Is truth subjective or objective?

ray: Why do you think so? Obviously we're in agreement, but I'm interested in knowing why you agree.
Sidenote: How do ethics have any kind of objective truth?

The following is a reaction to Ray's statement that "objective truth exists." I am claiming that truth statements about the nature of objective reality exist, but the statements are imperfect human artifacts rather than perfect reflections of Reality.
I don't know, and I don't think anybody knows--which is where I agree with Frank Apiso--but it seems to me that while Reality is objectively factual, it is, at its base (if that can be said) unfanthonable and inherently mysterious. Truth refers to the validity (relative to specific criteria) of our propositions about the nature of specific experiences of Reality. We know Reality "itself" directly only as pure, or immediate, experience. Truths, however, are propositions concerning our thoughts about the specifics of reality; truths are not properties OF reality, although they always claim to be so. Truths are indirect, "validated," claims ABOUT reality; experience is direct or immediate awareness OF reality--but such experiences are inherently mysterious to the intellect.
When I say that Reality is real I expect laughter from somewhere. I would even say that subjectivity is an objective fact--a reality in the world, and all of this discussion here is a subjective phenomenon.

El Murko

For the most part, I agree.

So, if I understood you correctly, you're going back to the jewel statement I think you made in another thread (I think to Frank), and that I made in here: Reality is completely objective, but we as perceivers look at this world through the refractory lens of a cut gem: Some people's may be clear-cut, others' murky, but we're all seeing the same thing, just in different ways.

g__day:
In a universe totally devoid of all human life, truth is a non-issue. "Truth" exists because humans, in their search for something higher than themselves to which they could aspire, coined the term. THe people in the world who believe that there is an "attainable truth" of some sort are taking responsibility for their existences and making this world (which must be here because we live in it) a better place to live. If truth exists only outside of the human experience why waste time with it? Peace out, do good deeds ("good" as in those wonderful little truths your mom taught you when you were little) and don't forget to vote on Tuesday....

john/nyc"s wife

It depends on the truth.

There is no debating truths like "All mothers have children." These are somplete properties and are objective.

The issue at hand here is the incomplete properties. The apple is red. Red is an incomplete property that has seemed to many throughout the centuries as in flux.

I believe that many of these incomplete properties are not objective but subjective. An Apple is not red by any means - it is only red to us (in fact we know through science that it is every color but red).

There are a certain amount of objective truths and a certain amount of subjective truths. None of these truths however, are relative.

Kristie, on page one, is arguing for stong and complete relativism. However, the truth that the relativists stand by is "All truths are relative." That however is a universal and objective truth - thus nullifying thier theory.

Also, I have yet to have a stong subjectivist argue on how 1+1= anything other than 2.

When you have reached a complete property you can claim objective truth.

SO in Kant's breakdown here we go.

Analytic A Priori - Objective Truth - All triangles have 3 sides.

Synthetic A priori - Mostly Objective.

Synthetic A Posteriori - Mostly Subjective.

Synthetic A Priori - Nothing - there is no such thing.

TTF

thethinkfactory....thank you for the
example of the apple which makes the discussion a lot more understandable for non-philosophers like myself....

I would say that the apple is a fruit......true
the apple is red....not true
the apple is round or spherical....not true either...

The latter are merely convenient semantic
classifications.

I am the only one to have voted subjective. My vote was based on the assumption that the repository of all knowledge, thought, and language has been recorded by man (women too!). (I can't vouch for extra-terrestials!!!!!)

also....one plus one often makes three!

copied this in from the "Truth and Language" thread, as it seems to apply here:

"Truth" is subjective; but "The Truth" is not.

[but 'the truth' is unknowable, due to subjectivity!]

BoGoWo: Elegantly put. Glad we're on the same wavelength here.

Shepaints: Ummm...what? 1+1=...3?!! Please explain. All knowledge has been recorded by humans(that we know of) but that doesn't change the fact that this truth exists. To use a popular Matrix-like example: We might all be brains in a jar, with scientists manipulating our senses to make us believe we're typing at this keyboard, in which case this keyboard wouldn't be real...but the "true" reality of the scientists is real. Just because we cannot perceive the truth doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist.

Taliiesin181....I am trying (without the benefit
of a philosopher's vocabulary) to suggest that all truths described and recorded by humans are subject to human error with regards to inaccuracies in description, measurement, language etc. This in my view makes truth subjective.

1+1=3 is basic reproduction.

Taliesin, could you tell me difference between typing at your keyboard and being a brain manipulated to think he is typing a keyboard (but not knowing he is manipulated) ? I mean, the difference from the point of view of the one who types or think he types the keyboard.
I say this, because I dont see from the point of view of our experience any difference. The difference would only exist for someone that could look at the situation from the "outside". But in our experience there is no "outside". We are inside our experience, we are our experience.

Semantic games will not save your relativism Shepaints - you will be assimilated.

I agree mostly with BoGoWo:

Truth is (mostly) subjective - but THE truth is objective.

I do believe that certain types of knowledge 'I think therefore I am' - 'All triangles have 3 sides.' is a type of knowledge that we have that aligns with THE truth. Thus, when truth aligns with THE truth it is objective.

This, is Aristotles definition of the truth 'To say that which is and it is - is the truth'. Thus Correspondence equals the truth.

However, often we, as humans, only get part of the picture and we state a truth seeing that partial picture that SEEMS to be contrary to another partial truth and truth seems to be subjective.

I submit that when humans chance upon and entire truth it leaves the realm of subjective and become inclusively objective.

(The Buddhist Elephant Parable is timely here)

I want to make sure what we are not equating here. Subjective - does NOT mean relative. I think people in this thread have stated subjective as if it means relative. Relative truths are that the 'Man makes the truth.' Subjective truths are 'Truth as the man sees it.' Thus in subjective truth it takes into account the subjects relation to the truth - but does not say that they only truth is what the person decides it is.

TTF

TTF says :"Shepaints - you will be assimilated."

God, that sounds scary!!!!!!

The truth is not scary Shepaints...

I am kidding. Mostly it is a joke based on a frustration of what I do for a living. I am a philosophy professor in Texas. You want to meet a group of closed minded rebels - come to Texas and try to teach them philosophy.

Anyway, most of them are in the process of rejecting religion and have wholeheartedly embraced relativism or 'the lazy man's truth'. I have come to love this siphistic position and battle it daily. I often tell my students that they will be assimilated.

Gosh, its early in Hollywood - why are you up so early? Going to vote?

TTF

Hollywood North is a nickname for Toronto TTF
since so many movies are made here.....


Why did you have to come up with such a convincing argument?

So no voting then?

Because they (for the most part) have not questioned the reality around them in any serious way. Essentially all that they have said is - I don't like my parents way of view so I will pick a way around it. Relativism is quite often that path - but it is sloppy and in my opinion completely invalid. Thus I hammer them every day. <sigh>

TTF

TTF....in a hurry, so I will do a bit of nitpicking
before I try to get to grips with what you are saying...

I am just asserting that language is imprecise
and as we think in language, we may be off the
mark when we try to arrive at any truth. Also,
what we know as true today, may very well
change in the next nanosecond...

For imprecise language, think of "triangle"....I
assume it literally means " 3 angles"....but there are 6 angles if you count the angles measured on
the outside.... .

I wish the other person who voted "subjective"
would jump in and help me out!....!!

I kinda look at this from a semi-platonic view. To me objective reality consists of objects whether we are aware of it or not. Now these objects are particles joining together and forming properties that only creatures with reason and senses can be aware of. Thus the properties that we sense and are aware of do in fact exist. It's just that we are aware of it.
Undestand?

And objective ethics do exist, I"l explain my view in a short while.

Val: while I agree that there's no difference from our perspective, I also think that since that brain made to believe it's typing could be unplugged at any minute, that does matter.

So if you thought you were a puppy dog, you would be a puppy dog? I think not. To you, maybe, but from an objective(hint, hint) standpoint, no. This is why I think that truth is objective; because no matter how delusional someone might get, there's always someone on the outside who knows what's actually real.
In essence: Just because we see something doesn't make it real. It has to be real to be real. (I know that's a confusing statement, but it's the best I can do.)
Shepaints: Resistance is futile! On topic, I don't believe in Existentialism, but Relativism has a point. However, it's not the whole truth: Yes, as far as we're concerned, the truth is only in what we perceive. Nevertheless, "there's more in heaven or earth..." than we know, and that's truth.