Reply
Fri 22 Apr, 2005 11:47 pm
May I ask: How on earth am I to answer this poll?
"Is truth subjective or objective?"
What type of truth? Where? On what? On pure science or social science? Perhaps the humanities? About the world as such or this world in particular? And what truths are we implying by such questions?
So, until some sort of qualification comes about, I can not respond to this question.
And yet you just did.
How can there be a qualification on truth? There certainly can be shades of prevarication, lies, damned lies, etc. . He made an inoperative statement, it wasn't a lie, it was an untruth and all the other oh-boy- what a load of crapolla pronouncements we hear and read everyday, but the truth is just that, true.
The poller seems to me to be asking "How do you tell?" objectively or subjectively, but the truth, however you find it, does not move. It waits for us to find it. Right?
Joe(Welcome to A2K)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:And yet you just did.
How can there be a qualification on truth? There certainly can be shades of prevarication, lies, damned lies, etc. . He made an inoperative statement, it wasn't a lie, it was an untruth and all the other oh-boy- what a load of crapolla pronouncements we hear and read everyday, but the truth is just that, true.
The poller seems to me to be asking "How do you tell?" objectively or subjectively, but the truth, however you find it, does not move. It waits for us to find it. Right?
Joe(Welcome to A2K)Nation
Thank you for the welcome Joe.
No, I have not provided any answer "to the poll," but only "to my position" on the poll, which, to my mind, is entirely different than the poll itself. A minute distinction, but important.
As for the notion of qualification "on" truth, allow me a minute, or two.
To ask whether or not "truth" is subjective or objective is
not to ask "How do you tell?" but rather "Is truth derived from the thinking subject or the thought object?" A good question, though if we qualify what is meant by "truth" the question could be improved, and therefore could be given a sufficient response. Otherwise, all truths whatsoever will be encompassed by the first question, and this could be deceptive.
Let us say that I choose the truths, or tautologies, of maths, or logic for that matter. Do these truths rely on the thinking subject or its object? Now say I choose the truths of sociology, or art, or, a better example I believe, those "truths" of history? What of them? On which aspect of this (cognitive) relation do they rely? And this could go on...
My own point is this: If I am to answer such a question as posited by the poll, I require to know what "type" of truths it speaks of, and not all truths in general. You would agree that a number of truths depend on the way the world is, and others rely on the subject; still others may rely on both aspects of the relation. Given that "truth," as a logical concept that is, is a "property" of a sentence, and many sentences are (and are not) declarative in nature, some, therefore, would depend on the world, and others would rely on the agent, and then some would rely on both aspects.
In a word, the situation described by the question of the poll is, in effect, dependent entirely "on" that situation and its relations. Or else, the notion of truth and its origin depends on the relations from which it is derived "at" that moment, either from the subject or the object, or both.
Can you name one truth which is not objective and another which is objective in its origin? In other words, try to list two "truths:" one not dependent on us, and another dependent on us exclusively.
Thanks for the reply Joe.
Whatever is true...is true.
It is objective.
It matters not one whit what we think about it.
Frank Apisa wrote:Whatever is true...is true.
It is objective.
It matters not one whit what we think about it.
The first is true in any instance, as with "...whenever it rains, it rains." But to say "it is objective" does not shed any light on the above distinction I placed in response to Joe's remark. A particular truth here or there may or may not be "objective," and still others may or may not be "subjective." To reiterate: it depends on the situation, the scope of the situation, and the properties within those relations.
As for your last remark, I find it misleading. It certainly matters what we "do" think of it and "how" it is thought, for the matter is anything but simple, unlike the statement "Whatever is true is true." To leave truth alone and let it stand as it were is to neglect its force and impact in philosophy and the sciences, particularly in maths and logic, and to dismiss it due to its seeming simplicity. And truth is complicated, precisely because of its "types," and because it is found and picked up here and there. There is a good reason for the ongoing debates of philosophers on this notion- the notion of truth.
Thanks for your reply.
Noble: The poll is asking whether you think "truth" exists independent of your perceptions(objective), or if it is influenced/created by your perceptions(Subjective). Perhaps another word you could substitute for "truth" is "reality", since truth is an expression about reality. I hope that helps.
Taliesin181 wrote:Noble: The poll is asking whether you think "truth" exists independent of your perceptions(objective), or if it is influenced/created by your perceptions(Subjective). Perhaps another word you could substitute for "truth" is "reality", since truth is an expression about reality. I hope that helps.
'Independent of your perceptions' is to say 'derived from the thought object' and 'influenced/created by your perceptions' is to say 'derived from the thinking subject'. In any case, the question makes no such qualification; rather, we have been qualifying this question as we go. And we are still going...
If I do as you suggest, i.e., make that substitution, then the question 'Is reality subjective or objective?' would be equally broad, and, therefore, equivocal.
But I suspect this: after a number of replies and posts, we may have what I am looking for- a precise question about truth and its origin.
Thanks Talie.
Nobel...I disagree with you.
And...in part, I disagree with Tal also (but he and I have discussed that elsewhere.)
What is real...is real.
What is true...is true.
Anything you or I or anyone else feels (considers, supposes, believes, or any of that stuff)...does not change the reality nor the truth.
You can have perceptions of truth (beliefs of truth, considerations of truths, suppositions about truths)...
...but all that is irrelevant.
What is true...is true regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
And as such...is purely objective.
Frank Apisa wrote:Nobel...I disagree with you.
And...in part, I disagree with Tal also (but he and I have discussed that elsewhere.)
What is real...is real.
What is true...is true.
Anything you or I or anyone else feels (considers, supposes, believes, or any of that stuff)...does not change the reality nor the truth.
You can have perceptions of truth (beliefs of truth, considerations of truths, suppositions about truths)...
...but all that is irrelevant.
What is true...is true regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
Well, Frank, I am surprised, to say the least.
The first two statements, once more, are true in any case, and so they do not express anything new; they are, as a matter of fact and not of opinion, tautologies. These truths, as expressed in these statements, are true regardless of what happens or what I believe. Therefore, they must be objective. This seems to be your line of thought.
And this is what you speak of: tautologies, logical truths, and nothing more. The poll, if you recall, called for an answer to the set of "all" truths and their origin- not only logical truths. Once more, you mention these logical constructs, and these are true everywhere and anywhere, as with your remark: "What is true...is true regardless of what anyone thinks about it."
As a final note: had it not been for our own "perceptions of truths," which you claim are irrelevant, such distinctions would not have come about.
All "truths" are not objective; tautologies are "objective."
NobleCon said:
Quote:'Independent of your perceptions' is to say 'derived from the thought object' and 'influenced/created by your perceptions' is to say 'derived from the thinking subject'. In any case, the question makes no such qualification; rather, we have been qualifying this question as we go. And we are still going...
Could you rephrase this? I'm having difficulty understanding what your intent is. Thanks.
As far as the rest of your post, I don't see how the question "Is reality Subjective/Objective" is broad at all. It might encompass a multitude of the universe's aspects, but the fundamental nature of reality is fairly concise(in my opinion, at least.) Hope to hear from you soon.
Frank: On which point do we disagree? I thought our views were more or less identical. Thanks for the response.
Taliesin181 wrote:NobleCon said:
Quote:'Independent of your perceptions' is to say 'derived from the thought object' and 'influenced/created by your perceptions' is to say 'derived from the thinking subject'. In any case, the question makes no such qualification; rather, we have been qualifying this question as we go. And we are still going...
Could you rephrase this? I'm having difficulty understanding what your intent is. Thanks.
As far as the rest of your post, I don't see how the question "Is reality Subjective/Objective" is broad at all. It might encompass a multitude of the universe's aspects, but the fundamental nature of reality is fairly concise(in my opinion, at least.) Hope to hear from you soon.
Frank: On which point do we disagree? I thought our views were more or less identical. Thanks for the response.
Talie, my intent with the first part above is to say that we are speaking of the same items, though with different terminology; 'independent of perceptions' is the same as 'truth derived from the thought object' and 'influenced/created by perceptions' is the same as 'truth derived from the thinking subject'. As for the initial poll, it did not make the distinction between such entities, only an implied distinction between "types" of truths. And these "types" are derived from these "entities."
If we were to make the substitution, as in 'Is reality subjective or objective?', and, for the sake of argument, we equate 'truth' with 'reality', then though we assume a simpler question, in actuality we have made the matter worse. Types of truths here or there in this universe are one thing, reality as such (as a whole) is another, more complicated issue.
And, I, along with a number of philosophers, both alive and gone, only wish that nature was fairly evident and concise, as an algebraic expression.
Though tell me more. The nature of truth (and its analysis) is a valauble excavation.
Thanks for the reply. :wink:
NobleCon wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Nobel...I disagree with you.
And...in part, I disagree with Tal also (but he and I have discussed that elsewhere.)
What is real...is real.
What is true...is true.
Anything you or I or anyone else feels (considers, supposes, believes, or any of that stuff)...does not change the reality nor the truth.
You can have perceptions of truth (beliefs of truth, considerations of truths, suppositions about truths)...
...but all that is irrelevant.
What is true...is true regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
Well, Frank, I am surprised, to say the least.
The first two statements, once more, are true in any case, and so they do not express anything new; they are, as a matter of fact and not of opinion, tautologies. These truths, as expressed in these statements, are true regardless of what happens or what I believe. Therefore, they must be objective. This seems to be your line of thought.
And this is what you speak of: tautologies, logical truths, and nothing more. The poll, if you recall, called for an answer to the set of "all" truths and their origin- not only logical truths. Once more, you mention these logical constructs, and these are true everywhere and anywhere, as with your remark: "What is true...is true regardless of what anyone thinks about it."
As a final note: had it not been for our own "perceptions of truths," which you claim are irrelevant, such distinctions would not have come about.
All "truths" are not objective; tautologies are "objective."
Well...you are wrong. But you sound as though you are going to be bull-headed about things...and I've had my fill of bull-headed "truth is subjective" people.
The only way to treat "truth" is as a tautology.
To pretend that someone's interpretation of the truth...or someone's considerations of the truth...constitute a "truth" is absurd. But as I said, I'm not going to deal with another bull-headed "truth is subjective" fantasy.
Taliesin181 wrote:Frank: On which point do we disagree? I thought our views were more or less identical. Thanks for the response.
I have some reservations about the comment, "...since truth is an expression about reality."
It is minor...and may be nitpicking. But I chose to at least acknowledge that there was minor disagreement.
Frank said:
Quote:Taliesin181 wrote:
Frank: On which point do we disagree? I thought our views were more or less identical. Thanks for the response.
I have some reservations about the comment, "...since truth is an expression about reality."
It is minor...and may be nitpicking. But I chose to at least acknowledge that there was minor disagreement.
Okay, then. As it was pointed out to me by NobleCon, my use of 'truth' was a bit narrow, and thus 'reality' was a poor substitute. Thanks(both of you) for bringing it to my attention. I meant 'truth' as an expression of what empirically exists, but I overlooked some of its finer meanings.
Noble: While I accept that there are "different types of truth", I still hold that you can understand the universe, as you said, as "an algebraic expression." Just because we haven't found a way to factor in all the variables doesn't mean we
won't. Who knows? The final formula could very well have an expression for God, or it could just be some random number generator. Nevertheless, while we may not 'know' the exact nature of the universe, we can come to a general approximation through logic.
I eagerly await your response.
We've just encountered another disagreement, Tal.
What is true...is true. What is not true...is not true.
No considerations by anyone...or any conglomeration of anyones...will make something that is not true...true.
Truth IS OBJECTIVE. IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY SUBJECTIVE.
And attempts to paint the REALITY in a way that has truths coming in ways that allow it to be subjective....are word and mind games.
Tal...these people are mistaking "impressions of truth" and "considerations of truth" with TRUTH.
Don't be sucked in.
It ain't so.
Frank:
Thank you for your response.
It is my earnest opinion that I am not "bull-headed" when the time comes about for open debate on vital philosophic issues, such as this one. I am sorry that you have "...had your fill of bull-headed "truth is objective" people."
As for the matter of who is right or wrong, I say this: my own intention is not to place a positive value on my opinions, or, as Kant named them, holdings-to-be-true; rather, I attempt to obtain correct results through discourse, either with myself or with others. So, with this in mind, let us continue.
The statement 'The only way to treat truth is as a tautology.' can be misleading, as in the present case. If we comprise, in our present discussion, every one "truth" we have come up against, we note immediately that those truths of pure maths and formal symbolic (deductive) logic, along with its hybrids to be sure, consist of tautological forms, as in 'a+b = b+a', the commutative law of algebra, or that of identity, as in 'a+0 = 0+a = a'. In point, a brief examination will show that every "truth" of these fields is, necessarily, a logical truth, or a tautology. But consider the truth 'The name 'Frank Apisa' corresponds to this individual in this forum'. What of this? It is a truth, for certain, though not a tautology, and neither can it be treated as such; or else, it is not the case that it will never be false. We all come and go, here and there, and, at times, we vanish; and, from what I hear, we also pass on. In other words, the matter with this statement- its truth that is- is "inductive" and not true in any and every case. It will, at some point, be false.
Your last statement is not misleading, but only confusing. Allow me to untie the knot. I reiterate that sentence: "To pretend that someone's interpretation of the truth...or someone's considerations of the truth...constitute a "truth" is absurd. Consider Aristotle's syllogistic (term) logic. The man sat down and wrote out his "interpretations" of proper (deductive) reasoning, or forms of argumentation, for the reason that his logical forms were "true" in any case. Now, since this form of logic has obtained the status of orthodoxy (in logic that is), and they were derived from his "perceptions" or "interpretations" on these forms, and obtained a "...constitution of truth" in general, his derivations- his interpretations and perceptions- are universally valid, in any case. That his system is not adequate when it comes to the analysis of complicated and extended reasoning is of no concern.
And, as a final note: I appreciate when others read critically, and not haphazardly. Though I am in my twenties, I have always read the material of others with a first-class degree of precision; I have always attempted this. So, to find that others have not done the same with my own material or the material of others is saddening to me. Philosophy calls for such precision. :wink:
Again, thank you Frank for your reply.
Taliesin181 wrote:Frank said:
Quote:Taliesin181 wrote:
Frank: On which point do we disagree? I thought our views were more or less identical. Thanks for the response.
I have some reservations about the comment, "...since truth is an expression about reality."
It is minor...and may be nitpicking. But I chose to at least acknowledge that there was minor disagreement.
Okay, then. As it was pointed out to me by NobleCon, my use of 'truth' was a bit narrow, and thus 'reality' was a poor substitute. Thanks(both of you) for bringing it to my attention. I meant 'truth' as an expression of what empirically exists, but I overlooked some of its finer meanings.
Noble: While I accept that there are "different types of truth", I still hold that you can understand the universe, as you said, as "an algebraic expression." Just because we haven't found a way to factor in all the variables doesn't mean we
won't. Who knows? The final formula could very well have an expression for God, or it could just be some random number generator. Nevertheless, while we may not 'know' the exact nature of the universe, we can come to a general approximation through logic.
I eagerly await your response.
Sorry for the delay Talie.
Yes, and many mathematicians- and I am not a mathematician- believe so; that, in particular, the universe as such, or, better yet, the set of all universes (quantum mechanics), can be delineated as an expression of this type. As for me, I am as of yet not certain of this.
Your last statement is beautiful, and many philosophers (Russell, Ayer, Wittgenstein, Ramsey, and so on) would agree. But, they would add, "...not a general approximation, but a precise picture of it." So far, with super string theory and the rest, it has come to be a laborious project, both for mathematicians and philosophers; in other words, the degree of precision required for this task is enormous.
As for the "final formula," and God that is, I would love to see it- I mean this! Simply put, I am not certain. I am not certain if "God" is either "in" this universe or outside of it, and I am not certain if an expression of Him can be derived through an intricate set of equations or expressions. A very interesting topic. What is your take on it?
And thanks for your reply Talie.
Frank Apisa wrote:We've just encountered another disagreement, Tal.
What is true...is true. What is not true...is not true.
No considerations by anyone...or any conglomeration of anyones...will make something that is not true...true.
Truth IS OBJECTIVE. IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY SUBJECTIVE.
And attempts to paint the REALITY in a way that has truths coming in ways that allow it to be subjective....are word and mind games.
Tal...these people are mistaking "impressions of truth" and "considerations of truth" with TRUTH.
Don't be sucked in.
It ain't so.
Frank, if you would be so kind as to review your own material prior to placing them for public viewing, I believe you will find yourself in a more advantageous position.
Your first statement, once more, is a tautology- it can "never" be false.
Your second statement is riddled with deceptive sign-posts, and I suggest a different approach. My revision of this statement is as follows: Depending on the sorts of truth under consideration, an untrue statement could become true, and vice versa; if, on the other hand, we speak of the truths of maths and logic exclusively, then this is not the case: they can never be false.
And, in closing, I will say this: I only wish the philosophic excavation of the notion of truth consisted of mind games. It would have been brought to an end long ago.
As for the "sucked in" part, I do not believe any one here is sucked-in.
Thank you for the reply.
NobleCon wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:We've just encountered another disagreement, Tal.
What is true...is true. What is not true...is not true.
No considerations by anyone...or any conglomeration of anyones...will make something that is not true...true.
Truth IS OBJECTIVE. IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY SUBJECTIVE.
And attempts to paint the REALITY in a way that has truths coming in ways that allow it to be subjective....are word and mind games.
Tal...these people are mistaking "impressions of truth" and "considerations of truth" with TRUTH.
Don't be sucked in.
It ain't so.
Frank, if you would be so kind as to review your own material prior to placing them for public viewing, I believe you will find yourself in a more advantageous position.
Don't give me lectures on wordsmanship considerations. I have a decent track-record on that account which I will be more than happy to compare with yours.
If you have one, that is.
Quote:Your first statement, once more, is a tautology- it can "never" be false.
Yes I know. Why do you suppose it necessary to mention it again...or for the first time, in fact?
Quote:Your second statement is riddled with deceptive sign-posts, and I suggest a different approach. My revision of this statement is as follows: Depending on the sorts of truth under consideration, an untrue statement could become true, and vice versa; if, on the other hand, we speak of the truths of maths and logic exclusively, then this is not the case: they can never be false.
I think your revision sucks. I much prefer my original.
(You may, of course, substitute "I think your revision is illogical and I prefer my original" if your sensibilities are too fragile for this kind of give and take. Some guys have more balls than others.)
The plain and simply fact, Con, is that what is true...is true...
...and what is not true...is not true...
...and no considerations by anyone...or any conglomeration of anyones...will make something that is not true...true.
PERIOD!
Quote:And, in closing, I will say this: I only wish the philosophic excavation of the notion of truth consisted of mind games. It would have been brought to an end long ago.
I was not speaking of the philosophic notions of truth as being mind games. I was referring to the amateurish bullshyt being floated as philosophic notions of truth here in this forum.
Quote:As for the "sucked in" part, I do not believe any one here is sucked-in.
You'd be amazed!
Quote:Thank you for the reply.
You are quite welcome...and thank you for engaging me.
This should prove quite interesting!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace