Is truth subjective or objective?

Hmmm, maybe...I'll think on it, but my initial response would be that..... yes, you could develop something that we could all agree to call "the objective truth" for a given situation, but it would actually be only an approximation of the most relevant details of the REAL objective truth.

I think it would be dangerously misleading to label ANYTHING as objectively true.

If I spent another 10 seconds looking for my shoes and then I got in my car and had an accident you could you say my lost shoes were the real cause?

Eorl, excellent point about causality. If we consider the distinction between necessary and efficient causation, we might conclude that your most immediate actions before the accident (or that of the other driver) consititue the immediate cause, but that everything in your life leading you to that place at that time were also necessary, we see the web of causality as too vast to manage. That, I think, is why we often prefer to ascribe blame rather than cause in such situations (I'm only half serious about that). But ULTIMATELY everything is caused by everything and that is because, to use the mystic's mantra, "all is one" (or the one is all).

Well yes.....the final game and a player scores the winning goal or touchdown.....but it all begins with the selection of the players during tryouts (and their particular histories)...then each and every incremental play of the team mates through the whole season that leads (or not) to the final victory.

shealsolikessports

6,287 posts and we still don't have an answer? LOL

Yes, SP.

I suppose what I'm proposing (probably not original) is that there is only one objective truth for everything, and that includes all the information in the universe.

All other truths are therefore subjective.

Eorl, as I said at the beginning of this thread (if I recall correctly), we should make a distinction between truth and reality. Reality is what is. It's ultimate nature is no doubt beyond our intellectual grasp, but we can experience OUR portion of it, in our every sensation, thought, etc. We are part of reality. Truth is a quality of our intellectual propositions about the nature of aspects of reality. Now, is it a subjective or objective fact that my claims above are the truth? I don't know with certainty because there is no way to "settle" the matter, except tentatively by subjective and intersubjective discourse. And that is an objective fact.

I'm a bit new to this whole way of looking at truth JL but it still seems to me that declaring all truth to be subjective (except for the one whole truth, "reality" if you will), it would help to be conciously aware of the various levels of subjectivity involved.

To give an example, when you watch a film like Farenheit 9/11, yes you presume you are getting the truth of the situations presented.

Amoung viewers responses are:

The pro view "the truth is finally told",

The con view "the truth has been edited and twisted to bias my conclusions" ,

or by realising all truth is subjective, there is a new outlook possible "Yes, we are seeing the truth from this man's perspective and even having seen it my perspective of the entire situation is still different from the guy who sat beside me"

What do you think?

I suppose what you are saying is that there are fundamental truths to the universe that we should accept as objectively true until proven otherwise such as 1+1=2 or E=MCsqd ?

Val


This is a point I thought would have gained ground rather early in the postings. Truth, I believe, is absent without a reference, a corresponding reference. Truths are true in virtue of the fact that they stand in some sort of relation--recognition, correspondence, or identification--to something known as a 'fact'. In sum: truth is the indentification of a fact of reality; hence its objectivity.

--Ibn

Good points, Ibn, Val, and Eorl. I am just trying advance the notion that all truth consists of propositions about aspects of reality. My notion of Ultimate Reality, about a totality, as Val noted, IS no more than an expression of faith. It is virtually a religious notion (like the idea of a total cosmos). I grant that, and as such I just assert it to be so; I do not argue for it, since I know there is no rational basis for it, only an intuitional one. It has no more rational/testable/empirical basis than does Kant's Noumena. I do argue, however, for the constructed (perhaps that's better than "subjective") nature of "truth". Truths are, as I stated earlier qualities we assign to "successful" propositions. The criteria for success may be consistency with "facts" (which are however "lilttle theories", not brute entities like sensations), coherence with other propositions, pragmatic usefulness (i.e., they "work"), their heuristic value (they further our efforts), and so forth.

I find these things much easier to digest with examples.

Is Nobody suggesting that given a point of relevance such as x+1=3 then it is objectively true that x=2. While without x+1=3 as a reference we can know nothing of the nature of x ?

So then the big question is, does x=2, even if we didn't know that x+1=3 ?

I see no connection between my framework and yours. You've reduced mine to a simple calculation. Radically different languages.

I was having trouble following your language so I tried a translation to the universal language of mathematics. Unfortunately I couldn't find my "Philosophy/Physics Phrase Book" anywhere!!

I apologise for my ignorance JL but could you explain your position in a clearer way. With workable examples if possible please?

Eorl, that was just about as clear as I could put it. Perhaps my thinking on this subject is just inherently murky. I wonder if anyone could follow it.

No, I'm sure the fault is mine JL. I should go out and buy "Philosophy for Dummies"tm before I try swimming in such deep waters! I seem to be missing a fair bit of "assumed background".

Happilly, I love nothing more than being reminded that I still have so much to learn

A wise perspective.

I'm new here and the conversation seems to have progressed quit a bit, but I'll offer my own view on the subject anyways.

For me the question of truth must be separated into two:
1- Human truth.
2- Transcending (Absolute) truth.

In the first case there appears to be a truth derived from the boundaries of human understanding and perception.
Life as we know it is guided and limited to particular interpretations which can be called truths.
Since human interpretations, manifesting themselves through cultural and idealistic norms, alter slowly, we can say that there are intrinsic truths that men live by.

In the second case, the understanding that we are participants in something greater than ourselves which appears to be in a state of constant flux enables us to admit that all our perceptions are fractions of the possible and that all instances of solidity are but moments of temporal flow. This would negate the idea of an absolute and unchanging state, which can be called truth.
In this case any utterance of a truth must be followed by the admission that it no longer applies.

Satyr, good points. I will come back to them later. Right now I wish only to say that all "understandings" are constructions. There is neither absolute truth nor nihilism--only our constructions. "Reality" (that which is ultimately the case) is beyond our understanding, but it includes our very being. We can sense it but we cannot grasp it as an intellectual achievement.