Is truth subjective or objective?

I think in this context, "is" is simple.

As regards the "truth"...

...if a thing is true...it is true...no matter what anyone thinks, guesses, supposes, suggests, considers, or anything else about it.

If it is not true...it is not true.

"Truth" is objective.

It appears some people want it to be subjective in order to rationalize other positions they hold.

0 Replies

Frank, you are a slave to language. "Is" isn't is-ness; it's a convention of meaning. Make it your slave.

0 Replies

JL...

...you are so interested in rationalizing your bullshyt that you cannot acknowledge the obvious.

I pity you.

Play your games if you must...but don't play them with me. I see through them.

0 Replies

What game? I've never been more sincere. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Frank,

Perhaps you should consider the difference between a philosophical forum and a religious one before using the word "pity". Such a concept is worthy of Hollis Mathis over on Abuzz.

There is a semantic web involving the words "truth", "objectivity" and "evidence" which we all use for everyday social negotiations,
but the function of philosophy (if it be said to have a clear one at all) is to question the mundane. It is not a case of justifying a particular rationality, but to investigate the concept of rationality itself. THIS is the context in which "truth" is being discussed, not as the pseudo-religious concept of an "absolute". The original question about the "objectivity of truth" becomes deconstructed when the distinction between subject and object blurs ,and it is here where "progress" might be made. The authority/worthiness for such a deconstruction might be sought in post Heisenberg physics.

0 Replies

TRUTH...is objective. There is absolutely no subjectivitiy about it. If you folks want to kid yourselves...go ahead and kid yourselves. But when you do it in public....here in this forum...I will call your silliness to your attention.

0 Replies

Once more...this is a philosophy forum. Absolutists who want to enter Jesus-like and overturn tables should bear in mind their likely fate at the hands of Pontius Pilate and his accredited words "what is truth?"! :wink:

0 Replies

or one could emulate a more contemporary authority like Wittgenstein, and acknowledge that metaphysical statements, such as statements on the objectivity or subjectivity of truth, are meaningless.

0 Replies

Right on fresco.

THIS IS A PHILOSOPHY FORUM.

Here's a bit of what Charles Sanders Peirce said:

Peirce made a distinction between truth and reality.

"Truth is the understanding of reality through a self-corrective inquiry process by the whole intellectual community across time. On the other hand, reality is the existence independent of human inquiry (Wiener, 1969). In terms of ontology, there is one reality. In regard to methodology and epistemology, there is more than one approach and one source of knowledge. Reality is "what is" while truth is "what would be.""

0 Replies

twyvel is quoting Peirce now? What's next? Frank quoting St. Augustine?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

twyvel is quoting Peirce now? What's next? Frank quoting St. Augustine?

0 Replies

Fact is, Joe...I quoted Augustine and Aquinas quite often over at Abuzz...mostly to make the point that even the most intelligent of folks make glaring mistakes.

Twyvel, Fresco, and JL have an ox being gored here. They have very similar guesses about REALITY...and each is extremely reluctant to acknowledge that the guess is a guess.

This nonsense about "truth" and "reality" are nothing more than building blocks in thier rationalization structure.

But...if they gain solace from seeing that others make the same mistake they are making...let 'em have it.

0 Replies

Frank, I sincerely do not sense that either Fresco, Twyvel or I feel our oxens are being gored. If that applies to anyone, it's you.
I'm surprised and pleased that Twyvel would use something so exoteric as C.S. Peirce's statement ( Laughing

). I'm also very pleased to see that he appreciates it. I may have gotten my analytical distinction between truth and reality from Peirce, not sure. Truth is "what would be" the case if my logic and/or my evidence are sound. And "truth" is a proposition validated according to certain human-created-and-selected criteria, not a god-given principle. The new pope just criticized what he called "the dictatorship of relativism." That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Dictatorships must rest on absolutism, not relativism. The latter is the decentralization and humanization of truth. I'm sure the pope would agree, Frank, with your objectivist insistence that "TRUTH...is objective. There is absolutely no subjectivitiy about it."

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, I sincerely do not sense that either Fresco, Twyvel or I feel our oxens are being gored. If that applies to anyone, it's you.
I'm surprised and pleased that Twyvel would use something so exoteric as C.S. Peirce's statement ( ). I'm also very pleased to see that he appreciates it. I may have gotten my analytical distinction between truth and reality from Peirce, not sure. Truth is "what would be" the case if my logic and/or my evidence are sound. And "truth" is a proposition validated according to certain human-created-and-selected criteria, not a god-given principle. The new pope just criticized what he called "the dictatorship of relativism." That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Dictatorships must rest on absolutism, not relativism. The latter is the decentralization and humanization of truth. I'm sure the pope would agree, Frank, with your objectivist insistence that "TRUTH...is objective. There is absolutely no subjectivitiy about it."

Whatever!

0 Replies

JLN,

That "dictatorship of relativism" quote rang alarm bells for me too, but maybe it goes with an Orwellian concept of the Vatican as the "Ministry of Truth".

yitwail,

Your Wittgenstien reference is certainly an alternative to my argument about deconstruction,
however W's arguments about metaphysics tend toward a general "anti-philosophy" position, rather than the Hegelian synthesis or epistemological reconstruction I imply. At the "mundane" level of course, W's dictum "meaning is use" obviously applies to the linkage of "truth" with "objectivity".

0 Replies

Well, things are heating up....

Let's simplify this.

Reality is the actual. Truth is conformity towards reality. Thus, truth is objective and it is a word which implies whether a certain knowledge is real or not.

Sense perception is different from truth. I could see a red object but a colour-blind person might not be able to see it; however, what is the truth of the matter here? The truth is that I see a red object because I have the sensory ability to distinguish a certain colour from other colours whereas the colour-blind person does not. This is the truth, one could also call it a fact, because it is "true".

0 Replies

Yes, Ray. I agree that "reality" is a good term for what is actual (Frank and I agree on that). And "truth" is a good term for a proposition's quality of conforming in some way with "reality." And the situation of the relationship between the objective case (reality) and subjective conceptions of its nature (truth) is an objective situation.
And I agree that a sense perception is not a truth. It is not a "valid" proposition; it is a conceptually unmediated experience. As such, it is a reality and therefore the material of mystical realization. As a sighted individual you do not, strictly speaking, see a red object. The properties of the object, the physics of light, your physical make-up (and an indefinite quanta of necessary conditions), generate the visual experience we call "redness." The most difficult question to answer is "Who or what has that experience?" The answer is, at the everyday level, of course, Ray or JLNobody. But philosophically it is, I believe, intellectually (dualisticallyl) unanswerable. And that is because it is a philosophically meaningless question.

0 Replies

JLNobody you wrote:

Quote:

The most difficult question to answer is "Who or what has that experience?" The answer is, at the everyday level, of course, Ray or JLNobody. But philosophically it is, I believe, intellectually (dualisticallyl) unanswerable. And that is because it is a philosophically meaningless question.

I agree with the first part, but if the question, "Who or what has the experience?" were philosophically meaningless the nature of Consciousness wouldn't be one of the hottest, if not the hottest issue in contemporary philosophy.

And it's not only a question of Who or What has the experience, but ?'where' is this experiencer? Find its location and you are that much closer to finding it. Unfortunately most focus on the brain and brain functions, AS IF they were thereby studying Consciousness itself.

The final frontier isn't Space, it's the Self, or that which observes,.but then Space and Self, Self and Space,.. Not-two*. Smile

"Who or what has that experience?".I think is, as you say "intellectually (dualisticallyl) unanswerable".simply because there is no experiencer. And if that's the answer who's asking it? Who is it meaningful or meaningless to?

Aw, we're all so full of 'what is', Very Happy

*Brahman is sometimes described as akasa, Space

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Aw, we're all so full of 'what is',

You're half right.

0 Replies

Twyvel, ultimately speaking there is no experiencer, noone to whom experience is happening, nor is there something that the experience is OF. There is only experience, our dualistic inquiry about what is experienced and who is experiencing it, and the location of the experiencer and experienced, are themselves just experiences. Their location is, as some mystic said, (the metaphorical) "great empty space".

0 Replies

Is truth subjective or objective?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know