Is truth subjective or objective?

NobleCon

Wittgenstein's last work, "Philosophischen Untersuchungen" is not inferior to the Tractatus. In some ways it's a refutation of it.
The principal aspect of his last book is the refutation of the traditional concept of "essence". He applies that, even to language, showing that word definitions depend on the use we make of those words. He raises, in my opinion, a serious problem, not only to metaphysics but also to science.
In this case truth would be nothing but general consensus, as our friend Fresco has claimed - much better than me - in all these months of discussion.

Fresco, I like your use of the adjective, "clinical" ("...that clinical destruction of the simplistic dualism of subjectivity-objectivity..."). I do see our discussion as having implications for mental health.

But you as sholes would rather play your silly games than listen to something that really matters...and then give lectures about perspectives.

Reality lies in the interaction between observer and observed and neither can be specified separately.

Frank said:

Quote:

But you as sholes would rather play your silly games than listen to something that really matters...and then give lectures about perspectives.

That's really not civil at all, Frank. Speaking honestly, you seem to have a desire for everyone to cave in and agree with you. I don't find it that big a deal (mostly since I agree with you 90% of the time anyway :wink: ), but it's obvious other people get pretty P.O.ed by it. Perhaps you could try being a little less...snarky.

BTW, I'm really enjoying our conversation in the companion thread NobleCon started - keep it going.

Joe.

I am following authors who hold that "perception" is another form of "interaction". This takes a broad view of "life" to include all structures from "cell" to "community" and beyond. The mechanisms of "perception" are seen as similar to the mechanisms of "digestion" etc.

As a Chaplinesque picture, consider the differential classification of "the world" by a hungry man and a sated man. (Chaplins companion, who sees him as a "chicken" pursues him round the hut with an axe) .

As in survival stories involving canabalism, the definition of "food" is subject to social consenus.....but by extrapoliation so is the definition of all "things" in all scenarios...what we call "aberrent perception" is subject to negotiation....what we call "things", "properties" "facts" or "events..are subject to negotiation via a shared language.

"Truth" is about smoothing the flow within the flux !

Joe, your focus on the observer's perception tends to ignore that perception is serving both individual and social needs via language.

"The world" is both different for each observer and similar for a particular social group. Each level of organism is "attuned" to the world.
Such "tuning" or "interraction" involves a complex mechanism of structural coupling at several levels.

Don't take this too seriously, Tal. The smile you see on my face in my avatar never leaves for long. Just poking the pompous in the eye.

In any case, there's a lot more at stake here than you might suppose.

Frank said:

Quote:

Don't take this too seriously, Tal. The smile you see on my face in my avatar never leaves for long. Just poking the pompous in the eye.

In any case, there's a lot more at stake here than you might suppose.

That sounds ominous. What do you think is "at stake".

Goddam golf match got weathered out.

Winds were so high at Neshanic Valley, the pond to the left of the first tee had small waves on it.

THAT is a big deal!

Not really all that ominous!

All that is at stake is the fate of humanity.

No big deal.

Winds were so high at Neshanic Valley, the pond to the left of the first tee had small waves on it.

Joe,

I am citing the Santiago theory of cognition. Structural coupling is based on a mathematical model of embedded hierarchies of cybernetic loops or "hypercycles". However this also has implications for the word "knowledge" in as much that "structural coupling" is seen in a Piagetian manner as "successful (harmonious)" interaction....thus "knowing" could be deemed a predisposition to interact successfully. In the traditional sense I cannot answer you because such would imply the existence of "facts". This rejection of static facts brings us on to "flux"...all is changing constantly at various relative rates....Bohm the physicist for example said that nouns are really "slow verbs" and Heisenberg said there are no "things" only "relationships".

I would point out also that the scientific status of a "theory" does not rest in in its "proof", but in its coherence, utility and elegance. For me the above is the only current theory which avoids the problems of a "Cartesian Theatre" and attempts to unite such potentially disparate fields as physics, biology, psychology and sociology.