Is truth subjective or objective?

That's been MY argument, C.I.--in the Objective Knowledge thread.
BTW, so are beauty and ugliness.

All inclusive.

is truth subjective or objective? what a bloody stupid question.

Steve, I agree in the sense that I think it is a wrong-headed question. What reason do YOU have for considering it stupid?

Hey there, 'I believe, I believe, I believe' etc... 'Truth' just has to come from within, and it's even, yes, wait for it, perhaps 'ontologically real', aye! Well that's what I ignorantly hold to be sweet and true at least. Maybe it's ehm, basically the absence of a lie; or, it's Jesus Christ perhaps; or, is it the Christ child inside the 'kingdom of heaven within'? Truth is truth, and it is externally manifested in a kind of quasi physical manner, given life and expression, from a source which originates at the spirit level of a human being. Let there be life and etc, you know; oh well here we go, into the realms of the unreal...

You say "truth is truth". I say it is a word, and ask what is it pointing to in the world of experiences.

Really? We cannot change the nature of objective truths no matter how differently we percieve. 2 plus 2 will always be 4.

I think this post may help in making this less....murky

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/the-nature-of-argument-what-can-be-argued-what-cant-what-makes-sense-56774.html

I would say that we cannot change the nature of objective reality despite our perceptions, values and interests. It is what it is. But I also say that its nature is problematical, and that is what science and philosophy are about: the constructions of truth propositions about the nature of reality. I think your proposition about the nature of objective truths is a truth proposition about the nature of reality, not about the nature of truth.
By the way, here's another truth proposition: 4 is another way of saying 2+2.

You're on the right path, JLN. I think most people have difficulty with this subject because of subjective thinking, and not with logic.

Is truth subjective or objective?

Yes.

Hi Steve. Good to see you around.

(Steve's post is dated 2007 !)

I am sure I earlier posted a variation of a thought that goes:

It is impossible for truth not to be objective, because even if it is subjective…then the objective truth is that it is subjective. In the end, it always comes back to being objective, because what IS….IS.

I still feel that way.

eeeghads! Thanks for that! I didn't bother to read the date of his post.

You did.... and it's still as tautologically vacuous !

Is it tautologically vacuous to say tautologically vacuous?

Is it tautologically vacuous to say that everything in this line is subjective because the subject can't get out of himself?

Yeah...in your world..."what IS...IS" makes no sense.

That is why I am sticking with this world.

That's nice, don't fight.
I once quoted John Searle saying something like everything is subjective, and that's an objective fact.
Would we be better off without the dualism of objective vs. subjective?

Second generation cognitive science now approaches "perception" as a function of physiological and cultural factors. It has rejected "an external reality" as having been an expensive cul-de-sac for cognitive research.

A microcosm for this research has been color perception which from the time of "four colors of the rainbow" has been a source of speculation about the rhetorical question " do you see what I see ?". It turns out that physical measurements of light such as "wavelength" or biological studies of the retina, are insufficient to account for color perception. The situation mirrors that in particle physics in which "data" depend on what contextual question is being asked(ref: complementarity) involving transcendence of traditional dichotomies.