Is truth subjective or objective?

Again I refer you to the Lego explanation. If it isn't infinite now it never will be even if the rate of expansion is accelerating forevermore exponentially to the power of a googolplex. You can keep adding those blocks faster and faster but your efforts would be futile. You would always have the block you started out with at one end and the last one you placed at the other and the number of blocks in between would always be a finite quantity. Unless you take a journey to the end of eternity but of course that by definition does not exist!

Lego doesn't equate to the expansion of space. They are not equal in any form or sense. Your comparison belongs on the laffer curve.

Is that supposed to be some kind of retort?

No retort; common sense. I'm otta here; it's just a waste of time.

Huh>?

This shizz is still going on ?

OK...lets put it this way, if I have a subjective experience that no one else can have, lets assume that for a moment, does that make it any less of an actual experience ? And how is that not an object ?
Having X experience is having X experience, and no amount of wishful thinking on my fellow humans can change that, that is, and slooownly, so you can think it trough, THAT I DID EXPERIENCE WHAT I DID EXPERIENCE !

Therefore even if everybody HAS different experiences no one can change the nature of what was experienced by any of the experience subjects, n thus safe to conclude, that subjective experiences themselves are OBJECTIVE FACTS !

Now to make it fair n even I don't give a "frack" on how many of you have "reality" inside your brains to get it clear !

The real point is the fact that even though you may have a subjective/objective experience, that doesn't make it objective. It's only objective to the person experiencing it. Your hallucinations are not object to anyone else. Some people may experience hallucinations and call it for what it is; subjective.

read again...

You're missing my whole point; hallucinations can be perceived as just that by the perceiver as subjective. It can be interpreted either way by the perceiver, and not always as objective. It's an abnormality of perception, and many realize this fact.

Did you care to notice precisely to avoid what you just said and anticipating it I deliberately used the term "experiences".
Nobody was debating the nature of those experiences whether they are hallucinations or not is irrelevant...fact remains they are factual experiences, that is, something that was experienced and that cannot be changed by other minds, an object per se. Again, subjective experiences are objective facts.

Everything can be reduced to objectivity independently of subjectivity itself being at play. Not getting why this is so its a serious flaw in reasoning.

Yes, subjectivity is an objective reality. A good case against absolute dualism.

I disagree.
Of course I am willing to listen why you think so, so I can get from where does it follows that the existence of subjective experiences poses any threat to dualism. For instance either is true or false that subjective experiences exist. Any of those reports a fact.

If I suffer from double vision, it's because there's something wrong with my biology. Yes, it's my "experience," but that doesn't preclude the fact that it's still "subjective to the individual." Delusions fall into the same category, because it's an abnormality. That some can call it objective doesn't make it so.

I can call an apple an orange. No matter how you wish to explain your 'objectivity,' it's still an apple.

No Cyr...hallucinations are facts. If someone is deluding about something then someone is deluding. In fact what you suggest is what is odd.

The fact the delusions are subjective experiences says nothing on the fact that hallucinations when happening are a fact, that is, that hallucinations are REAL hallucinations.

I am sorry to be too tired to give you a reasoned answer at this time. I do not actually think it so; it just appears that way to me, i.e., that there is no absolute dualism in the sense that things are necessarily objective or subjective. Each notion seems to need the other such that they both seem required. It is more a matter of intuition than of logic.

=

...In fact JL your animistic view with no grounds for reality is more of a threat to itself then dualism can ever be to the idea that minds are real !
We keep on tomorrow glad to see you around !

I'm confused. You see my perspective as animistic and that I do not see "minds" (consciousness, sensations, ideas, etc.) as real? I see everything as real but little as absolutely true--to me truth consists of propositions (what we say) about reality. And such "truths" are always provisional, relative, and contextual.

I take the problem of truth not as a problem of description, knowledge, which is always contextual and therefore incomplete, but has a problem of assuming the basic facticity of all experiences and not on the ability to knowing describing the correct master set, the right context, they fit (even hallucinations have to be true hallucinations). Not knowing the truth doesn't mean that there isn't a truth. For instance functions have specific contexts beyond which they make no sense, and even if so, that doesn't make them any less of real functions, they are true functions.
As I said several times even doubting, itself a function of knowledge seeking, requires a based ground to be a doubt...

Cant people simply understand that "operators" operate ???
Its irrelevant the scope on which they operate so long they operate in any scope.

They do, but it's never in isolation. People always share their personal experiences, and nobody questions them whether they see them as subjective or objective. Observers can decide for themselves how others perceive their reality. Even then, most of us have our own definition of subjective and objective.

Just looking at politics and religions proves this point.