mode of non-dualistic "being" is indeed a transcendent vantage point in the sense that "vested interests" are made transparent. If such a made constitutes "reality" then it is indeed "mystical" and ineffable. Your move from "realize" to "reality" is a nice one !

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

raheel wrote:
like i said i've proved it to myself through logical thinking but i do not want to get into that too much. if you feel that God does not exist can i ask why. if you can give me a point for why God cannot exist i will see if i can prove to you that God can exist despite of it.

1) I am an agnostic. I do not know if God is exists....I do not know if there are no gods....and I do not see anywhere near enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess in either direction.

2) You claim you have "proved" to yourself that a god exists through logical thinking.

I am very skeptical that you have done this...and I am guessing that you do not KNOW that god exists...but that you don't have the make-up to simply acknowledge that you do not know.

I think you are just guessing.

If you would like to discuss this...I am more than willing to do so. If you choose to avoid doing so...I will understand.

when you say you 'think...' you are not absolutely correct- right?
you are just guessing- and you could be wrong.
how dare you say that i am just lying and that i don't have a clue- ok you didn't say that but it is implied. you are the one who isn't open to anyone elses thoughts- not me!

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
raheel wrote:
like i said i've proved it to myself through logical thinking but i do not want to get into that too much. if you feel that God does not exist can i ask why. if you can give me a point for why God cannot exist i will see if i can prove to you that God can exist despite of it.

1) I am an agnostic. I do not know if God is exists....I do not know if there are no gods....and I do not see anywhere near enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess in either direction.

2) You claim you have "proved" to yourself that a god exists through logical thinking.

I am very skeptical that you have done this...and I am guessing that you do not KNOW that god exists...but that you don't have the make-up to simply acknowledge that you do not know.

I think you are just guessing.

If you would like to discuss this...I am more than willing to do so. If you choose to avoid doing so...I will understand.

when you say you 'think...' you are not absolutely correct- right?

No...I am not absolutely correct when I say "I think something."

Nor am I suggesting that I am absolutely correct in that instance.

I leave that kind of nonsense to people like you...who assert that when they GUESS something...they KNOW it.

Quote:

you are just guessing- and you could be wrong.

That is correct.

And everything indicates that your are just guessing about the REALITY of existence....and you could be wrong.

Everything indicates that you are guessing there is a god...AND YOU COULD BE WRONG IN THAT GUESS.

But you want to pretend that you KNOW there is a god.

And then you want to give other people lectures against doing exactly what you are doing....even though you are giving that lecture to me...and I am NOT doing that.

Quote:

How dare you say that i am just lying and that i don't have a clue- ok you didn't say that but it is implied.

Where the f**k do you get off pretending I said something that I did NOT say...and then expressing indignation at what you made up!!!!

Quote:

you are the one who isn't open to anyone elses thoughts- not me!

That is on of the most distorted comments I've ever read in this forum

Wake up!

0 Replies

Nobody

"Reality is the word for what exists in the ultimate sense".
But, what ultimate sense?
A stone is real? Yes, if we assume that it's reality is the interaction with us. In our world of experience a stone exists as a stone. I don't know what is to be a stone, I mean, I ignore the "Sein" - the being - of a stone. I only know the stone configured by my senses, my mind, my language - mine and also from the greatest part of other human beings.
Now, you speak about existence in the ultimate sense. I would like to understand it better: does that mean that, stone, Val, Nobody, are nothing but manifestations of a deep Reality, a Totality like in Hegel? Or are those entities, the stone, Nobody, Val, "ghosts" of an ultimate Reality, like in Plato?
Or do you mean that we are captives of our own minds, unable to get out of our reasoning?
Sorry for insisting again in those questions, but I would like to understand better your idea.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

raheel wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
raheel wrote:
like i said i've proved it to myself through logical thinking but i do not want to get into that too much. if you feel that God does not exist can i ask why. if you can give me a point for why God cannot exist i will see if i can prove to you that God can exist despite of it.

1) I am an agnostic. I do not know if God is exists....I do not know if there are no gods....and I do not see anywhere near enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess in either direction.

2) You claim you have "proved" to yourself that a god exists through logical thinking.

I am very skeptical that you have done this...and I am guessing that you do not KNOW that god exists...but that you don't have the make-up to simply acknowledge that you do not know.

I think you are just guessing.

If you would like to discuss this...I am more than willing to do so. If you choose to avoid doing so...I will understand.

when you say you 'think...' you are not absolutely correct- right?

No...I am not absolutely correct when I say "I think something."

Nor am I suggesting that I am absolutely correct in that instance.

I leave that kind of nonsense to people like you...who assert that when they GUESS something...they KNOW it.

Quote:
you are just guessing- and you could be wrong.

That is correct.

And everything indicates that your are just guessing about the REALITY of existence....and you could be wrong.

Everything indicates that you are guessing there is a god...AND YOU COULD BE WRONG IN THAT GUESS.

But you want to pretend that you KNOW there is a god.

And then you want to give other people lectures against doing exactly what you are doing....even though you are giving that lecture to me...and I am NOT doing that.

Quote:
How dare you say that i am just lying and that i don't have a clue- ok you didn't say that but it is implied.

Where the f**k do you get off pretending I said something that I did NOT say...and then expressing indignation at what you made up!!!!

Quote:
you are the one who isn't open to anyone elses thoughts- not me!

That is on of the most distorted comments I've ever read in this forum

Wake up!

ok even if i am guessing about the existence of God, i have no reasn to doubt it as far as i can see. i have already invited you to give me a reason to doubt the existence of God if there is any. there is a big difference in my guess and yours. mine has been thought over yours is just that- a stupid insignificant guess.

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

ok even if i am guessing about the existence of God,

Now we are getting somewhere.

Quote:

i have no reasn to doubt it as far as i can see.

Since you are making a guess...and since you say you have no reason to doubt your guess...then apparently you simply are not very bright.

A guess is a guess...and any guess should have some doubt about it to anyone with any intelligence.

Quote:

i have already invited you to give me a reason to doubt the existence of God if there is any. there is a big difference in my guess and yours. mine has been thought over yours is just that- a stupid insignificant guess.

Mine is not a guess, Raheel.

Why don't you read what I write rather than keeping your head up your ass.

If you did read what I have already written...you would see that on several occasions I have said...

I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD...

I ALSO DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE NO GODS...

AND I DO NOT SEE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE A GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION.

I AM NOT MAKING A GUESS THAT THERE IS A GOD...

...AND I AM NOT MAKING A GUESS THAT THERE ARE NO GODS.

Do you finally get that?

Can you open your mind long enough to let those few sentences get through before you close it tightly shut again????

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

2) You claim you have "proved" to yourself that a god exists through logical thinking.

I am very skeptical that you have done this...
I think you are just guessing.

If you would like to discuss this...I am more than willing to do so. If you choose to avoid doing so...I will understand.

i don't think you understand. i was saying that the statement you made above was stupid. i was angry as you presume that i have not proved the existence of God to myself when i have. your statement about you not knowing whether God exists is valid and i am not calling it insignificant. i have already asked you to give me a reason to doubt my 'guess'. untill then i will stick with it.

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

2) You claim you have "proved" to yourself that a god exists through logical thinking.

I am very skeptical that you have done this...
I think you are just guessing.

If you would like to discuss this...I am more than willing to do so. If you choose to avoid doing so...I will understand.

i don't think you understand. i was saying that the statement you made above was stupid. i was angry as you presume that i have not proved the existence of God to myself when i have. your statement about you not knowing whether God exists is valid and i am not calling it insignificant. i have already asked you to give me a reason to doubt my 'guess'. untill then i will stick with it.

No problem with that. It certainly is your right.

If at some time you would like to share with us what you consider to be "proof of the existence of God"...

...I'd certainly like to hear it.

But every time I have asked anyone who insists they have "proved" the exitence of God...in general, or to themselves....I seldom get anything of substance. Mostly, I get a refusal to actually discuss it...cloaked in claims that I simply would not understand it. At other times, I get personal revelation stuff..."God spoke to me!" But mostly what I get is gibberish.

Perhaps this will be different.

If you would like to share...I would like to listen and discuss.

0 Replies

finally! a positive response from frank! of course i would like to share but i can't at the moment as i am revising for chemistry exam (tomorrow)! i will definitely take you up on your offer. can you tell me why you are agnostic- what i mean is why are you not definite that God does not exist or that he does- what makes you unsure (apart from the fact that either way you may be wrong). is it that you do not like being wrong and therefore do not want to take a 'guess' which may end up being wronmg.

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

finally! a positive response from frank! of course i would like to share but i can't at the moment as i am revising for chemistry exam (tomorrow)! i will definitely take you up on your offer. can you tell me why you are agnostic- what i mean is why are you not definite that God does not exist or that he does- what makes you unsure (apart from the fact that either way you may be wrong). is it that you do not like being wrong and therefore do not want to take a 'guess' which may end up being wronmg.

I just don't like to make guesses that are inappropriate.

People who do sometimes get seduced by them...and before long, they start presenting their inappropriate guesses as "I know...". :wink: :wink:

I simply want to avoid that.

AND...I prefer to tell the truth!

If the truth is that I do not know...and do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a guess...

..then I think it is both more truthful and more honorable to decline to guess....than to guess.

Anxiously awaiting your future posts on what "proved" God exists to you.

Good luck with your tests.

0 Replies

thanks- i need it- AS chemistry: my worst enemy!

so you like to tell the truth- and that is that you do not know.
well indeed that is the same as eveyone no one knows that God exists.

before i state what it is that made me sure of Gods existence i should tel you that i was brought up as a muslim and so to me God was as real as everything else. i never doubted Gods existence.
i have always believed in God. i have always had a spiritual belief of God- but the only problem i had was of finding a way to prove it. not to prove it to myself- because i believe in God no matter what- but to other people like you. eventhough i believed in God so much i questioned myself- why?

i did some think and researching and found something called the cosmological argument. it can be shown as three premises which go something like this:

P1: everything that moves/exists is moved/caused into existence by something else something

P2: you cannot have an infinite regress of movement/causes

P3: there must have been an initial mover/ cause which was not moved/caused- God

after thoroughly reading through the cosmological argument i realised that it had one major flaw- its jumped to the conclusion of God. why did this thing that moved everything else have to be God. it could be anything.
then i found another version of the argument called the Kalam cosmological argument. it is basically the same but in the end it states:

there must have been something which caused the universe but had no cause. the universe either came into existence or it didn't- mathematically these two are the only possibilities. the thing could not have been governed by the laws of the universe as they did not exist then. the choice between the universe existing or not must have been made by something capable of making choices- this is what we call a personal being. this is what i call God.
i realise that this does not prove the existence of the God of Classical Theism but it definitely proves the existence of a God.
i have thought of many other arguments but i will not mention them all at once.
what do you think of the argument- what flaws does it have?

0 Replies

Raheel,

Forget AS Chemistry ! Even physicists who believe in God now say there is no requirement for a "prime mover" and they certainly see "causality" as merely psychological construct. (Reference Recent BBC Programme on Belief).

Why not accept that you are a muslim merely by accident of birth and have therefore inherited a particular social reality in which "God" is a requirement ? I put it to you that you cannot even entertain this thought because of the fear of repercussions. Instead I expect you would rather classify me as anything from "misguided" to "the Devil".

The point is that "knowledge" is never neutral, absolute or objective. It fulfils particular cognitive and social needs, and unfortunately theists have an abysmal reputation in trying to suppress the natural expression of such needs.

0 Replies

don't worry- i don't think your the devil!

what is this about no need for a prime mover? ireally do not want a reply with a lot of physics just a simplified explanation.

as for me believing in God because i was brought up to do so- this could not be more wrong. i am a muslim by choice.

if i didn't believe in God i wouldn't care what my parents thought i would call myself an athiest and stop going to the mosque..

i think you have this image of me as doing what i have been brought up to do- but i do what i think is right. i follow islam through my own accord. why would i waste my life believing in something out of fear that if i went against it i would have to face my family?

have you not heard of converts. do they believe in God because of their social reality.

there are muslim women in my family who are not made to wear the burkha by their parents but chooe to wear it- why? why do they not just do what is required- no they believe and follow Islam of their own accord.

0 Replies

raheel wrote:

thanks- i need it- AS chemistry: my worst enemy!

so you like to tell the truth- and that is that you do not know.
well indeed that is the same as eveyone no one knows that God exists.

No, Raheel...tell me we are not going to get into that nonsense again.

You are guessing that a god exists, remember.

We are going to discuss why you are guessing that way.

Quote:

before i state what it is that made me sure of Gods existence i should tel you that i was brought up as a muslim and so to me God was as real as everything else. i never doubted Gods existence.
i have always believed in God. i have always had a spiritual belief of God- but the only problem i had was of finding a way to prove it. not to prove it to myself- because i believe in God no matter what- but to other people like you. eventhough i believed in God so much i questioned myself- why?

Yes...I can see that you "believe" it...which is the same as saying that you "guess" it to be so.

Quote:

i did some think and researching and found something called the cosmological argument. it can be shown as three premises which go something like this:

P1: everything that moves/exists is moved/caused into existence by something else something

P2: you cannot have an infinite regress of movement/causes

P3: there must have been an initial mover/ cause which was not moved/caused- God

Well...it sounds to me as though what you found was the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas...which actually presents 5 arguments...presented, as "proofs of the existence of God."

Quote:

...after thoroughly reading through the cosmological argument i realised that it had one major flaw- its jumped to the conclusion of God. why did this thing that moved everything else have to be God. it could be anything.

Well...it has more than one flaw....but certainly the major flaw was that each of the arguments ends up with a variation of "....and this first cause/movement/existence...we all acknowledge to be God."

It was a terrible argument...and most modern day philosophers discount it as a "proof" of any sort.

Quote:

...then i found another version of the argument called the Kalam cosmological argument. it is basically the same but in the end it states:

there must have been something which caused the universe but had no cause.

Aha....but that simply is not so.

That is a faulty premise...an unsubstantiated premise...a gratuitous premise thrown in there just so that the conclusion the person wants to reach...makes sense. The conclusion, in effect, is not the result of the thinking....but rather, the thinking is the result of the conclusion.

But since you were so convinced that there is a god before you encountered the argument...naturally you bought into it.

There is absolutely NO REASON WHATEVER to suppose "...there must have been something which caused the universe but had no cause." You...or the person making this argument, has offered nothing in substantiation of that premise.

That, in fact, is one of the other flaws that I mentioned about Aquinas' arguments.

But let's go on.

Quote:

.... the universe either came into existence or it didn't- mathematically these two are the only possibilities.

That is correct. Either it came into existence...or it existed forever.

Why choose one over the other...except that it helps make the point that you are determined to make? To assert that the former is correct and the latter is incorrect...is a false premise...an unestablished premise. It is pulled out of the thin air.

In effect...any conclusion derived from it is not the result of the "reasoning", but rather, the "reasoning" is the result of the conclusion desired.

But lets go on.

Quote:

the thing could not have been governed by the laws of the universe as they did not exist then. the choice between the universe existing or not must have been made by something capable of making choices- this is what we call a personal being. this is what i call God.
i realise that this does not prove the existence of the God of Classical Theism but it definitely proves the existence of a God.

It does not come any closer to proving the existence of a god than does Aquinas' work...and Aquinas's work doesn't even come close to proving the existence of a god.

Respectfully, Raheel, you are left with nothing more than a guess.

Quote:

i have thought of many other arguments but i will not mention them all at once.

I hope so...because so far...NOTHING.

Quote:

what do you think of the argument- what flaws does it have?

I think that has been answered.

0 Replies

Raheel,

<<what is this about no need for a prime mover? ireally do not want a reply with a lot of physics just a simplified explanation >>

There is no SIMPLE answer..... a SIMPLISTIC answer is "God did it." Your admitted need for such an answer would ring alarm bells in the mind of any historian !

According to Polkinghorn, (Oxford physicist and Christian cleric) his faith in a "God" now rests mainly on the need to account for "morality", not the "origins" of the universe. This is because "time" and "causality" have ceased to meaningful in cosmological or subatomic terms. It follows that perhaps you should evaluate your Islamic faith in terms of its particular "moral" tenets, and here I think you would run into major problems with respect to competing views on morality whether secular or religious.

0 Replies

Val, sorry not to have responded earlier; my computer is giving me trouble (or I'm giving it trouble). You ask me in what sense I refer to "Reality" as the ultimate sense of the "existence" of all phenomena. And you give me some interesting options. Let me dismiss the Platonic "ghost" interpretation first. I don't think the shadows in Plato's cave are any less real that what is outside of it. They simply represent a different perspective on Reality which consists "ultimately" of what's inside and outside the cave. I DO mean that "we are captives of our own minds, unable to get out of our reasoning." By this I understand our inability to cognize Reality because of the limitations of our nervous systems and cognitive inventory as well as our cultural committments to the grammar of thought. We CAN, I believe, "realize" ultimate reality non-cognitively because we are expressions of it. This involves mystical self-knowledge, the achievement of an immediate intuitive (non-intellectual) sense of how we work (not the mechanics and whys, just a phenomenological awareness of our nature in process--not a form of cognitive knowing). In this way we realize our oneness with the "Ultimate Reality". Val, Nobody and the stone are both three and one, expressions of Reality. And we are" real" in many senses. We are what we see in the mode of Naive Realism (where we appear to be three); we are what we understand as molecular organizations; we are also fields of atomic energy; and we are processes of sub-atomic activity, and who knows what more? I don't know on what basis I could say that any of these modes is more real than the other. I think epistemological Naive Realism is a problem only when we fail to recognize its relativism, when we fail to realize it is only one of an indefinite range of perspectives on Reality.
This is all just sloppy mind play, of course. I cannot KNOW with any certainty that I am even scratching the surface of absolute sense. Here I agree with Frank. But I FEEL that there is validity in what I'm proposing if we keep in mind that it is just my perspective, the way I organize all sorts of clear and fuzzy information. Ultimate Reality is itself a mystery, and I think it will always be so "COGNITIVELY SPEAKING." But my feeling of breathing, the taste of salt, the cold sensation of ice, etc. are Reality and sensually non-mysterious--and they are me (as well as you and the stone).

0 Replies

Frank- maybe you are right and i did overlook some of the flaws of the argument. but your comment on the possibilities about the existence or non-existence of the universe are misunderstood. the universe is not infinite. it did have a beginning- the Big Bang. is it not impossible to have an infinite universe?

0 Replies

raheel

Your argument about a primal cause is known, as you said, as "cosmological argument" and was established by Aquinas - an adaptation of a former argument from Aristotle.

In my point of view, its weakness results of the fact that it assumes as obvious principles, two ideas that are not obvious at all.
First, that everything results from a previous cause. Second, that all movement supposes a mover.
About the first postulate, causes are not empirical facts. Causes are mental connections, as result of the fact that we can only perceive things in certain conditions of space and time. In fact we only experience events, not a causal relation between them.
In my opinion the falacy of the cosmologic argument results on the fact that we look to the past, as a sequency of linear events, without thinking that that sequency only makes sense because we are the referent: we look to what happened as if it was inevitable, but that only because we only see the events that happened. That doesn't mean that, from the initial conditions of any given system, an undetermined number of possibilities could have occured.
There is no need for a primal cause that is not contigent. What you need is to define what are the initial conditions of any system.

About movement. The argument reposes on Aristotle's Physic. That physic cannot be accepted today. According to it, the natural state of an entity is the immobility. That because Aristotle ignored inertia and gravitational forces.

0 Replies

Is truth subjective or objective?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know