Is truth subjective or objective?

I've just realised that other people are not all absolutists. Suddenly other people (and the rest of the world) make more sense to me now.

Just thought I'd share that little insight. Smile

0 Replies

Eorl

People who believe in God must be absolutists. The universal observer mentioned by Ray is God - as Nobody said.
Since in my perspective there is no place to a transcendent god the universal observer is impossible.
But - and this is the point where I disagree with JL Nobody - that doesn't mean that there are no observers. We are the observers. We live in the world, interact with it, we observe ourselves as objects in the world, but the observer is always "behind" the observed.
An example: when I say "I have a brain" I am not only describing the existence of the brain but also reporting a particular brain to an "I". And that "I" is something different from that brain. Even when I say "I am the consciousness of my identity" I make a clear division between "identity" and me. "My identity" means that identity belongs to me. What "me"?

That is why I say that we exist always in a double perspective: my presence in the world and the I behind that presence.

0 Replies

That's all good val, I follow. Although I'm not sure I agree with your initial statement that people who believe in God must be absolutists. For example, I've met plenty of Christians who think the majority are right (regardless of the facts) and that history can be "re-written"

Also, I think observation is irrelevant to the absolute truth. For example I think that Shoemaker Levy 9 would have had an impact on Jupiter even if sentient beings had not existed to be aware of it. I think the same of every other moment in time & space leading up to the immediate now.

0 Replies

Quote:

Also, I think observation is irrelevant to the absolute truth. For example I think that Shoemaker Levy 9 would have had an impact on Jupiter even if sentient beings had not existed to be aware of it. I think the same of every other moment in time & space leading up to the immediate now.

Yes, that is true(no pun intended).

From a definition from a google search:
"truth: conformity to reality or actuality
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn"

If we were to use this definition regarding truth, it would be true for Shoemaker Levy 9 to have impacted upon Jupiter. Actuality exists independently of observers, even though we as observers are the only ones to know of that fact. The truths we know are hypothetical truths that is based on our best field of knowledge.

I'm an objectivist regarding metaphysics (including this issue), though I don't agree with its traditional egoist ethic and its political agenda, and I guess I'd have to admit that I'm a bit idealistic.

0 Replies

bm

0 Replies

Ray, obviously in a sense Shoemaker Levy 9 crashed, as an objective fact, into the planet Jupiter. But is that all that can be said about that? Can we not also notice that the event exists as a subjective human event? At one level a moon crashed into a planet; at another level, an event at the molecular level occured; at another level, subatomic events occured. In other words, "Shoemaker Levy 9 crashing into Jupiter" is a perspective, an interpretation, a constellation of human meanings. Granted, something "objective" happened, but its absolute meaning is problematical--unless we say that the event has both objective and subjective aspects, as an absolute fact (?). Or, mystically speaking, neither.

0 Replies

Within the fact presented as "the shoemaker Levy 9 crashed into Jupiter", atoms within the shoemaker Levy 9 will be doing much, but the overall macro results of the event is objectively stated in the statement. If we were to ask for the action of all the atoms, quarks, strings perhaps of the asteroid then what we are wanting to be described would have changed from the macro to the micro. The macro represents the overall effect of the micro. For us as cognitive beings, we see things in the macro, because cognitive existence appears on a macro scale.

0 Replies

Ray

Quote:

For us as cognitive beings, we see things in the macro, because cognitive existence appears on a macro scale

But then, how can you talk about an objective reality, independent of the observers?
And, when you say "us, cognitive beings" I think you should say "us, human beings".

There is something strange in that statement that events occur no matter they are observed or not. If no one observes the crash of the asteroid how could that be an event? I think it was you who said that such an idea supposes an universal observer. But if there is no universal observer (like God)?

I am not saying that things only exist if perceived. I am saying that truth, independent of an observer makes no sense. Truth is an adequation between cultural patterns, perception and observed events.

0 Replies

I agree with Val's excellent post. "cognitive reality," or "truth" is a function of human activity and perspective. "Reality" is the term I use (perhaps arbitrarily) for all that exists, including myself and all the possible "levels" or dimensions of scale. The "macro" level is what we designate as OUR level, where "truth" abides. Even the thinking performed by theoretical physicists ABOUT the micro level of reality remains theoretical activity at our human (macro) level. We can't get away from it. Val says that there can be no truth independent of an observer (or "thinker"), because that makes no sense. I am agreeing here insofar as I say that truth IS human cognitive behavior (about Reality at all levels) considered by humans to be adequate thought.

0 Replies

Quote:

But then, how can you talk about an objective reality, independent of the observers?
And, when you say "us, cognitive beings" I think you should say "us, human beings".

There is an objective reality but we can only see it to the best of our ability. Shoemaker Levy 9 crashing into jupiter did occur, and the event is represented by our phenomenal reflection of reality.

Quote:

There is something strange in that statement that events occur no matter they are observed or not. If no one observes the crash of the asteroid how could that be an event? I think it was you who said that such an idea supposes an universal observer. But if there is no universal observer (like God)?

The meaning of event is that of a series of things going on. True that I didn't see the crash of the asteroid, but that only means that my knowledge or experience of the event is not present but the event itself did occur.

If there is no universal observer, then the universe would still exist on its own without anything observing it, and events will occur whether a being exist to observe it.

Quote:

I am not saying that things only exist if perceived. I am saying that truth, independent of an observer makes no sense. Truth is an adequation between cultural patterns, perception and observed events.

It depends on what you mean by truth. When we assert that we are to uncover the truth, we are trying to uncover facts that we did not perceive but was there.

It makes less sense to me to think that when we do not observe things, events did not happen.

0 Replies

Ray, just imagine the world without any consciousness (human or not), any observers of it. Would it "look", "feel" and "sound" like it does (to us) now? Without eyes, brains, etc. what we are experiencing now would not be available for experience. I would not say that it is there waiting for us to perceive it, and THEN, it would come into phenomenal existence. Indeed, I cannot imagine the world I see existing, as it appears to exist, without human observers.

0 Replies

Jl, I understand what you are saying.

What I am asserting, is that our phenomenal senses is the reflection of the noumena (or at least part of it), and that since the only way to see the universe is to see it through our senses, then the only way we can sense objective reality is to use our phenomenal representations.

0 Replies

O.K, assuming there is a noumenal reality (that has been mulled over in another thread), you are right to say that we can only know it (or part of it) phenomenally through our senses (and I would add intuition, but that's another issue). Doesn't this suggest to you a breakdown in the distinction between objective and subjective knowledge. If we can only know in human terms, doesn't that IN A SENSE show knowledge to be subjective (at least specific to our species)? And since that bias is built into our very nature, isn't that an objective fact of nature, part of the structure of reality? If both are true then our knowledge is in one sense subjective and in another sense objective. Just a thought.

0 Replies

Quote:

O.K, assuming there is a noumenal reality (that has been mulled over in another thread), you are right to say that we can only know it (or part of it) phenomenally through our senses (and I would add intuition, but that's another issue). Doesn't this suggest to you a breakdown in the distinction between objective and subjective knowledge. If we can only know in human terms, doesn't that IN A SENSE show knowledge to be subjective (at least specific to our species)? And since that bias is built into our very nature, isn't that an objective fact of nature, part of the structure of reality? If both are true then our knowledge is in one sense subjective and in another sense objective. Just a thought.

Noumenal reality basically means the reality that exist independent of our experience, so thus it does exist unless we don't exist at all, which doesn't make any sense.

In a sense knowledge can only arise in subjects, but the purpose of gaining knowledge is to know something that does exist in the universe or beyond. I think you are right in that it is in a sense subjective and objective.

0 Replies

is the pope catholic?

sorry was the ex pope catholic?

Truth is unattainable, but approachable.

0 Replies

Steve, interesting statement--the truth is unattainable, but approachable.
But I wonder, how do we know we are approaching the truth, i.e., moving in its direction, if we do not already know something about it? Do you mean that we can attain only a partial grasp of the truth, i.e., approach it?. To me "truth" is a technical term, and its attainment has to do with compliance with logical and scientific methodological criteria. Reality, on the other hand, is that about which we try to construct truth ('nomological") propositions according to the above criteria--OR to contact directly ("mystically").

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

O.K, assuming there is a noumenal reality (that has been mulled over in another thread), you are right to say that we can only know it (or part of it) phenomenally through our senses (and I would add intuition, but that's another issue). Doesn't this suggest to you a breakdown in the distinction between objective and subjective knowledge. If we can only know in human terms, doesn't that IN A SENSE show knowledge to be subjective (at least specific to our species)? And since that bias is built into our very nature, isn't that an objective fact of nature, part of the structure of reality? If both are true then our knowledge is in one sense subjective and in another sense objective. Just a thought.

Once again you seem to be falling into the trap of assuming that the "truth" depends in some way on humans being able to "know" or "perceive" it.

The TRUTH is WHAT IS....and as such...is absolutely and irrevocably objective.

If we can know it..or if we can perceive it...is up for grabs. But whether we can or not....the TRUTH....the REALITY...IS WHAT IT IS.

0 Replies

pardon me if this subject has already been broached, but there's also the distinction between necessary truth and contingent truth. contingent truth may or may not be objective, but necessary truth probably is, things like the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.

i'm late joining this fascinating discussion, being a newcomer to a2k, but noted there was some discussion of comet Shoemaker-Levy colliding with Jupiter. wasn't the collision predicted sometime before it happened, based on standard astronomical formulae? so, in a sense some people knew it would happen before it could be observed; wouldn't it follow that actually observing the collision merely confirmed the event, but the event would have occured even if no one bothered to watch?

will the sun rise tomorrow if we all sleep until past sunrise?

0 Replies

Hey there, Frank. You know that I distinguish between Reality and Truth. To me reality is, as you say, what is; truth is what we claim is an accurate account of what is. Truth is talk ABOUT reality, not reality itself. Even lies about reality are reality even though they don't qualify as truth. You make the generally made mistake of equating reality with truth. It's like confounding an interpretation of, or perspective on, X with X itself.

0 Replies

JLN, that's a nice distinction; but do some truths correspond more closely to reality than others? that would be useful to know for practical purposes. thanks.

0 Replies

Is truth subjective or objective?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know