Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 1:11 am Thing is, this strategy, it seems, has little to do with what is real, true, truth

According to who? Who is the authority?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 1:20 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 1:11 am Thing is, this strategy, it seems, has little to do with what is real, true, truth

According to who? Who is the authority?

Hey, I'm just goin' by your descriptions, up-thread. You focus on perspectives (the wider, the better) with facts (truth) comin' in a distant second. You elevate the subjective and declare the objective as unknowable, or as so distorted by the subjective as to be unknowable.

If it works for you:

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 12:42 am Do you disagree?

Well that is a real mixed-bag of ideas which I can neither agree or disagree with. Some things I agree with. Some things either contradict the things I agree with or seem irrelevant to the concept of, "truth."

It's late, so I'll try to provide an object answer tomorrow. In the meantime I wish you would answer the question I previously asked: "Can anything be, 'objectively true,' and, 'subjectively untrue,' or vice versa? Can you provide an example?"

Buenos Noches!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 1:37 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 1:20 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 1:11 am Thing is, this strategy, it seems, has little to do with what is real, true, truth

According to who? Who is the authority?

Hey, I'm just goin' by your descriptions, up-thread. You focus on perspectives (the wider, the better) with facts (truth) comin' in a distant second. You elevate the subjective and declare the objective as unknowable, or as so distorted by the subjective as to be unknowable.

If it works for you:

I think I see what you're saying. It doesn't fit... but it's how you interpret it.

I don't have a "strategy"... so that's wrong. I'm just being present and creative... and I don't tend to make up or follow any particular rules (other than what's needed for maintaining basic human infrastructure and existence ).

As for my "way" having little to do with what is "real truth" (?)... my life and experience certainly feels real and reflects what's true to me, I just don't identify it as that, the way you do. I'm living life more than defining it. My entire life has been about stepping outside of the box, regardless of what other people might believe is, or what is possible.

Perhaps my years growing up in Christianity were helpful in clarifying what did not make sense to me, and what did make sense to me. Despite being immersed in that environment and its stories completely (church 3 times a week plus special gatherings), with people I genuinely respected and connected to, I could see beyond it, for myself. It has always appeared to me that there is much more potential than we currently see (or latch onto) at any given time -- and I'm not inclined to claim that I've ever reached any destination to plant a flag in.

I get a sense of what's true in the moment. If you think your definitions or conditions are any more real or useful than that, good luck to you.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 1:53 am I wish you would answer the question I previously asked: "Can anything be, 'objectively true,' and, 'subjectively untrue,' or vice versa? Can you provide an example?"

I already responded in a way that seemed reasonable to me. Can you provide examples of what you're asking? I can't tell from all of your commas what you are trying to distinguish.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 4:44 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 1:37 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 1:20 am
According to who? Who is the authority?

Hey, I'm just goin' by your descriptions, up-thread. You focus on perspectives (the wider, the better) with facts (truth) comin' in a distant second. You elevate the subjective and declare the objective as unknowable, or as so distorted by the subjective as to be unknowable.

If it works for you:

I think I see what you're saying. It doesn't fit... but it's how you interpret it.

I don't have a "strategy"... so that's wrong. I'm just being present and creative... and I don't tend to make up or follow any particular rules (other than what's needed for maintaining basic human infrastructure and existence ).

As for my "way" having little to do with what is "real truth" (?)... my life and experience certainly feels real and reflects what's true to me, I just don't identify it as that, the way you do. I'm living life more than defining it. My entire life has been about stepping outside of the box, regardless of what other people might believe is, or what is possible.

Perhaps my years growing up in Christianity were helpful in clarifying what did not make sense to me, and what did make sense to me. Despite being immersed in that environment and its stories completely (church 3 times a week plus special gatherings), with people I genuinely respected and connected to, I could see beyond it, for myself. It has always appeared to me that there is much more potential than we currently see (or latch onto) at any given time -- and I'm not inclined to claim that I've ever reached any destination to plant a flag in.

I get a sense of what's true in the moment. If you think your definitions or conditions are any more real or useful than that, good luck to you.

Whatever floats your boat, Lace...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 5:00 pm Whatever floats your boat, Lace...

Yours too...

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 12:42 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:24 pm If objective truth is truth anyone could discover by observing and correctly identifying any phenomenon, existent, attribute, behavior, or relationship between any of these, and any principle derived rationally from those observations and identifications,
subjective truth would have to be something someone just made up in their head without evidence or reason, wouldn't it?

Subjective truth could be exactly the same definition as objective truth (above) if you simply add these words: based on what one is aware of at any given time, and it could be wrong.

It seems that the way people on this forum have been touting objective truth is that it is unchanging truth beyond and untouched by varying human perspectives and interpretations -- how is that even possible? It has also been suggested on this forum that one example of an objective truth would be a god, despite no evidence... just widely ranging/varying claims and stories.

Considering how obvious and vast the range of human perspective is, how could intelligent people insist on ONE VIEW or ONE REALITY or ONE TRUTH for anything? What is this obsession with identifying ONE ANSWER? Is there anything in this Universe that is demonstrated as ONE thing? It's like a rabid sickness in the human mind to continually limit potential to tiny-ass human ideas of the moment. The obvious limitations and distorted influences that naturally impact nearly all humans should be enough of a clue to make them consider further than what they think at any given time.

Do you disagree?

This is my promised response to that question. As I noted, what you have presented is a, "mixed bag," of disparate concepts, some of which I certainly agree with, but others I find impossible.

For example:

It seems that the way people on this forum have been touting objective truth is that it is unchanging truth beyond and untouched by varying human perspectives and interpretations -- how is that even possible?

That is three different questions. I'm not interested in how others are using the word truth. I use it only as I explained, to differentiate between correct statements of what is so (true) and all incorrect statements of what is so (untrue). What I mean by, "truth," is only that attribute of, "being true," pertaining to any statement. So your suggestion that there are variations of, "truth," depends on whether you are talking about the meaning of the word truth itself or particular true statements.

If it's the meaning of truth itself, it cannot change. In that sense, "truth," as what distinguishes between statements that are true and false cannot change. The confusion begins with particular truths, and the question there is, are there some statements that are true universally? The answer is yes, but let's examine truths that are not universal first.

All statements regarding actual present conditions, existents, actions, human behavior, psychologies, or preferences, etc. are not universal and continuously change, because the facts described change. Suzy wants to go college is true if Suzy really wants to go to college, but will not be true tomorrow if she changes her mind and wants to do something else. In fact any statement of a present fact is only true so long as the present fact persists. In that sense, of course, particular, "truths," change all the time, and much of what is true today will not be true tomorrow.

Now there is another confusing idea about truth sometimes stated as, "well that is true for you, but not true for me." The confusion is not about truth, but about the object to which such statements refer. If one is talking about taste, or knowledge, or belief, for example, since everyone has different tastes, knowledge, and beliefs, any statement about one persons tastes, knowledge or beliefs can be true for one individual but not true at all for another.

If one is talking about physical facts or actual existents, no one's personal tastes, knowledge, or beliefs matter, because, if the bottle contains a deadly poison, if one drinks it they will die no matter what the believe, feel, or know.

So far, I agree, that there is no one universal eternal truth. But I do not think that is the real issue. The real issue is can there be:

ONE VIEW or ONE REALITY or ONE TRUTH for anything? Is there anything in this Universe that is demonstrated as ONE thing?

If your question had been, "can there be one view or one reality or one truth for everything, the answer would be certainly not. But you used the word, "anything," to subsum three very different things: views, truth, and reality.

I'll address this question first: Is there anything in this Universe that is demonstrated as ONE thing?

The answer to that is the obvious fact that there are an infinite (or at least indefinite) number of, "one things." You are, "one thing." I am, "one thing." Every word you have used in all you've written is, "one thing." There is nothing that exists that is not, "one thing." Whatever anyone posits as existence that cannot be differentiated as, "one thing," does not exist. To exist a thing must be different in some way from everything else that exists or it does not exist at all.

The answer to your question about ONE VIEW or ONE REALITY or ONE TRUTH can be answered only by separating and defining those terms.

If by, "one view," you mean individual perspectives, either physical or intellectual, of course there cannot only be one. If by, "view," you mean a correct understanding of the true nature of reality, that depends on what is meant by reality.

If by reality you mean, "all that is," as it, "actually is," (irrespective of whether anyone knows or is even aware of what actually is), there can only be one such reality. There cannot be more than one, "all there is," and it cannot be what it, "actually is," and also something else.

In the context of that meaning of reality, If "view," means a correct understanding of the true nature of reality, there can only be one view of reality that is correct, whether anyone does or does not hold that view.

The relationship between truth and reality is a little more complex. There is no, "thing," that is truth. It is only a concept for all correct (true) statements. So there is no one, "truth," that describes reality, because reality is all that exists. But since reality is what is, as it actually is, (and not anything else) only statements about any aspect of reality that describe its attributes, characteristics, properties, behavior, and relationships, "as they actually are," can be true.

If all possible true statements about every aspect of reality (whether any of those statements are known or not) are considered as a class or category of statements, they may be thought of as, "the truth about reality," (or all that is true about reality.) That is all most people mean when they say there is only one truth, though it is not a precise or philosophical way of saying it. In that sense, there can only be one such, "truth." There cannot be more than one exhaustive set of descriptions and identifications of reality. There probably will never be such an exhaustive class of concepts, except as the ideal of all intellectual pursuit.

Now, if you mean something else by reality, it is your own private meaning, so whatever you think or say about it has nothing to do with what anyone else means by reality, and since neither I, or anyone else, is privy to that private meaning, there is no way I or anyone else can address it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 4:50 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 1:53 am I wish you would answer the question I previously asked: "Can anything be, 'objectively true,' and, 'subjectively untrue,' or vice versa? Can you provide an example?"

I already responded in a way that seemed reasonable to me. Can you provide examples of what you're asking? I can't tell from all of your commas what you are trying to distinguish.

That is disheartening. How can one communicate with another individual in English who is confused by proper punctuation.

Can you provide an example of something that is objectively true and also subjectively untrue
or
can you provide an example of something that is objectively untrue and also subjectively true?

No commas. No excuse.