Truth
 

Is Truth (objectively) Absolute?

If so, then how can there be personal, subjective truths?

If not, then how do we define reality in any concrete sense?

Truths are more or less objective. Objectivity and subjectivity are two endpoints of a continuum, and very few 'truths' are entirely one or the other. "God exists" is a fairly objective proposition, yet its truth value is not entirely objective, since what it means depends on my own feelings and beliefs. The value of a work of art is more subjective, but still depends on certain objective criteria. Whatever some may say, it's possible to discuss whether or not a certain piece of art is good art, even if there are also just bald differences in taste. And, of course, the proposition "I am happy" is very subjective, but there are some objective features, such that it can make sense to reply "No, you just think you're happy." And "I am in pain" is about as subjective as it gets. It makes no sense to reply to that "No, you just think you're in pain." If you think you're in pain, you're in pain. But I don't see from this how defining reality is problematic.

We all have our own Truths. None more right or perfect than the other. We have given boundaries on there only being one Truth for all, yet we all believe/feel differently from one another. What one might say is wrong, the other may disagree. So, we all carry inside our own Truth, it's not out there for any of us to find- the "Absolute Truth", because we're all "right". And what we see in this life is what we'll experience. We are our won leaders, there are no followers. Lead on, be you, be Your Truth.

Bah, nonsense. 2 + 2 = 4, regardless of who you are. Disagreement proves nothing, other than either some are right and some are wrong, or all are wrong. How can we all be right if I say "P" and you say "not P". Too many people ignore basic logic these days.

(Sorry -- I'm grading papers so I'm not in the best mood.)

Incredibly well said!!! Asaris, how many people do you think will object that 2+2=4? I think we need to define the scale or dimension of the 'absolute truth' we're talking about. Seems to me that it's difficult to compare "truths" such as - The meaning of life to 2+2=4. Or maybe that's the real question!

I'm struggling to find the connection between those 'truths' that can be measured and thereby proven and those truths for which there is no measurement. I've always held that things ARE what you experience them to be. Therefore, the means by which you measure reality become infinately important.

For example: Time allows us to PERCEIVE movement. An object WAS there, NOW its here. What if the object was always THERE and HERE? How would we know? If we can't PERCEIVE it to be so, then should we assume it to be false? I'm sure some folks on the board can give some twisted examples from Quantum mechanics that "prove" that depending on several factor such as measurement, that a single particle can be proven to exist at two seemingly different locations...do you accept that as an absolute?

What if EVERYTHING is EVERYWHERE at once and THEN and NOW are the same time? Just because we can't perceive it doesn't necessarily make it not so! In this extreme, can you see how even mathematics break down to the point of irrelevance? 2+2=infinity.

What I'm trying to say is this: The "truth" itself is irrelevant...its the EXPERIENCE that counts. Without white, there can be no black; without in there can be no out; without is, there can be no is not...our perception of that which is different is the basis of our reality. Even the use of the word "truth" proves it. Without "false", there could be no "true".

That which is, is all that there is.

By the way...If anyone disagrees with me, you've proven me right! :)

It seems to me, tiberry, that your argument presupposes that time is logically prior to motion. But it's my opinion that motion is logically prior to time. Nevertheless, you bring up a good point -- there seems to be a difference between truths like "2+2=4" and "the meaning of life". Now, we're fairly clear on what '2+2=4' means. What does 'the meaning of life' mean?

There are a few different answers one could give. Firstly, one could mean something like 'what does it mean to be human'. And it seems like 1) there are objectively true and false answers to this question and 2) there are also better and worse answers. To say that to be human means to be capable of laughter (the medieval view) is a better answer than to say that to be human means to have legs. The risibility of man is a better clue to man's being than the bipedality. (If I may coin a word)

Secondly, one could mean 'what is the meaning of my life?' That is, is there some sort of end towards which human being in general, and my being in particular, is supposed to go towards. And anyone who is truly religious is going to say that there is such a thing, though of course they disagree on what that is. So here we have three questions:

1. Is there a goal to human being?
2. Does each human being have the same goal?
3. Is there more than one way to this goal?

But note that these are all objective questions, not subjective. The only way it could come out that there is more than one 'truth' to human being, that is, the only way my existence could have a radically different meaning than yours, is if you answer no to 2.

But note that there is another question which might be asked: how determinate is the end goal? Let me use differing Christian beliefs on this, because I'm the most familiar with these. All Christians believe that the end of man is union with God. (Whatever 'union' might mean here.) But to what extent does that interfere with our individuality? Does that mean that our lives all have one meaning? Some Christians will say yes, that God determines one best path for our lives. Others say that, even under this one overarching goal, we can choose various ways to serve God -- the goal does not determine all of our actions. If one takes this second view, there is a sense in which we can say 'We each have our own truth', in that the meaning for my life might be the quest for philosophical truth, while the meaning for your life might be giving aid to others. But because there is this overarching goal, there's a deeper sense in which our lives have the same meaning -- to serve God.

Or did I misunderstand the question?

Numbers are not truths; they are agreed upon symbols for the world around us. Just like the word “dog” has no truth, it is simply a symbol for the animal that we identify it with. Hence we all agree that if we add a symbol “2” to a symbol “2” the result would be the symbol “4”.

An example,

We see a number of apples. We identify the fact and use the noun “two” because it best describes the quantity of apples before us. We see two more apples and using predetermined symbols state that there are now “four” apples before us.

Yet what if we didn’t see one apple because it was behind another and there were actually 5 apples before us? What if one of the apples wasn’t real (plastic), or was a rather round looking pear? As you see there is no truth to 2 + 2 = 4, it is simply an agreed upon set of symbols that we hope capture our perception of the world around us.

^^^^^ I agree.
Time, numbers, names, labels- are all just sets of organized data to fairly distinguish things in life.....established systems of recognition and specification.

There are such things as absolute (objective) truths. We just don't see them because we (people) are not omnicient. Absolute truths would be rather boring because there would be no personal attachment to the situation at hand, just cold clinical scientific observation. In my opinion, absolute truth is that which is not muddled by differing perspectives and emotions. It is our differing perspectives and emotional response that makes the truth subjective.

You're confused, Mantus. It might be true that numbers are just symbols. But they're symbols of two things; the statement 2+2=4 means that if you take two things, add two things to them, you'll have four things. Your so-called counter examples only serve to show that we can be mistaken about whether or not we actually have two things.

I'd like to say that all truth's are subjective, because we base all we know on our perception. Our perception, in turn, seems to always be limited due to lack of knowledge. Then we are forced to question and disprove what we previously held as true. Does that put the idea of truth itself in question? Or does this demand a search for the limits of knowledge, if there are such limits? This leads me to what tiberry said about the connection between truth and experience. A quote from William Blake, the opening lines of 'All Religions Are One'

"As the true method of knowledge is experiment the true faculty of knowing must be the faculty which experiences."

This faculty I treat of. :) Perhaps that begins to put some of it together, or creates more confusion, or neither?

The Blind Men and the Elephant

(John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend)

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, "Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me `tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope.
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So which of their "Truth's" was subjective.

Any?

None?

Damn....that was perfect.

many thanx.

Yah, I think you are right. It's just that numbers seem very hollow to me.

Perhaps Mantus' examples didn't quite illustrate what he was saying, but what he says about numbers generally still stands. The division of bits of the universe into two apples, a tree, a field, a county, some planets, some stars, a galaxy, some more galaxies, protons, tau leptons, neutrinos, etc. is entirely a construct of the human mind and only relates to our conventions on how we reference different bits of what we perceive.

To cite arithmetic as an example of absolute truth is missing the point somewhat. That 2+2=4 is simply fact and convention, but number doesn't even exist outside the human mind. Any truth which depends on a few neural signals in some bits of fluff on a dot in a speck in a quasi-infinite sea of dots and specks, doesn't seem very absolute to me.

John Henry -- you might check out my earlier posts in this thread for my positive thoughts on the subject. Note that I never cite 2+2=4 as an absolute truth, but as a relatively objective truth. What makes a truth objective? The extent to which the truth value does not depend on the person making the statement. The most objective truths are those which depend on the meaning of the terms involved, like mathematical truths. And I don't see how your post responds to mine in any meaningful way.

i agree with asaris - there seems to be a serious confusion of what "objective" really means.

a truth is an objective statement that, based on certain assumptions, can be recreated reliably with the same results. For example, given that what we perceive is an accurate reflection of reality, the truth is a slab of granite is hard in relation to a human hand. This is an objective statement that is easily recreated anywhere, for anyone.

an opinion is a subjective statement that applies only to an individual. For example, country music is awful. My opinions hold this to be a true statement, while my buddy holds this to be a false statement. we are both correct, even though we disagree.


therefore: the saying "everyone has their own truth" is erroneous, and should be rephrased to say "everyone has their own opinions", or "everyone has their own beliefs".

finally, a sidenote: this is why it's so easy to argue about philosophy: people say "this is true", when they should say "i believe this is true".

There is no truth....only opinion.

What is opinion? From all of the definitions of opinion I've heard, the existence of opinion depends on the existence of truth, even if that truth is unknowable.

Hah! That's what you think. ;)

Now that it's had the chance to ferment, the point of my post above is this:

I believe there is an absolute TRUTH out there (the reality of the Elephant), but I believe in our human capacity we only have the ability to grasp a part of it. Many will get some glimpse of truth.

Of course there will be those that missed the elephant altogether and think that the doorknob they are describing relates to the elephant.