Is truth subjective or objective?

@Taliesin181,

Quote:

Do you feel that truth is a hard fact that cannot be refuted, or that it is merely something that the majority agrees upon?

Both. Some things cannot be denied, like death and taxes.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Good post, C.I.
I wonder if we might be better off at least sometimes ignoring the distinction between objective and subjective.

"Objective" seems to be close to "actual" and "'subjective" seems close to "factual" insofar as factual pertains to how we give experiences their meaning (e.g. facts are little theories or constructions) .
But both are realities.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Subjective experiences are objective facts; but more "private" than "public" (unshared or shared). At the same time it seems that all objective facts, insofar as they are given meaning, are subjective--or intersubjective--in character. So, perhaps we can say that everything making up our lives is to some degree*both subjective and objective or neither, but not just one or the other.
Real vs. unreal is a distinction that seems less problematic to me, as in stallion vs. unicorn.
*Another problem: degrees of grey or absolute black vs. white?

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

As long as grey is not confounded with white nor black I am fine with it J and it doesn't much matter that black n white are a part of the recipe of what grey is...whatever is the case is the case.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

As long as grey is not confounded with white nor black I am fine with it J and it doesn't much matter that black n white are a part of the recipe of what grey is...whatever is the case is the case.

I like the way you put that, Fil!

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

When I think in terms of subjective and objective, beyond the functions of journalism, things do kind of blur together.
For me, the bottom line is that subjective/objective can only apply to facts and knowledge, making it all inherently subjective anyway, since facts and knowledge can only exist in subjects.
"Objective" is a matter of social agreement, and so then is "subjective".

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Yes, to the extent that understandings are shared (social agreement) I like to think of them as inter-subjective.

0 Replies

Seems to me that you folk are wound up in another of those impossible situations here…sorta like the REALITY question. You are defending something that cannot be defended…because to do so is to acknowledge that you are incorrect.

Cyracuz just wrote: “"Objective" is a matter of social agreement, and so then is "subjective".

If that is so…then it objectively is the truth.

How do you get away from that without torturing logic?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If that is so…then it objectively is the truth.

Quote:

If that is so…then it objectively is the truth.

How do you get away from that without torturing logic?

By understanding the meaning of the word "objective".
Did you read the part that says "objective/subjective can only refer to facts and knowledge"? In other words, it refers to information retained by humans. It does not refer to "what actually is the truth irrespective of human perception".
It seems you have yet to realize that any notion of this kind of objectivity is a belief. We can easily fling that distinction around, but the only means of verification we have is social agreement.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
If that is so…then it objectively is the truth.

Quote:
If that is so…then it objectively is the truth.

How do you get away from that without torturing logic?

By understanding the meaning of the word "objective".
Did you read the part that says "objective/subjective can only refer to facts and knowledge"? In other words, it refers to information retained by humans. It does not refer to "what actually is the truth irrespective of human perception".
It seems you have yet to realize that any notion of this kind of objectivity is a belief. We can easily fling that distinction around, but the only means of verification we have is social agreement.

Yeah...but you and JL put way too much emphasis on that "social agreement" stuff.

There is at least the possibility that "social agreement" (read that: human agreement)...may not amount to a pile of flea manure...and that REALITY and truth are totally independent of it.

You and JL keep talking about human perceptions and considerations of REALITY (and now, truth) as though you are actually talking about REALITY and truth.

Respectfully as possible, Cyracuz, you are not!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

There is at least the possibility that "social agreement" (read that: human agreement)...may not amount to a pile of flea manure...and that REALITY and truth are totally independent of it.

Sure. There is also a possibility that the christian god made the world. We can't know that either, and all we can do is speculate. You are free to believe what you want, of course.

Quote:

You and JL keep talking about human perceptions and considerations of REALITY (and now, truth) as though you are actually talking about REALITY and truth.

We are. We are speaking of the only kind of reality we can possibly know.
You want to believe there is anything beyond what we can experience, feel free. But so much for having no beliefs.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
There is at least the possibility that "social agreement" (read that: human agreement)...may not amount to a pile of flea manure...and that REALITY and truth are totally independent of it.

Sure. There is also a possibility that the christian god made the world. We can't know that either, and all we can do is speculate. You are free to believe what you want, of course.

I do not do "believing", Cyracuz.

I am saying that I do not know...but you are saying that you do. You KNOW that REALITY is just a "social agreement"...and you KNOW that truth is just a "social agreement"...and you KNOW that neither REALITY or truth exists except as a function of human agreement.

I consider that nonsense...the part where you "know" it. It may be so...and I have acknowledged that on numerous occasions...but it MAY BE that human agreement does not impact on REALITY or truth in any way...that both exist totally independent of what humans think about them.

Quote:

Quote:
You and JL keep talking about human perceptions and considerations of REALITY (and now, truth) as though you are actually talking about REALITY and truth.

We are. We are speaking of the only kind of reality we can possibly know.

Indeed...and then pretending that you are actually talking about REALITY and truth...when in fact all your are doing is talking about your "knowledge" of; perceptions of; and considerations of those things.

Quote:

You want to believe there is anything beyond what we can experience, feel free.

I do not do "believing", Cyracuz...but if you are suggesting that I am free to suppose there MAY BE REALITY and truth that are independent of what humans perceive them to be...well, yes...I do suppose there MAY BE that.

Why don't you wake up and agree that it may be so...rather than insisting you know it is not so?

Quote:

But so much for having no beliefs.

Absolutely! I have no beliefs...and you certainly have not shown me to have any here in this segment of our on-going discussion of these things.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Indeed...and then pretending that you are actually talking about REALITY and truth...when in fact all your are doing is talking about your "knowledge" of; perceptions of; and considerations of those things.

It is understood that anything we say regarding this will be of percetions and considerations. NO HUMAN BEING CAN GO BEYOND THIS.

You keep ranting about what I can and cannot know, but you do not realize that I am limiting myself to that which we can have knowledge about, while you are mixing in "reality and truth" as if it is some external deity that doesn't depend on human interaction to have reality.
Such a thing may exist. But we humans cannot know either way. So it is understood that when we speak about reality, we speak about human reality, because neither JL nor myself are given to flights of fancy.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Indeed...and then pretending that you are actually talking about REALITY and truth...when in fact all your are doing is talking about your "knowledge" of; perceptions of; and considerations of those things.

It is understood that anything we say regarding this will be of percetions and considerations. NO HUMAN BEING CAN GO BEYOND THIS.

You keep ranting about what I can and cannot know, but you do not realize that I am limiting myself to that which we can have knowledge about, while you are mixing in "reality and truth" as if it is some external deity that doesn't depend on human interaction to have reality.
Such a thing may exist. But we humans cannot know either way. So it is understood that when we speak about reality, we speak about human reality, because neither JL nor myself are given to flights of fancy.

Either you are claiming you KNOW that REALITY and truth are merely human constructs...or you are acknowledging that you do not know and are merely guessing.

If the former...all my remarks hold.

If the latter...we are in complete agreement and I do not understand why the hostility to what I am saying.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Either you are claiming you KNOW that REALITY and truth are merely human constructs...

I know them only as human constructs. That is to say, I know them only via my own direct, subjective experience. This is true for everyone.

Maybe there would be reality without subjective experiencers. We can never know for certain.
I rather think not, because I understand "reality" to be an experience, not an object. My subjective understanding, of course.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Good Points. and I agree. >My personality is mostlz black and White and it tends to get me into Trouble more often than not.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I agree with your perception of what reality is based on Consensus. There are many things humans agree on that are objective.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

<I think factual only muddies the water. If anyone accepts a Religion as true, it´factual to that individual.

0 Replies

Nothing like a chorus of humans claiming they are the reason things are so…and without their agreement, it would not be so!

Walt Disney woulda had a field day with that!

The FACT remains that REALITY and truth MAY NOT be dependent in any way on how JL, Cyracuz, or any of you others know about it; feel about it; have considerations about it; or blindly guess about it.

To continue to talk about “that is that person’s reality” is a cop-out of humorous proportions.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The FACT remains that REALITY and truth MAY NOT be dependent in any way on how JL, Cyracuz, or any of you others know about it; feel about it; have considerations about it; or blindly guess about it.

This is silly, Frank.
The only kind of truth and reality I know of whatsoever is that which I subjectively experience.

I have said nothing about any other kind of truth or reality.

You are the one that's dragging "reality and truth that may not depend on....."
That is your fantasy, not mine.
There MAY be such a thing. There MAY also be a flying spaghetti monster.
We do not know, and your persistence in insisting that we consider this fable world you imagine is what is bordering on humorous proportions.

1 Reply

Is truth subjective or objective?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know