Is truth subjective or objective?

hey don't backchat about me! :wink:

i will make my point..

i could go on to your ears, nose mouth...

but its basically the same- all these parts of the body function to allow certain tasks.

what controls all the functions of these parts (the eye to see, the ear to hear...)

Raheel,

The word "control" implies aim or purpose. It is a cognitive disposition of homo sapiens to "predict and control", i.e. to find patterns or "causes". By begging the question of a simplistic "something in control of everything" you are merely evoking a deity in the image of a man "the would be controler".

Philosophical understanding as opposed to dogma comes when you can see this question begging for what it is.

Raheel, you ask: "what controls all the functions of these parts (the eye to see, the ear to hear...)."
One doesn't need an intelligent designer to control such functions. The organs' forms control the functions, i.e., eyes see because of the way they are structured. There's the old saying "functions are what structures do".
And how do the structures, the forms, come into existence? Well, we do not need to resort to teleology. Natural selection does the job better than any other explanation.

I honestly do not know how to respond to what may or may not be a question here, Raheel...but I no longer want to play this game.

If you have a point to make...make it...and I will respond.

If you are just testing how many questions you can ask me without ever getting to a specific point...you now know, because I am not anwering any other questions until you make whatever point you intend to make.

do you agree that the answer is the brain?

i needed you to answer this question, cause- knowing you- you will probably say that how can i know its the brain...

any way the point is the brain controls the structure and functioning of the parts of our body.

then how is it that the entire systematic and organized Universe could be functioning without the guidance of a Supreme Intelligence or Mind?

Raheel,

So the recent Tsunami was an act of "Supreme Intelligence" ?

The evidence that the brain is functioning the way you suggest it is...seems overwhelming.

I will agree that the brain is the organ in the body that allows me to use my hands, feet, ears and eyes.




Okay.




What the hell does one have to do with the other?????

In any case...if the question is: "How does the universe function?"...


I would respond by observing that science is working diligently in an attempt to answer that question by investigation.

But to suppose that because a human body operates by having a brain control its functions (if that indeed is the case)...the only way the universe can function is by having a brain control its functions...

...is illogical; gratuitous; over-reaching; unjustified; unreasonable; irrational; unsound and self-serving.

Frank wrote:


That's a bit too hostile, Frank, but I'm assuming you were just frustrated by the use of the Socratic method. I know I wanted to throttle my copy of The Republic for that.

That being said, you were still right. Raheel: We as humans have brains because we're living organisms of a certain evolutionary level...the universe is a collection of mostly empty space with a few rocks scattered throughout. I'm failing to see how you made this jump. Maybe you could try again? I'm sure there's a cogent point you're trying to make, but I'm not hearing it. Thanks.

It's putting a hell of a strain on my thesaurus also. :wink:

I will listen to whatever Raheel responds to what I said...and to what you said....but if he makes an argument that substantiates any part of what he is trying to shoehorn in here....I will be one surprised individual.

Frank wrote:


I don't know, I think Raheel's just taking his time. I doubt he can convince us to his POV, but I suppose we'll find out, won't we? Good luck!

I am really late on this one, with a grand 39 pages. Will someone give me the Cliff Notes on this?

Back to the topic question, there are very few things that are completely black and white. Most things are a complete grey area. Popular opinion rules, right or wrong. I would say wrong, in many cases, but that is really how it works.

Someone, please catch me up, so I don't have to read 39 pages!!

I appreciate the tone of Taliesin's comments. I makes for communication.

basically, the argument has now turned to what we can percieve as the truth-

how can we know something is true, usually they are just guesses

now i am trying to convince frank on how i know God exists

Raheel, let me ask you on what basis we can KNOW that YOU exist. I cannot imagine a satisfactory proof in terms of deductions from "first principles." I would need some experience of you. I would also require some experience of God before I can believe in him/her/it. This experience might, in theory, be a "visitation" (an inter-personal revelation), or it might be a mystical realization of one's unity with the totality, the ground of one's particular being. For the former I think one would be waiting forever; for the latter, the mystical realization, there is the greater possibility. There's a saying: "Mystics lack the patience to await God's revelation." It's a question of realization vesus revelation.

beautiful......

check out

Frederick H. Varley
Dhãrãna (c. 1932)
Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto

http://national.gallery.ca/english/default_1607.htm

What a beautiful work. Thanks, Shepaints.

I love this definition:

........Dhârâna (the Hindu term signifies a state of meditation in which the mind looks into the soul),

Here's a dramatic revelation: (click on the picture for better viewing)...

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/c/caravagg/05/29ceras.html

Look at the Caravaggio as an abstract painting, the composition, the positive and negative shapes, the rhythms, and so forth. It's georgeous upside down as well as rightside up. He's one of my favorite painters of all time.

At the risk of repeating something which has been said in this thread:

I think there are many ways to define objectivity. One is that a statement is objectively true if it is possible to prove or provide evidence for it. I think it is obvious that all knowledge is based on irrational assumptions or logical derivations of those assumptions. You can only prove or provide evidence for a claim given certain irrational assumptions. According to this definition, truth is not objective.

Another is that objective truth is truth which exists independent of one's mind. It seems like this has to be the case unless you think our minds dream up our experiences. According to this definition, truth is objective.

Another is that objective truth is true for everyone: if two people see the world differently, then one or both of them is wrong. If truth is independent of one's mind, then it seems that there is truth which is true for everyone. According to this definition, truth is objective as well.

Of course, we have no logical reason to believe that our minds do not dream up or experiences, or that all people exist in the same world. But there is nothing logically wrong with making these assumptions, and nothing which makes not assuming these things logically superior to assuming them. Since I assume them (and for some other reasons), I think there is objective truth, objective defined by the second two definitions.

Again, we have no logical reason to believe that morality does not change with someone's mind, or that morality's properties change in different places/times, or that morality is truth. But again, it makes just as much sense to make these assumptions as it does not to. I make them, so I think morality is objective (using the second two definitions).

Then there is the question of how we can know something is true. If our minds don't make something true, and logical evidence doesn't, how do we know if something is really true or just a creation of our minds? In other words, what is the standard we should use to determine whether something is true? The answer is simple: mine. If I really believe something, then I must believe I believe it for good reasons, and I must believe my standard is the objectively correct standard to use for finding truth. The problem with this is that other people might not agree with my standard, especially because I have no logical evidence that it is the right one. The answer to the problem is that people in generally share general intuitions about what is correct - it is possible to use these to convince others of our positions. Furthermore, much truth which is debated (for example in politics, economics, and society) is about logical evidence - for example, does the minimum wage increase or decrease unemployment.

Re: Is truth subjective or objective?


I firmly believe that the truth is 'something that the majorty agrees upon.' Do you remember the Heliocentric theory. Wasn't that theory deemed a fact. It was even written in the Bible that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was the truth, no lie... until Galelao proves that the Sun is, in fact, in the center. Now we deem that to be "the truth."

Another example, in the Court of Law. The jury rules in favor of, lets say -- hypothetically - they rule in favor for the defendant. The juries verdict becomes "the truth." Thus the defendant's charges are dropped, etcetera.

But, as we all know... not all the defendants are "innocent." That makes the juries 'truth' false...does it?

In sum: The truth is a majority opinion.