What is truth?

[popeye1945]

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.

"Subjectivity would not have objective meaning either. Have you two been eating out of lead containers?

[popeye1945]

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.

"Subjectivity would not have objective meaning either." Have you two been eating out of lead containers?

[Gary Childress]

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.

"Subjectivity would not have objective meaning either. Have you two been eating out of lead containers?

So you are saying that subjective truth can have objective meaning? Is that correct?

[popeye1945]

There is nothing known objectively, full close.

[Gary Childress]

There is nothing known objectively, full close.

Then is that not the same as saying that "subjectivity would not have objective meaning"? Otherwise, I'm not sure why you think I'm eating from lead cans if I believe there would not be objective meaning in subjectivity.

[popeye1945]

There is nothing known objectively, full close.

Then is that not the same as saying that "subjectivity would not have objective meaning"? Otherwise, I'm not sure why you think I'm eating from lead cans if I believe there would not be objective meaning in subjectivity.

Misinterpretation, perhaps, my apologies. There is only one way of knowing, and that is subjective knowing. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and in its absence, the world is meaningless. Biology is the only source of meaning; meaning is relative to biology and nothing else, or meaning is the property of subjective consciousness and never truly belongs to an object, unless, in the subject's ignorance, it bestows meaning on a meaningless world and is not aware of the process involved.

[Gary Childress]

There is nothing known objectively, full close.

Then is that not the same as saying that "subjectivity would not have objective meaning"? Otherwise, I'm not sure why you think I'm eating from lead cans if I believe there would not be objective meaning in subjectivity.

Misinterpretation, perhaps, my apologies. There is only one way of knowing, and that is subjective knowing. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and in its absence, the world is meaningless. Biology is the only source of meaning; meaning is relative to biology and nothing else.

So, do you believe Immanueal Kant had the distinction between phenomena and noumena more or less correctly? What you're saying sounds a little along the lines of what Kant (not Can) wrote.

[popeye1945]

Then is that not the same as saying that "subjectivity would not have objective meaning"? Otherwise, I'm not sure why you think I'm eating from lead cans if I believe there would not be objective meaning in subjectivity.

Misinterpretation, perhaps, my apologies. There is only one way of knowing, and that is subjective knowing. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and in its absence, the world is meaningless. Biology is the only source of meaning; meaning is relative to biology and nothing else.

So, do you believe Immanueal Kant had the distinction between phenomena and noumena more or less correctly? What you're saying sounds a little along the lines of what Kant (not Can) wrote.

I cannot speak to that, as I am unaware of what Kant wrote.

[Gary Childress]

Misinterpretation, perhaps, my apologies. There is only one way of knowing, and that is subjective knowing. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and in its absence, the world is meaningless. Biology is the only source of meaning; meaning is relative to biology and nothing else.

So, do you believe Immanueal Kant had the distinction between phenomena and noumena more or less correctly? What you're saying sounds a little along the lines of what Kant (not Can) wrote.

I cannot speak to that, as I am unaware of what Kant wrote.

My understanding of Kant is that "phenomena" are what our senses experience. "Noumena" are what things are "in themselves" (and possibly unexperienced by human beings). Kant listed out his famous 12 categories of understanding, which he deemed as ways we organize raw experience data to make it intelligible to us. What you are writing sounds similar in that it puts a permanent question mark over what "objective" reality and/or truth are, that we can never get beyond the subjective. His "categories" seem a little less renowned to me than his division of experience into "phenomena" and "noumena".

[popeye1945]

So, do you believe Immanueal Kant had the distinction between phenomena and noumena more or less correctly? What you're saying sounds a little along the lines of what Kant (not Can) wrote.

I cannot speak to that, as I am unaware of what Kant wrote.

My understanding of Kant is that "phenomena" are what our senses experience. "Noumena" are what things are "in themselves" (and possibly unexperienced by human beings). Kant listed out his famous 12 categories of understanding, which he deemed as ways we organize raw experience data to make it intelligible to us. What you are writing sounds similar in that it puts a permanent question mark over what "objective" reality and/or truth are, that we can never get beyond the subjective. His "categories" seem a little less renowned to me than his division of experience into "phenomena" and "noumena".

I see, yes, there are major differences here. Kant, from what you stated, thought that phenomena were what we really experienced in our everyday reality or apparent reality, but I would say, we do not experience reality; we experience what the energies of reality do to the standing state of our biological natures. We do not experience reality; we experience our bodies through the changes or alterations of the energies that surround us and play upon us, almost as if we were their instruments. The melody reality plays upon biology is apparent reality or our everyday reality, differing from species to species due to differing aspects of biological makeup. There are many life forms, yet as life, it is one essence. Ultimate reality, which is beyond our perception, is a place of no things, unmanifested energies. These energies are the source of our biological readings as they affect changes within us. In this way, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, for there are things only to biological creatures conjured spontaneously out of our biological reactions and projected outwardly into a meaningless world where we then attribute our meaning to the objects/things of our outer world. Modern science is concerned with energies and energy fields rather than the subjective creations that allow us to move through our illusionary duel world. Everything you know has affected the standing state of your biology, and this is how you come to know a world at all through your body, the body being the mind's first idea and interface to an apparent world. Reciprocal causation takes over from here, and you are one with the world, no distinctions, ONE. Reaction is belonging as one aspect of reciprocal causation.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

Certainly that, but more: I'm pointing out that "subjective truth" is a fakery...because if you say something is "subjective," then by the very nature of being subjective it is not "true" for more than one person, and hence, there's no point even in trying to tell somebody it's "true." They don't have any reason to believe you, precisely because it's subjective and thus not epistemically compulsory for them.

The entire expression "subjective truth" is, in fact, an oxymoron -- a self-contradicting nonsense phrase. If something is "subjective" it cannot be in any communicable sense, "true" as well. It can only be "subjective."

[Gary Childress]

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?

Certainly that, but more: I'm pointing out that "subjective truth" is a fakery...because if you say something is "subjective," then by the very nature of being subjective it is not "true" for more than one person, and hence, there's no point even in trying to tell somebody it's "true." They don't have any reason to believe you, precisely because it's subjective and thus not epistemically compulsory for them.

The entire expression "subjective truth" is, in fact, an oxymoron -- a self-contradicting nonsense phrase. If something is "subjective" it cannot be in any communicable sense, "true" as well. It can only be "subjective."

So if I tell you that New York City is a nice place to visit. Does that mean that I have said something that is untrue or "nonsense"? I can't communicate that to you because it is a subjective statement.

[Immanuel Can]

So are you simply saying that some truths are objective and therefore disagreeing with Popeye's seemingly general statement that truth is subjective?

Certainly that, but more: I'm pointing out that "subjective truth" is a fakery...because if you say something is "subjective," then by the very nature of being subjective it is not "true" for more than one person, and hence, there's no point even in trying to tell somebody it's "true." They don't have any reason to believe you, precisely because it's subjective and thus not epistemically compulsory for them.

The entire expression "subjective truth" is, in fact, an oxymoron -- a self-contradicting nonsense phrase. If something is "subjective" it cannot be in any communicable sense, "true" as well. It can only be "subjective."

So if I tell you that New York City is a nice place to visit. Does that mean that I have said something that is untrue or "nonsense"? I can't communicate that to you because it is a subjective statement.

You're mixing up ontology with aesthetics. That's what's called a "category error."

"New York is a nice place to visit" is an aesthetic opinion, not an objective fact. Some people don't like it.

"New York is a place" is an objective fact. Whether or not it's "nice" is left up to the perceiver. But that it is a place is not a matter of opinion but of objective fact: it is one, whether I think it's "nice" or not.

[Gary Childress]

Certainly that, but more: I'm pointing out that "subjective truth" is a fakery...because if you say something is "subjective," then by the very nature of being subjective it is not "true" for more than one person, and hence, there's no point even in trying to tell somebody it's "true." They don't have any reason to believe you, precisely because it's subjective and thus not epistemically compulsory for them.

The entire expression "subjective truth" is, in fact, an oxymoron -- a self-contradicting nonsense phrase. If something is "subjective" it cannot be in any communicable sense, "true" as well. It can only be "subjective."

So if I tell you that New York City is a nice place to visit. Does that mean that I have said something that is untrue or "nonsense"? I can't communicate that to you because it is a subjective statement.

You're mixing up ontology with aesthetics. That's what's called a "category error."

"New York is a nice place to visit" is an aesthetic opinion, not an objective fact. Some people don't like it.

"New York is a place" is an objective fact. Whether or not it's "nice" is left up to the perceiver. But that it is a place is not a matter of opinion but of objective fact: it is one, whether I think it's "nice" or not.

Perhaps Popeye is saying something similar about New York being a "place". Only humans can know of New York as a "place". It's a fact relevant only to humans. Are facts relevant to only humans truly "objective"?

And if I say New York is a "nice place to visit," have I said something "meaningless" or "nonsensical" to you? If we both agree that it's a subjective statement and we both agree that it's meaningful, then doesn't that disprove your assertion that subjective truth is "meaningless" or "nonsensical" because of being subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

So if I tell you that New York City is a nice place to visit. Does that mean that I have said something that is untrue or "nonsense"? I can't communicate that to you because it is a subjective statement.

You're mixing up ontology with aesthetics. That's what's called a "category error."

"New York is a nice place to visit" is an aesthetic opinion, not an objective fact. Some people don't like it.

"New York is a place" is an objective fact. Whether or not it's "nice" is left up to the perceiver. But that it is a place is not a matter of opinion but of objective fact: it is one, whether I think it's "nice" or not.

Perhaps Popeye is saying something similar about New York being a "place". Only humans can know of New York as a "place".

Well, that's purely assumptive, not obvious. If God exists, what He knows is far more durable than what particular humans, or even the whole human race, can know.

And if I say New York is a "nice place to visit," have I said something "meaningless" or "nonsensical" to you?

No, but you also haven't told me any objective truth or fact.

Here's how it breaks down. Each area of knowledge has its own appropriate polarities. Questions that correspond to these polarities are appropriate to that category; but crossing them over creates a category error and a fallacy.

Ontology: "exist," versus "not exist." (and, of course, all the related synonyms)
Epistemology: "know," versus "not know." (and synonyms, like "realize," "see," "get," "understand," "perceive"...)
Aesthetics: "like," versus "not like." (or "beautiful," versus "ugly," or "desire" versus "detest"...)
Ethics: "good," versus "evil." (and "right," versus "wrong," and so on)

Aesthetics is primarily subjective: anybody can disagree, with no problem. But one cannot disagree with reality and not pay a price for that...and often, a very significant one. Ontology is not "soft" or "forgiving" in the way aesthetics always is.