What is truth?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Subjectivity would not have "objective" meaning either.

Right! Brilliant! You've got it! And thus, there is nothing we should understand from Popeye's predication. It has "meaning" only to him: it's "subjective," not "objective." It's not at all binding or rational for us. It's just for his fevered imagination.

[Gary Childress]

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.

Subjectivity would not have "objective" meaning either.

Right! Brilliant! You've got it! And thus, there is nothing we should understand from Popeye's predication. It has "meaning" only to him: it's "subjective," not "objective." It's not at all binding or rational for us. It's just for his fevered imagination.

But it seems to have meaning to us, too. How can we say something that we're talking about "has no meaning"?

[Immanuel Can]

Subjectivity would not have "objective" meaning either.

Right! Brilliant! You've got it! And thus, there is nothing we should understand from Popeye's predication. It has "meaning" only to him: it's "subjective," not "objective." It's not at all binding or rational for us. It's just for his fevered imagination.

But it seems to have meaning to us, too. How can we say something that we're talking about "has no meaning"?

Right again! That's another of the follies of epistemic subjectivism. It would mean that language would be impossible: what words "meant to you," subjectively, would never be what words "meant to me," subjectively. There would be no common "truth" that words could refer to, that we were supposed to share when understanding each other. In fact, we couldn't understand each other...at all.

Yet another reason why that view is so manifestly wrong.

[Gary Childress]

Right! Brilliant! You've got it! And thus, there is nothing we should understand from Popeye's predication. It has "meaning" only to him: it's "subjective," not "objective." It's not at all binding or rational for us. It's just for his fevered imagination.

But it seems to have meaning to us, too. How can we say something that we're talking about "has no meaning"?

Right again! That's another of the follies of epistemic subjectivism. It would mean that language would be impossible: what words "meant to you," subjectively, would never be what words "meant to me," subjectively. There would be no common "truth" that words could refer to, that we were supposed to share when understanding each other. In fact, we couldn't understand each other...at all.

Yet another reason why that view is so manifestly wrong.

So more than one person cannot share the same subjective truth or understand the same subjective truth? Only objective truth can be understood between people having subjective experiences? But what if 2 people experience something as true, and a third doesn't experience it as true? Would that make that truth "subjective" or "objective"?

[popeye1945]

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"?

I am saying that all knowledge is the property of subjective consciousness; that which is true or false to the subject is the subject's experience and judgment thereof. There is such a thing as optical illusions, for which at times the physical world can play tricks on our senses. Other than optical illusions, a subject's perceptual experiences are its truth evaluations, that which is false or true; these evaluations are true to the state of the biology doing the experiencing, meaning if the biology is impaired, so too will its experiences and judgments thereof. Remember, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, the only source of experience/truth/knowledge and meaning in the world. To the individual, truth is experience; to the collective, it is agreement, all of which is the property of subjective consciousness, individually or collectively. Remember, you do not experience reality; you experience what reality does to your standing biology. Your apparent reality is a biological readout of the alterations/changes the world's energies play upon you, as if you were its instrument, and the melody it plays upon you is your everyday reality or apparent reality. Meaning never truly belongs to the object, but is a subjective experience which the subject then mistakenly attributes to the physical world as objects. In the absence of subjective consciousness, the physical world is utterly meaningless. Biology is an island of meanings in a meaningless world.

[Immanuel Can]

But it seems to have meaning to us, too. How can we say something that we're talking about "has no meaning"?

Right again! That's another of the follies of epistemic subjectivism. It would mean that language would be impossible: what words "meant to you," subjectively, would never be what words "meant to me," subjectively. There would be no common "truth" that words could refer to, that we were supposed to share when understanding each other. In fact, we couldn't understand each other...at all.

Yet another reason why that view is so manifestly wrong.

So more than one person cannot share the same subjective truth or understand the same subjective truth?

Truth is subjective; he could never objectively know if he did.

But what if 2 people experience something as true, and a third doesn't experience it as true? Would that make that truth "subjective" or "objective"?

it depends on what they are experiencing. If what the 2 see is objectively the case, then the delusions of the 1 change nothing about the truth. But if the 1 sees things as they are, and the 2 are deluded, then again, it changes nothing about the truth. The truth is true and real independent of the observers: that's what "objective" means.

One can be right or wrong about objective truth; but one's rightness or wrongness will not change the truth.

[Gary Childress]

Right again! That's another of the follies of epistemic subjectivism. It would mean that language would be impossible: what words "meant to you," subjectively, would never be what words "meant to me," subjectively. There would be no common "truth" that words could refer to, that we were supposed to share when understanding each other. In fact, we couldn't understand each other...at all.

Yet another reason why that view is so manifestly wrong.

So more than one person cannot share the same subjective truth or understand the same subjective truth?

Truth is subjective; he could never objectively know if he did.

But what if 2 people experience something as true, and a third doesn't experience it as true? Would that make that truth "subjective" or "objective"?

it depends on what they are experiencing. If what the 2 see is objectively the case, then the delusions of the 1 change nothing about the truth. But if the 1 sees things as they are, and the 2 are deluded, then again, it changes nothing about the truth. The truth is true and real independent of the observers: that's what "objective" means.

One can be right or wrong about objective truth; but one's rightness or wrongness will not change the truth.

But how do you or I know which is "deluded," the 2 people who experience something as true or the 1 person who doesn't experience it as true? Wouldn't we just be an arbitrary 4th and 5th person added to the chain? If I'm the 4th person in the chain, and I agree with the one person but not the 2 people, how do I know who has the subjective belief and who has the objective belief? How do I know any of our beliefs are objective? And if I disagree with the 2 people, do I know I'm the one with the objective belief?

[popeye1945]

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.

There is absolutely nothing in this world that is objective to a subjective consciousness; your everyday world is a biological readout, a subjective readout. Again, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and in its absence, the world is utterly meaningless. Biology is an island of meanings in a meaningless world. The energies of ultimate reality play biology like its instrument, and the melody it plays on biology is the organism's apparent reality/everyday reality. Your apparent reality is just that apparent, a bodily interpretation of the changes made to it by the energies surrounding it. Your reality is only what and how the body experiences the slings and arrows of ultimate reality, meaning, the energies around you. The works of science are an attempt to understand the world's energies outside the bodily experiences of the subjective consciousness. wish them luck.

[Immanuel Can]

So more than one person cannot share the same subjective truth or understand the same subjective truth?

Truth is subjective; he could never objectively know if he did.

But what if 2 people experience something as true, and a third doesn't experience it as true? Would that make that truth "subjective" or "objective"?

it depends on what they are experiencing. If what the 2 see is objectively the case, then the delusions of the 1 change nothing about the truth. But if the 1 sees things as they are, and the 2 are deluded, then again, it changes nothing about the truth. The truth is true and real independent of the observers: that's what "objective" means.

One can be right or wrong about objective truth; but one's rightness or wrongness will not change the truth.

But how do you or I know which is "deluded," the 2 people who experience something as true or the 1 person who doesn't experience it as true?

Objectivity is not about who knows. It's about what is really the case, regardless of what is known.

If you and I don't subjectively thing we'll die if we jump from a skyscraper, because we're both hopped up on LSD, that doesn't mean the ground won't kill us. What we think we know will not soften the impact. Objective reality does not bend to our subjective follies. But if you say, "Hold on, IC; the jump will kill us," you'll be objectively right. It won't matter that I'm still stoned. If I jump, I will die. And your knowledge will happen to have been in concert with objective truth, and mine not.

Human knowledge is fallible: sometimes, what we think we see is objectively false. Sometimes it's objectively true. But it's reality itself, not our brains, that make objective truth what it is.

[Immanuel Can]

There is absolutely nothing...

Sorry, Popeye...my conversation with you about moral subjectivism revealed to me you're just not capable of understanding self-contradiction. That means you're not capable of this discussion, and I can't be wasting my time.

Best wishes.

[Gary Childress]

Truth is subjective; he could never objectively know if he did.


it depends on what they are experiencing. If what the 2 see is objectively the case, then the delusions of the 1 change nothing about the truth. But if the 1 sees things as they are, and the 2 are deluded, then again, it changes nothing about the truth. The truth is true and real independent of the observers: that's what "objective" means.

One can be right or wrong about objective truth; but one's rightness or wrongness will not change the truth.

But how do you or I know which is "deluded," the 2 people who experience something as true or the 1 person who doesn't experience it as true?

Objectivity is not about who knows. It's about what is really the case, regardless of what is known.

If you and I don't subjectively thing we'll die if we jump from a skyscraper, because we're both hopped up on LSD, that doesn't mean the ground won't kill us. What we think we know will not soften the impact. Objective reality does not bend to our subjective follies. But if you say, "Hold on, IC; the jump will kill us," you'll be objectively right. It won't matter that I'm still stoned. If I jump, I will die. And your knowledge will happen to have been in concert with objective truth, and mine not.

Human knowledge is fallible: sometimes, what we think we see is objectively false. Sometimes it's objectively true. But it's reality itself, not our brains, that make objective truth what it is.

OK. So there has to be some objective truth out there. However, since there is so much disagreement on things among people, how do we sort out what is objectively true and what isn't? It seems that I can test the theory that I will not die if I jump off a skyscraper at least once, but how do I test the objectivity of something less concrete such as whether New York is a nice place to visit? Or how do I test if homosexuality is immoral or not?

[popeye1945]

There is absolutely nothing...

Sorry, Popeye...my conversation with you about moral subjectivism revealed to me you're just not capable of understanding self-contradiction. That means you're not capable of this discussion, and I can't be wasting my time.

Best wishes.

LOL!!! SUCH AN EGO!!

[Immanuel Can]

But how do you or I know which is "deluded," the 2 people who experience something as true or the 1 person who doesn't experience it as true?

Objectivity is not about who knows. It's about what is really the case, regardless of what is known.

If you and I don't subjectively thing we'll die if we jump from a skyscraper, because we're both hopped up on LSD, that doesn't mean the ground won't kill us. What we think we know will not soften the impact. Objective reality does not bend to our subjective follies. But if you say, "Hold on, IC; the jump will kill us," you'll be objectively right. It won't matter that I'm still stoned. If I jump, I will die. And your knowledge will happen to have been in concert with objective truth, and mine not.

Human knowledge is fallible: sometimes, what we think we see is objectively false. Sometimes it's objectively true. But it's reality itself, not our brains, that make objective truth what it is.

OK. So there has to be some objective truth out there. However, since there is so much disagreement on things among people, how do we sort out what is objectively true and what isn't?

You're blending two different things: ontology (i.e. what really exists) with epistemology (i.e. what people know). They're two totally different kinds of concern.

Ontology is about the "out there," the objective, the "what really is."

Epistemology is about the flawed attempts mankind makes to grasp the objective truth about what's "out there."

how do I test the objectivity of something less concrete such as whether New York is a nice place to visit?

That's merely a question of Aesthetics, a third different area of inquiry.

Or how do I test if homosexuality is immoral or not?

That's a question about ethics or morality; a fourth.

[popeye1945]

You do not experience reality; you experience your body, period. You experience what reality as energies do to your body. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, the sole source of meaning in the world.

[Gary Childress]

Objectivity is not about who knows. It's about what is really the case, regardless of what is known.

If you and I don't subjectively thing we'll die if we jump from a skyscraper, because we're both hopped up on LSD, that doesn't mean the ground won't kill us. What we think we know will not soften the impact. Objective reality does not bend to our subjective follies. But if you say, "Hold on, IC; the jump will kill us," you'll be objectively right. It won't matter that I'm still stoned. If I jump, I will die. And your knowledge will happen to have been in concert with objective truth, and mine not.

Human knowledge is fallible: sometimes, what we think we see is objectively false. Sometimes it's objectively true. But it's reality itself, not our brains, that make objective truth what it is.

OK. So there has to be some objective truth out there. However, since there is so much disagreement on things among people, how do we sort out what is objectively true and what isn't?

You're blending two different things: ontology (i.e. what really exists) with epistemology (i.e. what people know). They're two totally different kinds of concern.

So are you simply saying that some truths are objective and therefore disagreeing with Popeye's seemingly general statement that truth is subjective? Or are you saying that subjective truth is "meaningless" but not objective truth?