Is truth subjective or objective?

Damn JL/Phoenix, that was a good post. I liked the distinction between 'REALITY' and 'truths.' well played.
Phoenix: I agree, it is necessary to perceive the world through objective eyes. (as objective as possible, anyway) This will allow you to make rational choices that are of a higher quality than the layman's.

Phoenix, the phrase "reality testing" seems to be what your advocating, and rightly so. Insane people take their subjectivity as final, without testing it against conditions that either constrain or enable them in their intentions. But I don't think we are actually testing Reality; we are testing our perceptions of it.
Please indulge me in the following speculations: By reality I refer to that essentially mysterious "without-which-we-would-not-be-having-this-dialog".* Reality is, to my way of thinking, not a subject for science, and maybe not even philosophy; it is a religious concept, and we can refer to it only metaphorically: God, the God-Above-God, the Godhead, Ometecuhtli, Brahma, Tao, X, ?, etc. It is that which is both inclusive and independent of our conceptions of it. Kant may have had it in mind when he discussed the Noumena (the thing in itself), but as I worked out with Twyvel elsewhere, the Noumena and its counterpart, Phenomena, are aspects of the single Whole, which includes us. What I'm saying, nondualistically, is that behind or beyond our mental squirmings objectivity and subjectivity are two sides of a single coin.
*So I guess I can say that Reality IS this dialog.

notwithstanding JLN, I offer that "reality" is always a social construct without external verification.

Dys, that's right, but I use the word, reality, to point to something other than itself. That', of course, what symbols are for. The concept,reality, like ALL concepts, ARE social constructions. They are our means to refer to the world of things not present or unseen. Otherwise we just point with our fingers.
When you say that "reality" is always a social construct WITHOUT EXTERNAL VERIFICATION, could I not answer by saying that our conversation right now IS reality? Is that not some kind of external verification?
It's late, and I'm fuzzy headed, so I'm not investing much ego in the above statements. Tear into them, please.

These activities of "testing" which we talk about in the abstract need to examined in context.

In the "flow of personal reality", attention is selective. Expectancies are set up and continuously undergo a complex verification/modification process involving refocusing of attention. "Testing" cannot be separated out from the general interactive flux except on the occasion of a "dispute" which has the property of questioning our apparent "control" within the flow.

To give an example, I may be "flowing" through a typical day at work when somebody questions my decision on a purchase. A "testing window" is then opened regarding the reasons for my decision which interrupts the normal flow. The dispute is resolved one way or the other but not without the after-effect of "internal conversations" regarding "control". These thoughts have themselves altered subsequent "reality" by tying up attention.

The point I am making is that our discussion about "reality" may be vacuous except by reference to "the flow" and our perceived control within it. Testing reality changes reality. (ref Heisenberg in Physics).

Nobody
Reality is objective? But what is reality? What we call reality is nothing but a set of references in which we are included. Reality is our reality, the way we exist in a compatible set of references. We deal with things, includind us, that appear to us in a mentaly organized set of relations.
What I mean is that as things appear to us, they are already included in us, in what I would call our experience.
A stone has the reality of a stone because we perceive and think of it as a stone. What you call the "objective nature of the world" is the configuration we give to external stimulus.
To me, there is no sense in speaking about "objective" and "subjective" - a legacy of the cartesian dualism, "subject v. object" - but only in a global experience, the human experience, previously conditioned by what we are, our specific brain, nervous system, metabolic conditions.
Other species have their own reality we will never be able to experiment.
Your idea that our understandings of the world reflect our nature, supposes a given world, independent of any experience conditions. Well, it's a metaphysical question, like god, soul.
But I insist: what can you say about a stone that isn't part of your senses and your brain? Do you think that a snake has the experience of the stone similar to yours?

AS WAS POSTED EARLIER

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

EXAMPLE1
SAILORS BELIEVED THE WORLD TO BE FLAT - FUTURE KNOWLEDGE SHOWED THIS TO BE DIFFERENT

EXAMPLE2
ASTRONOMERS BELIEVED THE EARTH TO BE THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE - FUTURE OBSERVATIONS REDEFINED THIS KNOWLEDGE

CONCLUSION
WHO HAS ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY TO STATE THAT WHAT WE CALL TRUTH TODAY WILL NOT BE SHOWN TO BE IN ERROR IN THE FUTURE?

Is this knowledge you speak of truth? If you know something, and you know it, not just whether or not you believe it, shouldn't it hold true? What we "know" as knowledge is based on reality, but it isn't equivalent to reality. I think that knowledge is the truth. However, our interpretation is a subjective perspective of looking at the knowledge. If we were to find "error" in our truths, then there were things not considered, or what we discovered was subject to human errors and other litle slip ups. It's not so much as there being error with the truth than there is connecting other truths.

(Do you like typing in caps? You don't need to "yell" at me; I get what you're trying to say.)

Val, I agree with you. My sense of the notion of objectivity is not the dualistic sense as in object-subject interactions. The entire world is a unity in which everything within it, including ourselves and our "knowledge," has to do with relationships. We are never apart from that which we experience "objectively". All experience occurs within a unity. I don't call it subjective, at this point, because that implies an objective world "out there" that I address subjectively. There IS interaction, which generates experience, including "knowledge", but that interaction is an activity of Reality. Our true nature consists only of relationships (Fresco's interactions). We ARE the "objects" with which we interact. There's no actual dualism here, but the language we use in describing it is inescapably dualistic. I and the stone are one; the stone and the snake are one; the snake and I are one. The three of us are one (Tat tvam asi: That art thou--of the Vedanta). When I experience the stone, we call that subjectivity. But the relationship of experience is an objective fact. There is no "me" apart from the "objects" of my experience. I guess it can be said that "I" am not experiencing a "stone". The stone and I are our relationship. There is only the relationship. Indeed, my true Self consists of countless on-going and changing relationships. By "objective" I guess I mean "absolute", all that is, independent of my experience, but including my experiences and the relationships constituting them. I would say that only one thing is objective or absolute and that is the total picture of relationships in Reality: I might call it God if I were a theist.

Nothing silly about that.

NICU
You said that perhaps we should explore what entails an authentic experience for a subjective human being. It's not silly. I agree with you. Indeed it was the point of depart of Heidegger, in his "Sein und Zeit". To see man in his experience - or existence - and not as an essency as western philosophy has done since Plato.

NICU: Welcome aboard. I like the inversion you've done here, that rarely happens. I think the essence of the human experience resides in logic, since, as we've said in this post, logic is the only way to find reason and truth. A perfect example of this is Descartes' " I think, therefore I am."

I agree that an open mind would lead to an improved society; then misunderstandings wouldn't lead to so much conflict. I'm interested, though, in why you think it would lead to better sciences...do you mean if scientists stopped weighing themselves down with old rules and paradigms, or something else?

I think that the basic laws of the universe will hold true everywhere, though they might have to be adapted for new elements, environments, etc., but, since I have not, alas, visited a far off planet...It's doubtful I'll ever know.

I also agree on the stubborn denial found in almost any profession you can name: once people have an anchor, they seem unwilling to abandon it, even for an island.

Hypothetically, of course….just to see, if the scientist community would approach that information…more objectively, if it wasn't earth.

HA! That would be amusing...but I'll be an optimist and say that most scientists would be, even if it was. I mean, that is their job...

truth is truth it is unchanging there are no "versions of it".opinions based out of fact are however subjective.
Example : in the eternal augment of weather a glass is half empty or half full , is opinion , but the truth is that the glass contains 50% water and 50% air.
too many people try to pass off as truth what is real just opinion.

kflex: You and Frank would get along very well. :wink:
But I agree, people do try to pass off their judgments as fact, which leads to many problems. I tend to be optimistic(or naive, maybe?) and trust that people are really offering opinions, not "facts", but I see your point. I liked the reinterpretation of the "glass" metaphor...that's not something I've seen before. Good job.

thank you