Is truth subjective or objective?

[Hanpan]

I personally love logic and philosophy in general. It's just moral philosophy that kinda bugs me. Not because i have no morals or don't wish to defent them it's just there is much bias and logic is often lost to emotions. However The study of logic in philosophy is very interesting. This being said i'm not even a phil major just kinda like it on the side.

 

[Comp10]

Just because a truth seems subjective to us, does not in any way exclude it from being an objective truth (or having an objective truth behind it that we do not yet comprehend). Take for example the physical nature of the universe. Largely through mathematics and science we have discovered many truths which cannot be considered subjective. Now many might argue that mathematical truths have nothing to do with more human moral truths. However, you must realize that we are the universe. The molecules that make up our bodies are simply the remnants of long dead stars. Now I think that most everybody would agree that there are universal truths that govern the nature of our universe and how it behaves. And since we are a part of that universe, I fail to see how there could not be universal truths which also govern our behavior, since the universe certainly has no problems making laws to govern other parts of itself. So to my present thinking, to say that there are no human objective truths is to say that we are not part of this universe, which I find to be highly contradictory to what the objective truth of math and science tells us. However, I do concede that our present knowledge of the universe might not be (and likely isn't) close to the ultimate truth, but if that knowledge were subjective it would be constantly in a state of flux, which is clearly not the case for our basic laws of nature. So I must conclude that through science we have already discovered pieces of the ultimate truth which governs all things in this universe, including us.

 

[Hanpan]

I agree. Some things like mathematical truths are analytically true. That is 5 is greater than 4 by definition etc.

 

[SecretAgentMan]

<< There aren't any versions of the truth. >>


-Dr. Ian Malcom (played by Jeff Goldblum) in The Lost World: Jurassic Park 2

 

[Moonbeam]

Comp10, We are the world? Nice post.

 

[poop]

I never said something is true because we believe it. I just said some people believe in Truth because they need to. They cannot attribute moral codes to anything else. Morals do not have to rely on Truth to be for everyone.

I believe there is a particular set of morals everyone human can live by. These consist of very basic premises, such as do not kill, do not hurt others willingly, etc.

I am an essentialist int he regard that I think all humans are alike on a very basic level. We all want to live, breath, and enjoy life. I feel there is a moral code we can all live by so these needs are met. Is this code Right? No. It is not Truth, either.

 

[PakG1]

Comp10, you DA MAN!
That's what I was trying to say before in my first whatever number of messages except I didn't have the time to lay it all out like that. ^^

 

[Engine]

Sheesh... so many Postmodernists here. I actually like the question phrased a slightly different way, though: Is truth discovered, or is it created?

I think that is a fundamental difference between those who believe in an organized religion and those who do not (I'm generalizing here big time, I know, but it IS a difference that I see in a lot of people). Some people believe that truth is discovered, that there are universal truths that should apply to everyone and that are discovered through God. Some people believe that truth and morality are all created, whether it be by religions in an attempt to control the masses, or by some instinctual trait in humans to make order out of the world.

Personally, I'm of the former belief.

 

[Elledan]

Some things have only one 'truth':

Everything which stays the same no matter how many times you 'replay' history with every time different events.

E.g. Mathematics, physics, etc.

But other things have multiple 'truths':

Those things will change if you 'replay' history. These include morals, the way life looks in certain periods, languages, etc.

 

[Wuming]

truth is very much what one wishes to believe in, although universal truths are more likely than not something we have to believe in, cos it is what all the rest of the world believes in. well. the sun rises from the east and sets in the west is very much a truth, now that we know. but the world could tell ourselves the reverse is true. of course science takes much of such guesswork away.

but more often than not things are not as clear cut as can be explained by science.

oh bother. i am not thinking straight right now.

 

[Elledan]

<<the sun rises from the east and sets in the west is very much a truth,>>

Not really, the earth moves, not the sun

 

[Athanasius]

Hi Moonbeam


Truth is motion in the right direction.

In that sense, it is relative, because motion is relative. Because those who have experienced truth suddenly find much common ground in the direction they are heading, they recognize that Truth, though distorted by their different perceptions, has an inherent quality to it that is self-authenticating and therefore objective.

Truth is more than mathematical facts. Facts are based on observation. Observation is itself subjective. Plus, the act of observing something apparently alters that something, at least on a quantum level. No amount of pointing at the moon will enable the baboon to wonder at the majesty of the night sky. He will simply sniff at the &quot;fact&quot; of the finger and assume that there is no food there. He goes hungry. Or he will eat the finger of the man and persecute the prophet in his midst. Meanwhile, the Man fills his spirit with the beauty of the creation despite the absence of any physical &quot;fact of food&quot;. The Man has truth, the baboon has only facts, and not enough to satisfy his ravenous appetite.

So observation, at least minutely, alters the &quot;objective&quot; facts, at least from our subjective perspective. The Man was altered because he observed. The baboon was unaltered because he saw only the facts.

Accepting the notion of an absolute truth requires an act of faith. While the declaration that there must be some absolute somewhere seems obvious, without faith the best absolute we can prove is simply the affirmation of a negative: &quot;There are absolutely no absolutes.&quot;

Still, without this act of faith, we are trapped in the fortress of reason. We build this fortress of facts and knowledge around ourselves to give us a sense of control or a sense of release from any authority (flip sides of the same coin).

But the fortress that we build becomes our prison, not our sanctuary. Reason takes us to the edge of the Abyss. By pursuing reason, science, and knowledge, we are in fact putting faith in those things. But it is only a negative kind of faith. It is a faith that can destroy, but not create. It can destroy idolatry and superstition, but it is not a faith that can give existence a positive quality that would make the pursuit of reason a worthy act in the first place. It destroys every idol but does not replace the idol with anything more real. In fact, the facts tell us that the end result of the universe will be essentially ZERO. And no human effort seems even minutely able to change that equation.

Eventually, reason claims to see through everything. But to see through everything is the same as to see nothing. Reason becomes blind to the REASON that led to faith in the pursuit of reason in the beginning.

And the Truth gets crucified. The Voice that encouraged us to begin the journey in the first place gets torn between the authoritarian fear of superstition and the cold empty vacuum of human reason.

Some lament this crucifixion, and the truth is resurrected again. Resurrected in subjective humanity. The Truth was there before it became subjectively human. When humanity is cold and dead in the grave, aborted before it was ever truly born, the Truth will still be there. In the joining of Truth to Humanity, humanity has hope of a new kind of life.

The fortress of reason serves its purpose. The fact of reason is the conception of life. It is the womb of the fetus, protecting us from the deadly world of fear and superstition until we are developed enough to survive. But it can't stay a fetus. It must be born or it will die.

This is the Truth.

Facts can be proven. Truth begins with a journey and must be experienced.

Take the leap.

EDIT for typos. Typos are an absolute truth of my relative life

 

[Corn]

Moonbeam exposed a little bit of who he is:



<< The reason you need to have some sympathy for liars is to have some sympathy for yourself, enough, so that seeing how you lie isn't so painful that you can't do it. >>



My pity for you knows no bounds Moonbeam.

 

[Athanasius]

21/2 hours and no more replies. Bummer . . .

I guess I came in at the tail end of a dying thread.


Oh well, the truth is, that in the absolute scheme of things, this thread is relatively unimportant. . . .



. . . unless someone encounters the truth through it.

Then, what is relative (a bbs thread) gains absolute importance for that individual.

 

[Moonbeam]

Athanasius, Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on this. I'm not sure what you mean:

&quot;The fortress of reason serves its purpose. The fact of reason is the conception of life. It is the womb of the fetus, protecting us from the deadly world of fear and superstition until we are developed enough to survive. But it can't stay a fetus. It must be born or it will die.&quot;

As I approached my wits end, I saw only meaninglessness, but when I got there I saw that meaninglessness was meaningless. In an instant I, the thinker, died and there in the ashes was my loving heart. This happened to me because I had abandoned hope completely.

 

[PakG1]

<<But it can't stay a fetus. It must be born or it will die.>>

And what happens to reason after the fetus is born? What purpose does it serve then?

Sounds like Ecclesiastes or something, Moonbeam.

 

[pamchenko]

edit: I replied to your thread athansius because I felt you put a good deal of time into it. If you plagarized this, shame on you. If you didn't, I suggest you write in a more layman's tone so that we can understand you. I have no idea why ppl try to be so poetic and stuff when they can be straightfwd. You can say I'm stupid, but whatever...I tried.



<< Truth is motion in the right direction. In that sense, it is relative, because motion is relative. >>


First of all, I don't see how you relate truth to motion...2nd, transitivity isn't always guaranteed especially if truth is not motion F->T (I haven't done any logic in a long time...so correct me if I'm wrong here)



<< Because those who have experienced truth suddenly find much common ground in the direction they are heading, they recognize that Truth, though distorted by their different perceptions, has an inherent quality to it that is self-authenticating and therefore objective. >>


what about the example given earlier about the earth being flat? your truth comes from consensus? or are you saying that the truth is gradually revealed...because it was from a SMALL minority that believed that the earth was round, and that was nowhere near consensus...

though poetic, your baboon/man/sky/reference to uncertainty principle paragraph confused me.

<< the Man fills his spirit with the beauty of the creation despite the absence of any physical &quot;fact of food&quot;. The Man has truth, the baboon has only facts >>

so you're saying man's ability to appreciate is truth? no it is not. I think man's ability to appreciate is a different way of seeing things for what they are. Unless we're arguing definitions of truth, truth is what really happens/happened.



<< So observation, at least minutely, alters the &quot;objective&quot; facts, at least from our subjective perspective. The Man was altered because he observed. The baboon was unaltered because he saw only the facts. >>

how was the man altered? because he was amazed? so you're saying his emotions changed? the baboon is changed as well because if he looks into the sky, though he sees no food, he is LEARNING that there more about his surroundings.



<< Accepting the notion of an absolute truth requires an act of faith. While the declaration that there must be some absolute somewhere seems obvious, without faith the best absolute we can prove is simply the affirmation of a negative: &quot;There are absolutely no absolutes.&quot; >>

I agree here more or less. Like in science, you can only keep refining and eliminating hypothesis...you really can't demonstrate something perfectly...there are always untested alternative hypothesis.

what abyss are you talking about?!



<< It destroys every idol but does not replace the idol with anything more real. In fact, the facts tell us that the end result of the universe will be essentially ZERO. And no human effort seems even minutely able to change that equation. >>


ok, I see you're talking religiously...but relating it to my scientific method theme, you can eliminate (you used the word destroy) but where do the facts tell us that everything is essentially zero? isn't this existentialist thinking? I'd better consult my sister on this one.



<< The fortress of reason serves its purpose. The fact of reason is the conception of life. It is the womb of the fetus, protecting us from the deadly world of fear and superstition until we are developed enough to survive. But it can't stay a fetus. It must be born or it will die. >>


argh, this is like reading one of those antiquated scholarly writings that turns me off because it is so full of metaphors that use important words like &quot;fact/life/reason&quot; in such abstract/non common terms. what is the freacking fetus here.... is it &quot;the fact of reason is the womb of the fetus&quot;...ok, so the fact of reason is the womb, but what grows in womb? the fetus...I know...but what does that refer to? metaphors relating to metaphors...how confusing. I understand why we'd need reason to feel secure...I personally need to be able to explain things or I am uneasy...a prime example is how can't make someone fall in love with you no matter how hard you try.

I guess you've taken this thread in a way different direction. One that I was totally not expecting... you're describing what your sense of truth is ... and to you it is a confusing/mystical journey of human/spiritual experience that humans have tried to reason to feel secure.

Though I guess you're &quot;poetic,&quot; my interpretation of what you're writing is prolly not correct. What does that mean? Be clearer and to the point when you write. The key to communication is conveying ideas and here I'm struggling to keep up.

Do I agree with what you had to say? If I didn't misunderstand you, I do agree. Read my earlier post regarding what I thought about truth being &quot;what happened or what will happen&quot;...ppl's thoughts are beliefs and there is a truth to every matter that MAY or MAY NOT correspond to belief...religiously...ppl's thoughts on a greater being are faith.

 

[PakG1]

<< Because those who have experienced truth suddenly find much common ground in the direction they are heading, they recognize that Truth, though distorted by their different perceptions, has an inherent quality to it that is self-authenticating and therefore objective. >>

what about the example given earlier about the earth being flat? your truth comes from consensus? or are you saying that the truth is gradually revealed...because it was from a SMALL minority that believed that the earth was round, and that was nowhere near consensus...

Above taken from pamchenko's message.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that he's saying that although different people see the truth and perceive it differently, it still has one meaning and they eventually all come to the same conclusion regarding it. Just wanted to clear things up. Or muddle 'em up more.

 

[Athanasius]

Hi pamchenko:


Sorry for the delay in responding. I checked the thread as soon as I had a chance.

Thanks for responding. BTW, I didn't plagiarize my post. Nor did I spend a large amount of time actually writing it. But I do spend a lot of time thinking about the issues this thread raises, soo I tried to use &quot;shorthand&quot; and metaphor to communicate ideals that are not easily communicated in perhaps any setting, much less a BBS. ALthough I did not plagiarize, I am not claiming that my thoughts are truly original, because I have certainly been influenced by other's thinkings a great deal. Perhaps truth is never original, only newly discovered or rediscovered?


The original question was: Is truth subjective or objective? I suppose I would start the way Mr. Palco did in his reply: define the terms. I tried to suggest that there is a difference between truth and facts. In the last three hundred years of western thinking, perhaps no real distinction has been made between the two ideas. I think Descartes is one who perhaps summarizes the western point of view. In the 17th century, Descartes split the mind and body into two spheres, with the body belonging to science and the mind belonging to metaphysics. This split is useful, but I believe in the end it is arbitrary and does not accurately reflect all of reality. By splitting the mind from the body and the metaphysical from the scientific, western society was able to protect itself from the superstition and apparent subjectivity of any supposed metaphysical realm, but at what cost? Now we have facts, but no unifying theory of truth or meaning or purpose that gives existence a transcendent meaning. We have more facts than we can deal with. We live in the information age. But we also live in the most suicidal, depressed, nihilistic age western society has seen in the last millenia. We look at the &quot;facts&quot; as we understand them and teach survival of the fittest and then are shocked when a ten year old blows someone away over a pair of shoes. More is caught than taught. Ideals sink in, even if only subconsciously. We tell people that murder is wrong, but we teach a system of existence that leaves very little evidence to suggest why murder is &quot;wrong.&quot; Then we are shocked when surburbanite, well-provisioned children murder without much of a second thought or any obvious and prolonged regret. The facts of a defiant naturalism that denies the possibility of any spiritual metaphysic leave our society without any objective &quot;truth&quot; or &quot;Way&quot; that gives a foundation upon which we can build. If you want a short book that addresses something of this concept, I would recommend The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis

Plus, some aspects of modern science are beginning to show that Descartes' divide, however pragmatic and useful, is not correct. I might suggest The Einstein Factor by Will Wenger and Richard Poe, The Holographic Universe (I forget the author's name), or Molecules of Emotion by Candace Pert to give you serious evidence that the presuppositions of militant naturalism are not sufficient to account for the data.

I believe Personality is greater than matter, that a non-material Consciousness is the best explanation for the existing of the material universe, that the Foundation of Existence is ultimately non-local and non-physical. If these beliefs have any merit, then Truth is greater than the individual facts that we can ever hope to accumulate through naturalism. Hence, truth is greater than &quot;the body&quot; side of things that Descartes compartmentalized. It touches on the metaphysic, the poet, the myth-maker, and the artist. A person walking in the truth sees the sunset and says, &quot;That is beautiful.&quot; And recognizes that the sunset is worthy of evoking that response. That a failure to give that response is not just do to the subjective taste or whim of the individual. A failure to recognize beauty is a failure to BE what we are supposed to be. Hence, there is a calling, a Voice seeking to elicit a response:

Here the song of all creation say Hosanna
Here the sun and moon and stars say Hosanna
Listen to the ocean waves and here what the thunder says
Hosanna to the King of Kings.

Michael Card, Hosanna

Although I am a Christian, all of the references I gave you are non-Christian as far as I know, and often agnostic or atheistic. The exceptions are C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man and Michael Card's song Hosanna.

 

[pamchenko]

Athansius, keep in mind I have NO background in philosophy so I'm prone to make all kinds of illogical statements. I appreciate your enlightening thoughts though because they allow me to see things in a different perspective.
Since I appreciate the knowledge/point of view/enlightenment you have provided, am I walking or at least approaching the Truth you talk about?
I understand that my arguments before rested too heavily on the body/science part of Descartes' explanation. I agree with you that the truth is also the rationale behind actions/events as they are part of why things occured? When you talk about random killing over shoes, there usually is no satisfactory explanation, hence a lacking of truth? (pyschology scholars only think they can explain things in terms of tendencies)


<< A failure to recognize beauty is a failure to BE what we are supposed to be. >>


I initially took this to be a statement that argued about free-will but after re-reading, are you saying that whatever truth there is, forces us the ability to appreciate &quot;the sunset&quot; (evoked emotion?)...however, does this truth imply the abscence of free-will?
Also, are you stating/implying that there is a truth that is unifying? Or is it possible to have multiple truths per action/activity? Or are you saying that the unifying truth explains all actions (and hence in the inability to EVER comprehend this unifying truth).
Your response was well organized, logical and even cited. I hope you can further enlighten me...

 

[wviperw]

There is an absolute, objective truth. Whether that happens to be christianity, atheism, hinduism or whatever. I don't see how we can KNOW this absolute truth. Therefore everyone must have a subjective truth of what they think is right. Unfortunatley I have concluded that this subjective truth doesn't work.

 

[Athanasius]

pamchenko:

I would say that truth is ultimately one, unified, and incomprehensible. By incomprehensible, I do not mean that it is beyond all understanding. I believe the truth can be apprehended, but not comprehended. We get bits and pieces, but we never encompass it; it encompasses us.

As far as free will goes, that's a whole 'nother can of worms!

I think we have some ability to choose our response to truth. Perhaps this ability is aided by divine grace? We choose very little of the factors that dominate our lives. Howver, we can increasingly choose our response to those factors, and in this choosing, if we choose benevolently and wisely, perhaps we get exposed to more truth and hence the ability to become more free. Jesus said, &quot;You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.&quot;

I would say that killing over a pair of shoes is revealing a lack of truth, or at least a failure to love truth.

As far as enlightening you, I might have a better chance if I was truly enlightened myself!

I can only point to the words of Thomas a Kempis in his work, The Imitation of Christ:



<< The more a person is at one with himself and inwardly undivided, the more varied and profound things does he understand, and that without effort, for he receives the light of understanding from above.&quot; >>



Jesus said, in Matthew 6:



<< If your eye is single, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is evil, even the light that is within you will become darkness. If even the light that is within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! >>

(A paraphrase of the King James Version, Matthew 6:22-23)