Is truth subjective or objective?

[Moonbeam]

Many assume that it is objective because they have a religious belief, but one which can't be proved. Sometimes these will say truth is whatever they say it is. Others, who don't share that point of view say it is subjective and yet will argue some points as if there is a standard. Most people, it seems to me, don't spend too much time examining their basic assumptions, in fact, don't seem to realize they operate on unexamined assumptions. Care to present and defend yours.

 

[madthumbs]

Nothing is absolute.

 

[Double Trouble]

Truth is subjective in the sense that truth or untruth can only exist when placed in a certain context. Since the framing of the context is dependent on the framer, truth MUST be subjective.

 

[Schola]

Truth like most everything else is subjective.

 

[Ornery]

<gulp> What do I win if I get it right? :Q

Truth as opposed to a lie? You believe what you're saying is true, but it turns out to be false. Is that a lie? I believe it's only a &quot;lie&quot; if you know it's not true. That would mean you're wrong, but not a liar. That &quot;truth&quot; would be subjective.

Or do you mean true as opposed to false? That should be able to be proven concretely. I guess that would be objective.

 

[vi edit]

Only if it's absolute.

 

[Azraele]

I think it was Socrates (correct me if I'm wrong) who differentiated bewteen two truths, abosukte truth (god truth I'd guess you'd call it) and truth according to man.

For me, it depends on how you define truth. If you point to a car and tell me that's a car, I will accept that as truth. Other truths, are not so obvious, however. Is truth simply the opposite of a lie, or does it have something to do with universal truths and the way I perceive the world?

 

[Hanpan]

The actual truth is objective. Something is either true or not true. However how we perceve teh truth or what we beleive the truth to be is highly subjective. This however does not change the fact that truth in and of itself is and always will be objective.

For example it was considered truth that the world was not round for many centuries. But the earth was always round wether people thouhgt so or not. What you think should decide wehter or not you believe in somehting (that is it is rational for you to believe in something) but this has no effect on the actualy truth.

 

[pamchenko]

<< Truth is subjective in the sense that truth or untruth can only exist when placed in a certain context. Since the framing of the context is dependent on the framer, truth MUST be subjective. >>


does this mean that there are multiple truths? Truth to me is a separate entity that does not belong to any man. I thk hanpan's example regarding the flat earth vs round earth really helped me figure out my own opinion. So regarding god, the truth is that he/she/it does or does not exist. What different ppl believe in doesn't play in part in whether he/she exists or not...their belief in god is lumped into their faith, not truth.
so I guess I agree with ornery here, but we draw different conclusions in the true vs lie/state something wrong debate...I think in that situation, the event that did happen was the truth and your belief isn't a part of it.

 

[Comp10]

I believe that the majority of the truths we all cling to are subjective, however, I also believe that eternal truths which are not subjective also exist. A good example of an objective truth would be anything related to mathematics, for those principles remain the same and are not open to interpretation . Two plus two will always equal four, the square root of four equals two, etc. And since math is behind everything in the universe, then I must also conclude that there are objective truths for everything, although some are surely beyond our present comprehension.

 

[StageLeft]

Its objective by definition, because when subjectivity enters the equation we're no longer talking about truth.

 

[Entity]

IMHO, there is no Truth. Truth, by nature, is relative to the perspective of the individual; while I may see something as being &quot;moral,&quot; &quot;right,&quot; or &quot;truthful,&quot; it may appear - in your opinion / from your perspective - to be &quot;immoral,&quot; &quot;wrong,&quot; or &quot;false.&quot; As is reflected in the construction of multiple languages and religions, nothing is truly objective.

Rob

 

[Elledan]

<< IMHO, there is no Truth. Truth, by nature, is relative to the perspective of the individual; while I may see something as being &quot;moral,&quot; &quot;right,&quot; or &quot;truthful,&quot; it may appear - in your opinion / from your perspective - to be &quot;immoral,&quot; &quot;wrong,&quot; or &quot;false.&quot; As is reflected in the construction of multiple languages and religions, nothing is truly objective.>>

Agreed.

To take it a bit further: everything you say, everything you write, everything you somehow 'transfer' to the mind of another person is subjective.

Words are subjective, therefore, 'truth' is subjective, since it's only a word.

The closest we can come to objectiveness is by linking the brains of some persons directly, so that they use brain-waves to communicate, but still, those brain-waves are the result of input out of the environment, which is interpreted by the brain and since even our brain isn't subjective, this processed 'input' can never be objective.

You say: &quot;Grass is green.&quot; Well, is it? 'grass' and 'green' are both words we've made up by ourself. We could have called it just about anything, like 'star' and 'rain'.

Life as we see and experience it is subjective. It's highly doubtful that any intelligence can ever be objective, no matter how developed or powerful they may be.

 

[Damaged]

Well, for all you subjectivists, there is at least one objective truth: truth is subjective.

 

[LadyJessica]

Depends on the type of truth you're talking about. Mathematical truths are not subjective. But almost everything else is.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I'm not talking about mathematical truth or 'that is a car' truth. These are definitional facts. I was thinking first about the Taliban thread and whether a religion can be bad. Lets take the example of murder. Is it wrong to kill and if so, upon what basis. If truth is relative than killing ought to be just a weighing of whether you will get caught or not. You can say it is a commandment that we not kill, but how does that convince the relativist. And yet we have gazillions of relativists and not that much murder. Clearly something other that religious law is keeping the murder rate from even remotly approximating the numbers one would postulate based on subjectivity. Doesn't murder feel wrong? What is that feeling? Seems like some kind of absolute is in operation even if we don't see exactly what it is.

 

[Comp10]

Well in nature you don't really see deer or other animals running around murdering each other (although they do kill for food, which is different than murder). So that would seem to suggest that all life has at least some basic morals built in. It seems to me that if life were constantly attempting to destroy every other form of life, they would sooner or later destroy themselves because all complex life requires other organisms in order to survive. So perhaps life has evolved basic morals in which allow life as a whole to prosper.

 

[Ornery]

Just to further cloud the issue , there are some religions whose followers don't feel a twinge of guilt for killing a woman in the family for straying from their beliefs.

Killing unborn children doesn't even raise an eyebrow around here anymore. Murder? Not at this point in time. It's strange how people are horrified if a newborn is abused. Do the same thing to it before it's born and nobody cares. Guess it's all a matter of circumstances or something. Ya sure aren't going to find any logic to this!

 

[brandc]

Is truth subjective or objective? Hmmmmm...May I have another choice, please?

 

[Moonbeam]

Comp10, Athanasius has another explanation for this and I hope he posts, but between you and me, I think you have it. Humans are evolutionarily a social animal that survived only as a functionally cooperating group with powerful attachment to children who are helpless for a lengthy period compared to most animals. We have the power to emphasize, to feel what someone else feels. I think it is our ture natures which provide us with that feeling of what is right and wrong. The disease of self hate possible with the invention of language introduced neurosis into the mix and so we have to take the varing degree a culture can be mentally ill into account in figuring out what's right and what's neurotic. One implication, obviously, is that he who recovers his true self from the neurotic knows the truth.

 

[datalink7]

the ultimate truth is, of cource, objective. THe problem is, nobody can ever achieve the ultimate truth.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not necissarily, datalink7. If the truth is being real than those people sometimes called Avatars, or perfect men, would be embodyments of truth, living exemplars, such as Christ.

 

[pen^2]

ornery, i suppose your refference is to the abortion issue - i believe this is the kind of 'truth' moonbeam has questioned us about. i could see clearly you are anti-abortion, a view quite different from mine; yet i respect your opinion since there is no 'objective truth' about abortion.

 

[cxim]

>>
. I think it is our ture natures which provide us with that feeling of what is right and wrong. The disease of self hate possible with the invention of language introduced neurosis into the mix and so we have to take the varing degree a culture can be mentally ill into account in figuring out what's right and what's neurotic. One implication, obviously, is that he who recovers his true self from the neurotic knows the truth. <<


and this comes from the neurotic that thinks Bill of slime is a good role model..

The same Beam from the Great hunk of cheese that has no morality.. that has proven it'sself with lies in abundance as it suits...

ah Moonbeam shine on me...

OH ?

that yellow glow is piss ???

well this is Moonbeam !!!

 

[Mday]

yes.

it depends on what you mean by truth. and under what circumstances you mean, truth! ;-)

with respect to history, few things are &quot;factual&quot;

with respect to science, equations break down in different situations...

so, whatever...