In the case of sparrows, we don't know what will happen to them--ie, what they'll evolve into, or what will happen to them. Will they die out? Will they live? We also don't know the future.
Foxfyre, did you say that it may be speculation that you are mortal? If so, how high was THAT fever?
LOL JL, I can't remember. But no, I'm pretty sure I'm viewed as mortal.....it's the human part that seems to be in question.
Re: Is truth subjective or objective?
Taliesin181 wrote:Do you feel that truth is a hard fact that cannot be refuted, or that it is merely something that the majority agrees upon? In other words, is the universe one person lives in made disputable by a different "reality", such as a schizophrenic's?
TRUTH IS WHATEVER THE STRONGEST TELLS THE WEAKEST IT IS
FOR IT IS THE VICTOR WHO HAS CONTROL OVER RECORDED HISTORY AND HISTORY WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT THE STRONGEST
ONE GENERATIONS TRUTH CAN BE OVERTHROWN BY ANOTHER GENERATIONS TRUTH BECAUSE THEY ARE MIGHTIER THAN THE PREVIOUS GENERATION AND HAVE THE MEANS TO ERASE THE PREVIOUS GENERATIONS FIRMLY HELD TRUTHS
SO TRUTH IS ONLY TRUE TO THE HOLDER OF THE CURRENT POWER BASE
Re: Is truth subjective or objective?
NO -U
There is a difference between the concept of truth and what we believe to be true.
Re: Is truth subjective or objective?
val wrote:NO -U
There is a difference between the concept of truth and what we believe to be true.
TRUTH WILL ALWAYS BE BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF KNOWLEDGE
EACH GENERATION WILL HAVE ACCESS TO VARYING DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE AND ACCORDINGLY REDEFINE WHAT TRUTH IS
GREAT POINTS I-1-2-No-U-
AND WELCOME TO A2K!!!!!
But unfortunately, when you keep redefining truth, you can still keep redefining it, as we will never reach an "absolute truth". However, I don't know if you want to call truth an objective knowledge or something we know.
And writing in all caps doesn't necessarily strengthen your point. I look at what the words are, not how you emphasize them.
NO-U: I'm with val: just because I say "No, grass is purple" as I bend your arm back, doesn't make it so. I see your point as to history being written by the victors, but that's perceived reality, not actual reality.
And yeah...ease off the caps a bit...I'll still listen! :wink:
No-U, only when concept is lost in perception are your points true.
This 'perception', must have been considered, in coming up with the idea of this 'concept'.... I wonder how it is resolved....
I see an excess of brain flapping here. Maybe it's me, but the ambiguity level has risen sharply.
Well in all due respect JL, when have you ever seen trying to answer any unanswerable thing as other than ambiguous?
Foxfrye, I take your point. But we can ask why it is so difficult to make a clear argument for or against the objectivity or subjectivity of truth. I think we should study the nature of our questioning, our intentions in making this inquiry.
Do we want to examine the nature of "truths" in the world that are just awaiting discovery (objective truths), or do we wish to construct satisfying propositions about the nature of aspects of reality (subjective truths)?
I for one, wish to achieve opinions that are consistent with the facts of my experience. I do not argue that such opinions are absolutely true (because my experience is limited and perspectivistic), only that such opinions (Frank might call these guesses) strike me as true--I remain open to falsifying experiences. C.S. Pierce advised that if I insist that what I wish to acquire are not mere opinions but TRUE opinions, I need only observe that when I find an opinion that satisfies me, I cease my search for the truth. I will assume, in my satisfaction, that I've found it. Sometimes we think that only objective scientific criteria can assure us we have found the truth, that, as Bertrand Russell argued, only science and its methodology can lead us to knowledge. But can we deny that humankind has been satisflying itself with "truth opinions" and pragmatic knowleldge before the advent of the scientific method?
My first post, but don't spare the rod.
Arguing a variation of James, I posted on another forum:
"Any claim of superior access to an overarching Truth that trumps each individual's right to their own assessment and experience of truth is nothing more than a rhetorical device at best and error/delusion at worst. The burden of proof is on the person asserting one version of "absolute truth" or another to convince a majority, to build a coalition."
Truth, to the optimistic radical-empiricist who is excited by the ever-evolving art of the opinion poll, is the sum of each person's experience of truth. Is this subjective or objective? It's an objective (though radically obscured and perhaps ultimately inaccessible) plurality of subjective experiences.
These perceptions of truth have the potential for change over time; strong rhetoric (often coherent, well-supported arguments, or impassioned moral appeals) frequently plays a very important role in effecting shifts in preferences over time; and a successful claim of expertise in a particular area can increase the strength of the rhetoric in favor of a certain position on a topic.
But The Philosopher's ulterior motive to bolster the importance of his work by asserting the existence of an objective truth and citing philsophical inquiry (his expertise, incidentally) as the porthole through which we may catch a glimpse of It undermines the credibility of his assertion. His expertise, and that of all who assert expertise, will be utilized by others insofar as such expertise appears valuable to them.
Chombis
WELCOME Chombis, and congratulations on an impressive debut. We are sure to learn much from you.
Ditto the last.
I like the references to "coalition" and "utility" that Chombis raises.
Truth is objective. What is, is. It is our perception of truth which is subjective.
Phoenix, let me paraphrase your statement: REALITY is objective; truths are propositions about the nature of perceived aspects of that reality.
This way, as I see it, we acknowledge the objective nature of the World (which, after all, isn't entirely a reflection of each individual psyche; it is larger than each of us), but we also acknowledge that OUR understandings (perceptions and conceptions) of the World reflect OUR nature. Knowledge is a function of the knower (subjectivity); Reality is a function only of Reality (objectivity) and that includes us. The philosopher, John Searles, acknowledges the reality of subjective consciousness as an objective fact in nature. Chombis refers to our reality as a plurality of subjectivities (private and shared "truths"). I call that Culture: a fundamentally intersubjective phenomenon.
