true nature of truth

Post Reply New Topic

The question is, does objectivity really exist? it seems that objectivity is a concept defined under subjective thoughts, if objectivity is fully independent of thought, then we seem to have a problem about defining an objective truth as we would have to perceive it subjectively, that, and we need to define what Truth is. Truth, seems to be only subjective, absolute truth is very likely nonexistent, we can observe here that what we do and seem to be able to do is speculate and form opinions, hypothesis and theories and just that.



Well, I think it might actually come from subjective experience, I can speculate that our way of thinking may be be influenced by AS or similar things, after all, it goes according to our perception, it seems very likely that our thoughts and way of thinking may be always influenced and defined by our subjective experiences.

I seem to become skeptical about any theory of justification of knowledge lately, and pretty much that seem to be subjective

Last edited by greenblue on 09 Oct 2008, 4:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

- Evidence does not equal Truth.
- Evidence is a human concept to weight value to an assertion, idea or hypothesis
- Yes, we are humans, I believe we have plenty evidence of this Because of this, the accuracy of such evidence or claimed evidence can be questionable, how much honesty or disonesty exist on it or how much unbiased can one be. The interpretation of events or things to be taken as evidence are influenced by our subjective experiences, emotions and ideologies, it is something that seems to give a lot weight when claiming and defending something.


Why should he leave the thread alone, if we are talking about free speech?

The issue is how do you separate "lets them" from the emotions? If emotions control the entire process, then not letting emotions control things is only an urge under the control of another emotion. Actually, I don't think *anyone* can refuse to get emotionally involved with an argument, and this isn't a matter of raw intelligence, this is a matter of how the brain works. I mean, one can have almost any IQ and the idea I am putting forward would likely have to be true. Who says that any of our accomplishments are real accomplishments? Who says that what people care about tends to make sense? In fact, I have run on the premise that what people care about makes no sense. Why do we have scientists? Why do people's opinions on issues never change despite all of the debate that goes on about them? How wouldn't it function?


Yes, and that is why I tend towards a more nihilistic understanding of things. Ok.... common sense... and of course, I am motivated by evil motives. I think that even universalists would question the use of logic you are putting forward.



I think your opposition has generally not been too disrespectful, this is not to say that they have been saints, but when it comes down to it, they usually seem to be more dispassionate. I mean, your own posts do not seem to reflect much of your own ideal of overcoming emotions.

Well, right, I would place doubt on our ability to process information, but what I was meaning is more along the lines of solipsism. I was not advocating metaphysical solipsism.

I would agree as to the latter. To me, it seems Reformed Epistemology found out the glaring weakness there, and decided to ram a truck through it.

I have found the Truth....


"Your hearts know in silence the secrets of the days and the nights.

But your ears thirst for the sound of your heart's knowledge.

You would know in words that which you have always known in thought.

You would touch with your fingers the naked body of your dreams.

And it is well you should.

The hidden well spring of your soul needs to rise and run murmering to the sea;

And the treasures of your infinite depths would be revealed to your eyes.

But let there be no scales to weigh your unknown treasure;

And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding line.

For self is a sea boundless and measureless.

Say not,`I have found the truth,'

But rather, `I have found a truth.'

Say not,`I have found the path of the soul.'

Say rather, `I have met the soul walking upon my path.'

For the soul walks along all paths.

The soul walks not apon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.

The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals."

Kahlil Gibran - The Prophet

-

Oooops.... I stand corrected............

-

hopefully it' not too late to respond to this,

but I think it's pretty straightforward why science holds up in any debate... it's just full of STUFF... try debating some guy who wants to live in harmony against some idealist who wants to do 'something' for the better of mankind!.. and then throw in the fact that they have al these 'positive results' from the laboratory?.. it's not really rocket science.. scientists spend a lot of time indulging and expanding their vocabulary.. but their intelligence is very micro.. everything is studied under a microscope, and they never care about the grand picture. It's hard to argue with a grand perspective. peace peace peace@!.. is all you can really say..

Also: all scientists wear white lab coats everywhere, have pocket protectors full of pens, wear thick glasses and compulsively say things like "HOY-ven GLAY-ven" and flail their arms spastically while talking.

See, that's what people do, they hide behind overly complex language. Ok, here is my thoughts about relativism:

"The theory that truth is entirely subjective is known as relativism. Relativism is perenially attractive as a way of thinking about truth for a number of reasons. First, we have noted in our critique of the correspondence theory, the notion that there is an objective world out there which true statements accurately describe is exceedingly difficult to establish. And secondly, as we become increasingly sensitive to, and tolerant of, the fact that people of different cultures appear to have different world views, the claim that there is a single, objective reality, has come to be reguarded by many as dogmatic, out-dated, and even symptomatic of intolerance towards different world views.

Is relativism viable as a theory of truth? To answer this depends very much on whether one demands consistency of a theory of truth. A thoroughgoing relativist has to accept, for example, that 2 plus 2 equals 4 may be true for one person but not neccessarily true for someone else. But to conclude from this relativity of beliefs that 2 plus 2 does and does not equal 4 is an outright contradiction. Short of simply accpeting contradicitions, the only defense left open to the relativist is to assert that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is true relative to person X, but not true relative to person Y. But reguardless of whether relativists can conclude contradictions, another problem is that relativism is self refuting. What does relativism say about the truth of relavitism itself? That is, what is her answer to the question Is relativism true? If she is sincere in her relativism, she will have to concede that the theory is true only for herself and her fellow relativists, and so non-relativists can disreguard the theory in safety. On the other hand, to argue that relativism is absolutely true is to refute the very theory the relativist espouses.

The question then is whether the relativist's willingness to accomodate contradictions or self refutation leaves her with a worthwhile conception of truth at all. On the other hand, the decisive refutation of relativism seems to be unavailable to the non-relativist, as the relativist is always able to rebut any assertion X that the non-relativist might advance by insisting, "But X is true only for you". In other words, someone with a robust since of truth can engage a relativist only to the extent that the relativist shares their robust since of truth; since the relativist doesn't, then debating a relativist is futile. Although relativism may well be irrefutable, that is not a good enough reason to accept it; and perhaps the best way to confront relativists is to ask them whether they indeed tolerate apparent contradictions on a routine basis in their day-to-day lives. It is at this point that self styled relativists run into difficulty, as accepting contradictions habitually makes for an extremely odd and impractical modus vivendi".

ps- I fail to see how relativism can possibly produce a productive society, or a productive individual. It's pure absurdity. It's pure 1984 think. So I won't argue with this. It's futile to argue a self-refuting philosophy. If we lived in a relativistic society, no body could EVER come to terms on ANYTHING. It would fall into chaos (unless there were some dictatorial control leading the delusional masses). What it is, is a philosophical scheme. It belongs in rubber rooms, and among middle school kids. I've grown up.

I disagree. In the definition of truth I gave earlier the word "or" is what makes truth subjective. I believe a verified and indisputable fact can be considered an objective truth. Mathematics and (some/much) science are examples, in my opinion, of objective truth based on fact.

As an aspiring scientist of some sort I must say that this is blatantly wrong. Scientists are people, so obviously you will have some arrogant or obtuse ones, but being people, they have their own faiths and worldviews separate from science. "Everything" is not studied under a microscope; what about cosmology, which concerns the universe as a whole? I personally know several scientists and have found them to be extremely friendly and open minded, and not one least bit "micro" in intelligence or unable to see that grand picture. As a matter of fact, being able to understand the intricacies of nature with a scientific eye has actually made me appreciate our world more as a whole and really take in it's beauty. And many aren't out on some cliche'd vendetta "to do something for the better of mankind", in reality, some are just normal people with a powerful curiosity and the world around them and simply want to learn more. You're painting scientists with an ominous brush and it's not only disrespectful, but wrong.

Yeah, it provides a basis for further communication. As for science holding up? I would argue that science RARELY holds up, usually the opposition will escape your knowledge through some sophistry, and so you gain nothing.

And you pulled that from your book. The issue with this is that relativism makes it's case upon the failures of non-relativism, so if non-relativism fails, and relativism is not a coherent theory of truth, then what we end up with is nihilistic relativism, as people will continue to make truth statements, but there will be no knowledge backing these truth-statements.

Well, right, the statement "but X is only true for you" can rebut the relativist, however, the other part of this that can be used is the argument "There is no reason why X should have universal truth", given that an objective theory of truth would need to have objective foundations, the system must be capable of proving itself to hold to only non-arbitrary assumptions. That last part is hard if not insurmountable, and if the non-relativist cannot prove his/her own conception of truth, then he/she is in a bind even greater than the relativist is, as then the only remaining alternatives are fideism or nihilism.

The issue is whether I am a straight-up relativist. If I a skeptic or nihilist, then I would not be a relativist but could sound very similar. The difference is minor in terms, but major in meaning. Relativists say "X is true if you want it to be", skeptics and nihilists however might be comfortable with saying "Nobody actually knows what is true, but it seems as if you can claim X is true". The issue is that you tend to reduce a number of philosophical ideas to just one idea- relativism. Not only that, but the major issue snake, is that according to the relativist, there is no reason not to believe we don't already live in that kind of society, and one could even argue from a number of assorted non-relativist standpoints that modern society is already relativist.

I can dispute anything. Perhaps everything.