The Philosophy Discussion Forum

raw_thought wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2015 3:29 am The common sense understanding of truth is the correspondence theory of truth. From now on referred to as CTT.
If the CTT is true,what does it refer to? Another CTT? Depending on your perspective that is a tautology or an infinite regress. So what is truth?
PS;The CTT is the theory that a proposition is true if it corresponds to a fact.

The one directional mathematical mapping from representations of actuality
(within language or memories of physical sensations) to actuality itself is
TRUTH Copyright 1997 by PL Olcott.

Truth is subject to experience and is the property of subjective knowledge.

It also precludes justice, and the American way.

(Not according to Superman)

Walker wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 3:45 pm It also precludes justice, and the American way.

(Not according to Superman)

It includes justice but not necessarily the "American way".

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 11:20 am Truth is subject to experience and is the property of subjective knowledge.

Is that the truth?

Or do you just subjectively prefer to think it is?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 6:38 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 11:20 am Truth is subject to experience and is the property of subjective knowledge.

Is that the truth?

Or do you just subjectively prefer to think it is?

The only way to know anything is subjectively; it is the only game in town.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 3:16 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 3:45 pm It also precludes justice, and the American way.

(Not according to Superman)

It includes justice but not necessarily the "American way".

Truth is subjective experience and judgment, and is always true to the biology doing the experiencing. If the biology is impaired, so too will the experience and/or judgment be impaired, to be realized by a third party, or a collective whose biology is not impaired.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 8:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 6:38 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2026 11:20 am Truth is subject to experience and is the property of subjective knowledge.

Is that the truth?

Or do you just subjectively prefer to think it is?

The only way to know anything is subjectively; it is the only game in town.

So what you're saying is not really true. It's just your subjective preference?

'Cuz "that's the only game in town?"

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 10:19 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 8:36 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 6:38 pm
Is that the truth?

Or do you just subjectively prefer to think it is?

The only way to know anything is subjectively; it is the only game in town.

So what you're saying is not really true. It's just your subjective preference?

'Cuz "that's the only game in town?"

Are you saying subjectivity is equal to or a synonym for false? So, if someone has an opinion or preference, it's always false or "not true"?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 2:43 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 10:19 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 8:36 pm

The only way to know anything is subjectively; it is the only game in town.

So what you're saying is not really true. It's just your subjective preference?

'Cuz "that's the only game in town?"

Are you saying subjectivity is equal to false? So, if someone has an opinion or preference, it's always false or "not true"?

If things are "subjective" the word "true" has no actual meaning. At most, it's a "subjective" or "experiential" grunt. There are no such categories in reality, so your objection is incoherent, according to them, and your question cannot be asked.

But this creates a problem: what is the status fo the claim, "Truth is subjective"?

Its it objectively true? Then it would be a false statement, because it claims there can be no such things, but attempts to articulate an objectively true statement.

Is it objectively false? Then it would be a false statement, of course.

Its it not an objective statement at all, but an emotive explosion of some kind, maybe? Then what's the basis for believing it? And what does it even mean?

Epistemological Subjectivism is self-refuting, you see. It's even less coherent than Moral Subjectivism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:00 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 2:43 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2026 10:19 pm
So what you're saying is not really true. It's just your subjective preference?

'Cuz "that's the only game in town?"

Are you saying subjectivity is equal to false? So, if someone has an opinion or preference, it's always false or "not true"?

If things are "subjective" the word "true" has no actual meaning.

So it cannot be true that I believe New York might be a nice place to visit, because it's a statement based on subjective experience and is therefore false? How can you even say that subjective experience has "no actual meaning"? Surely a statement based on subjective experience has a meaning.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:25 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:00 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 2:43 am

Are you saying subjectivity is equal to false? So, if someone has an opinion or preference, it's always false or "not true"?

If things are "subjective" the word "true" has no actual meaning.

So it cannot be true that I believe New York might be a nice place to visit, because it's a statement based on subjective experience and is therefore false?

No...it's worse...it's nonsensical. There is no meaning in the word "true" or the word "false." And whether or not you actually feel or experience it -- that itself cannot be objectively true -- because if it turns out to be, then again, epistemological subjectivism is disproved...it's true that you feel it, and objectively true that you feel it.

That's why the statement "Truth is subjective" cannot be OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Get it, yet?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:35 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:25 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:00 am
If things are "subjective" the word "true" has no actual meaning.

So it cannot be true that I believe New York might be a nice place to visit, because it's a statement based on subjective experience and is therefore false?

No...it's worse...it's nonsensical. There is no meaning in the word "true" or the word "false." And whether or not you actually feel or experience it -- that itself cannot be objectively true -- because if it turns out to be, then again, epistemological subjectivism is disproved...it's true that you feel it, and objectively true that you feel it.

That's why the statement "Truth is subjective" cannot be OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Get it, yet?

Of course, the statement "truth is subjective" cannot be objectively true or false. It can only be subjectively true or false.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:37 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:35 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:25 am

So it cannot be true that I believe New York might be a nice place to visit, because it's a statement based on subjective experience and is therefore false?

No...it's worse...it's nonsensical. There is no meaning in the word "true" or the word "false." And whether or not you actually feel or experience it -- that itself cannot be objectively true -- because if it turns out to be, then again, epistemological subjectivism is disproved...it's true that you feel it, and objectively true that you feel it.

That's why the statement "Truth is subjective" cannot be OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Get it, yet?

Of course, the statement "truth is subjective" cannot be objectively true or false. It can only be subjectively true or false.

You've missed the point again. It can't be subjectively either, because according to subjectivism, neither predication can have any objective meaning. They're meaningless words.

When you say "X is Y," and "Y" is not any specific or objective quality, you haven't said anything, or predicated anything of X. There is no content in the predication, nothing anybody else should understand from it.

Get it? You can't make a truth-statement about truth, unless truth is objective. Popeye says, "Truth is subjective." But ironically, that claim is an objective statement. If it's not, then neither you nor I can have any understanding of what it should mean. And we can't be "wrong" when we deny Popeye's claim.

He's a guy who clearly does not understand that self-contradiction is any problem.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:46 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:37 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2026 3:35 am
No...it's worse...it's nonsensical. There is no meaning in the word "true" or the word "false." And whether or not you actually feel or experience it -- that itself cannot be objectively true -- because if it turns out to be, then again, epistemological subjectivism is disproved...it's true that you feel it, and objectively true that you feel it.

That's why the statement "Truth is subjective" cannot be OBJECTIVELY TRUE. Get it, yet?

Of course, the statement "truth is subjective" cannot be objectively true or false. It can only be subjectively true or false.

You've missed the point again. It can't be subjectively either, because according to subjectivism, neither predication can have any objective meaning. They're meaningless words.

Of course subjectivity would not have "objective" meaning either. It would have "subjective" meaning. How is "subjective truth" a meaningless word? It seems to me to have meaning. We're talking about it right now, so it must have some meaning of some kind.