Is truth subjective or objective?

Taliesin
If I thought I was a puppy dog I would be insane. Because my sensations would be human and not those of a dog. And because if I think I am a dog I cannnot be a dog. Dogs, themselves, can't think they are dogs. What I mean is this: if I say I am a dog, I cannot be a dog. So if I believe being a dog, I'm crazy.
But if I am conditioned to feel, sense, act and think like a dog, then I am a dog. Your perspective mixes two different levels: in my example you should be programed to accept me as a dog. Even if I was not a dog. But who could tell I was not a dog if everyone is conditioned to believe it? No one.
Conclusion: waf, waf.

I would say that objects may exist, but we still
experience them and imagine them, subjectively.

Shepaints: That's my view. Well said.
Val: I was using schizophrenics as an example of how our perceptions can be altered, but those perceptions don't change reality. All this with the point of showing an error in Existentialism. And in my 'puppy dog' example: I suppose everyone could be "conditioned" to accept you as a dog, but you would, nevertheless, remain human. From what I gathered from your post, you've crossed into semantics, i.e. calling a human a dog. "What's in a name? A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Very true. We may perceive things differently, but the object itself exist. Red for example, is a certain wavelength, etc. We are aware of it.
Existentialism, I think, sounds appealing because it reaffirms people of their importance, yet I do think that existantialism is wrong because the truth is an objective fact and not something that is different for each individual.

Taliesin, it's not a question of semantics. Names identify entities. A rose that would smell like an orchid and look like an orchid, would be an orchid. A brain in a vat programed to feel, think and have the senses of a dog would be a dog. Except for those who would be outside the vat.
But in our human experience, nobody is "outside" the experience.

Although I dont see what existentialism has to do with this, I am not an existentialist.

Val: existentialism states that your perceptions of the universe create/define reality (like the brain in the jar or the Matrix), and I was saying that since there's someone else outside the jar, that reality is true. Hope that clarifies my point.
Even if the brain in the jar was programmed to feel and think like a dog, it would still be, genetically, a human brain.
Well...not to go all 'Frank' on you, but how do you know there's nobody "outside the jar" in our human experience?

Truth is what is and is not necessarily what we wish, perceive, expect, want, understand, believe, or assume it to be. But even the preceding sentence can be seen as untrue by one coming from a particular perspective, and can be further twisted into an unsolvable conundrum; i.e.:

The following statement is false.
The preceding statement is true.

And in our attempts to turn our subjective expectations into objective truth, we go to ridiculous lengths and still never quite get there; ie:

Look, there is a black sheep.
No, there is a sheep that is black on at least one side.
No, there is a sheep that is black on at least one side at least some of the time.
No, actually there is a sheep that is black on at least one side at least some of the time in this particular location at this precise time under these specific conditions. . .

And you can go on and on and on to qualify the statement until it reflects absolute truth. It would be easier to revert to the Platonian idea that the sheep does not exist at all, but rather only the idea of sheep is the reality.

Perhaps this explains how what appears to be unrefutable truth to one person is nonsense or lie to another.

I like the paradoxes, Foxfyre. Good stuff. I disagree, however, that only the idea of the sheep exists. If that were the case, then we're back to the schizophrenic argument that just because someone sees something while they're insane, tripping out, etc., doesn't mean it actually exists.

Oh I agree Taliesin. I don't agree with Plato's theory of 'idea', but that concept was accepted as truth by many of the ancient Hellenists and variations of it is accepted as truth by some to this day. My point was intended to show how many layers can be identified in almost any statement of fact depending on a person's perspective, ability for abstract and/or multidimensional thinking, as well as culture/experience/conditioning, etc.

Taliesin
I am not an expert in existentialism, but the authors I know best, like Sartre or Jaspers never said that our perceptions create reality. That was the position of Berkeley and many other empiricists, and it is a logic conclusion to those who claim that we have only empiric knowledge.

I see your point and I agree, about someone else outside the jar.
So when you say that the brain would be genetically a human brain, you must add: to someone outside the jar.

You ask how do I know there's nobody outside the jar in our human experience. I think you are talking about god. My answer: I dont know if there is such an entity outside our experience. I only know that no human being can experiment the world of the human experience "from the outside". That would be a logical impossibility.

Val: Unless you take drugs... :wink:
But yeah, I see your point. We can't view the universe 100% objectively, so we can never really know, but we can make approximations based on shared results. All the "truth" we know is really a probability exercise, but a 1,000,000,000,000etc. to 1 odd makes us fairly confident in the "rightness" of our position.

Life is a probability excersize. Sounds good to me. Let's form a new religion.

This question, to me subjectively, seems to be asking "is the truth aesthetic or scientific?"

If I want to know when the sun rose and set in the Port of Spain, Trinidad during the 1930's-50's, it would be possible to find the data recorded objectively in a meteorological office. I could find archival records with photographs, population figures and records of the politics and economics of that time. These are all facts, but are they the truth? Do they communicate any real truth of the human experience ?

It is possible to experience that world through the subjective viewpoint of an artist. VS Naipaul's " A House for Mr. Biswas" allows one to crawl inside the skin of an outsider struggling for identity and personal power despite poverty, family tensions, and the clash between the rural and urban environments. Part autobiography, part fiction, Vaipaul has sifted through his experiences to communicate a microcosm recreating time, place, history, economics, education, language, vegetation, climate.

Likewise, if I want to understand something of life 15,000 years ago, take me to the subjective viewpoint of the cave painters at Altimira or Lascaux!

Picasso said, " All artists are liars who show us the
truth".

Picasso said that? Ooh, I'll wring his neck.

Truth is objective, but we view it subjectively because that's how people see things. Something can still be true, but nobody would have to believe in it in order for it to be true. If your grandmother is dead, she's dead, and it doesn't matter if you would like to think so or not. The objective truth is out there so we can find it--or never to find it.

Well put.

I agree with SCoates: nicely worded, Lucifer. Welcome to the thread, and great to meet you.

But many would not agree that a grandmother is dead in the sense that she no longer exists. In my previous post I used the analogy of the sheep and all the things that must be know about sheep in order to know the truth of sheep. In order to know the truth of death we must know with certainty what constitutes death and this can go far beyond what we have chosen to believe about death.

In Plato's analogy of the cave, you sit facing the wall of a cave and you cannot turn your head or see any other thing but that wall. Behind you is an open stage with hidden puppeteers manipulating cutouts of things in the world via invisible strings. And behind the stage is a fire that casts shadow pictures of the 'puppets' onto the wall of the cave. What we know of the world and everything in it is limited to the shadows, ever changing, on the walls of the cave. Most of the truth we know is as incomplete as those shadows. Even when we are allowed to go out of the cave into the blazing sunlight and see 'real' things rather than shadows of puppet imitations, we increase our knowledge but are yet limited by our experience.

In Plato's view, you could put all the dogs in the world toether and still not have full knowledge of the "idea' of dog or know all that dog is but at some point there is all there is to know about dog.

Truth therefore is objective and has finality, but we are wise to consider that we rarely have all the necessary knowledge, insight, and understanding to arrive at that point.

(Edited to change one word to correct syntax)

Which is why science does not prove--we may know certain things, and we experiment and test things as objectively as possible to find the truth, but we still don't have enough information to "prove" that anything is true, except in some cases in math. When I was saying that one's grandmother is dead, I meant physically--no longer able to talk, walk, bake cookies or do what grandmothers normally do. Some people don't like to believe that their grandmothers are physically dead because they can't interact with them any longer--at least not the same way they used to.

Yes Lucifer, I agree some will deny what truth we have for many reasons.