How can there ever be an objective truth when objectivity is approached subjectively?

29.

Possibly 47, too.

When there is a fact, it stands alone and can be viewed objectively.

@6rant6,

So you’re a relativist/nihilist too, huh? I think someone else on here said 42 is a possibility. :)

@marinelife,

If objectivity is approached subjectively, then when will there ever be a fact?

I don’t agree with the supposition of your question. My answer is self-explanatory.

I appreciate the skepticism, but the question is not asking whether you agree/disagree with the supposition of the question. Although, the relative, subjective value supporting this question is rationalism.

I say yes, there is an objective truth. But our interpretation of it can only approach so closely, never quite getting there.

Truth is absolut and objective.

So if one is objective in their subjective thinking,
Then that one will find Truth but only if Truth is that objective.

The question is confusing because objectivity is not defined by itself because it cannot convey meaning without purpose. and especially so when the nature of Truth is being questioned.

“Objectivity is both a central and elusive philosophical category. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgements made by a conscious entity or subject.”

I kinda think that objectivity and subjectivity are two sides of a single coin – like day and night or up and down.

There is a lot of room for overlap, but some may find this duality a bit too muddled for their taste.

For these stoic hold-outs, I coin a new phrase: Sobjectivity.

@cockswain,

How can anyone know that their interpretations came close to truth?

@kess,

If the objective is truth, and the subjective thinker seeks truth, how will he/she know when he/she found an objective truth? If he/she claims that he/she found truth, it would still be subjective because the approach was subjective.

Can you tell me what’s good and what is evil? What is morally right/wrong? Rule/no rules?

The scientific method is the best way IMO. But like a limit in calculus, I believe we can only infinitely approach the truth because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal.

The scientific method is approached subjectively. It is no better nor worse then, for example, the relative, subjective values of religion.

So when the bible says the earth is (I forget) 3000 years old, but radioisotopic methods that are reproducible and repeatable suggest otherwise, you view those as equally valid? I’m not sure where you’re coming from yet.

Focus on the key word. Subjective.

Can you tell me what’s good and what is evil? What is morally right/wrong? Rule/no rules?

No, those are subjective and not necessarily absolutes. I consider physics, chemistry, and mathematics to describe fundamental truths about our universe. Morality is just a human construct by our little species on our little planet.

@cockswain,

How can you consider physics, chemistry and mathematics to describe fundamental truths of our universe if the approaches to these methods are subjective?

Again, I think a good analogy is the concept of limit. As more and more independent sources verify the same findings, it becomes more and more likely this understanding is our best approximation of the truth.

@cockswain,

Approximation of truth is not truth. As long is truth is absent anything goes.

Agreed, but being undoubtedly closer to the truth is far better than not.

@cockswain,

By saying you’re closer is subjective, which means you may not be close at all. If all of the scientific methods are approached subjectively, then any method designed was done subjectively, which means the results will be subjective.

Cackle when you use the term “objective truth” it implies that truth is not singular for there are different kind of “Truths”....if truth is anything but singular it ceases to be Truth.

If a man believes is subjective to the knower, then he the believer cannot know truth for to him truth wold posses many faces…

In the Life void of Truth… what so ever a man believes to be truth will truth to himself even if that what he believes is actually false.

This would occur until he has found absolut Truth.

Take for example if you consider the nature of Life, why is it that the lliving die, simply because they believe a lie to be Truth, so therefore the Lie becomes true to them, thus they die.

By your logic, if I state the earth is flat or round, I’m saying equally truthful things.

It may/may not be true. I’ll answer you like this. I say that reality does not exist other than my own mind, my own mental states, and that my mind is the whole of reality and the external world has no independent existence.

How can you ever know this is true?

Why do you think that?

My mental states are the only things I have access to.

I cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of my mental states.

Therefore only my mental states exist.

So the universe didn’t exist until you showed up?

I cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of my mental states.

I brought this up to show you that there is no “close to truth”. It may/may not be true. There is no right or wrong. An absence of truth means that everything is equally subjective. As long as we approach everything subjectively, anything that builds off of subjectivity is just more subjectivity.

I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise.

Perhaps there is no “truth,” but there is definitely wisdom. Perhaps there is no “objectivity,” but the subjective can definitely be overwhelming at times.

That’s fine, I was just making my point that there are no classifications. Religion/science, good/evil, rules/no rules, it’s all subjective. They’re still going to fight amongst each other, but that’s a different story. The inherently flawed fundamentals are clear.

@kess,

Are you talking about relativism ?

I am Truth and wo so ever truth come to they also become Truth and that one knows all things…..and they ceases to see things as a duality or relative.. but singular and absolut.

@cackle So what do you do for fun?

Facts of reality are not subject to debate. They are also knowable. If they were not, the human species would have died off long ago. There are predators and natural events galore that would have consumed a creature whose only real strength is understanding, if that understanding was a capricious illusion.

@cockswain,

You think a nihilist can’t have fun?

I don’t see how I implied that.

@josie

My mental states are the only things I have access to.

I cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of my mental states.

Therefore only my mental states exist.

@cockswain,

May I ask your reason for asking? Don’t tell me curiosity, I won’t buy that.

It is curiosity. If your philosophy is that the universe only exists inside you, what sorts of things entertain you? Banging as many women as possible? Constant exercise? Perfecting the violin? Robbing banks? Poetry? It is just curiosity. I’m not clever enough to set someone up for a trap.

The philosophy has great depth to it, and it’s not that simple to explain. You need to ask why my mental state created such an existence to begin with. Why have pain in my existence. Why have consequences in my existence.

A short answer is I do whatever I want to do up to the borderline of consequences.

Exactly

Let’s pretend I asked those questions to save me from pasting and editing.

It’s a lot to write, and I also don’t want to stir away from the main question. I only asked the question in the topic to hear from opposing views. It wasn’t meant to teach, but rather an expectation to be taught.

@cackle If everything exists only in your mind, why ask the question? None of the rest of us are actually here, in that case, and you are making up your own answers. So why ask? Just answer and skip the unnecessary step.
Then, we won’t bother you by corrupting your solipsism, and you won’t compel us to speculate that you might be the next Unabomber.

@josie,

Because this is the setup of my existence.

If you close one eye, does half the light in the universe disappear? If you were blinded, would the visible spectrum go away and we’d all just be walking around interacting with you as if it still existed?

Which answer seems more likely: we all exist under the umbrella of one reality, whether or not you exist, or I exist only in your mind and I’m not thinking my own thoughts?

@cackle Got it.
So what kind of career pays for food in your mind?
Or is someone you think is imaginary actually buying it for you?
You better hope it isn’t me.

@cackle first of all I agree with what you’re working on here. Between you and me it would just be a matter of semantics and wording but ultimately we seem to agree.. I think so anyway so that makes it true.

That’s my Solipsistic contribution to the puzzle.

Objective truth is strictly and specifically a matter of what I believe is true. Pain is true because I believe it is. If I was dead for example, pain would cease to exist. So would @josie.

The only things that exist are the things I believe in. For example, I happen to believe that others hold different opinions than I’ve come to. This truth is dictated by my belief.

If I didn’t believe it, it wouldn’t be true. This is a truism.
Evidence for this is in the fact that we only believe true things right now. We don’t believe anything that isn’t true. We might learn that a previous version of ourselves was wrong about something, but it happens to be an undeniable fact that this never occurs in the present moment.

(oh, you may also disagree with me on the determinsm side but trust me it’s unavoidable)

To make it all make sense, however, you have to conclude that free will does not exist. If I had free will, I would be able to believe whatever I wanted was true and it would be. But it happens to be a fact that I can’t freely decide what I believe is true at any given moment. For example, I can’t choose to believe that I can fly like superman; I can only believe that I am unable to fly like superman. I can’t choose to believe that my name is and has always been “Phil”. I can only believe that my name is and has always been “Colin”.

So, yes, the only things that exist are things that I believe are true however I happen to believe it’s true that I have no control over what I believe is true.

@josie Good point. Does he need to eat, or is it all just a manifestation of pain? Is hunger just an illusion and he can live eternally?

@cockswain, @josie,

There may be some reason which was forgotten on purpose. Perhaps this is all out of a desire to avoid being bored, or perhaps I am in fact living the most perfect life I could imagine. Pain are perceptions assumed with all of the other socio-cultural human values that I created for myself — a package deal, so to speak. Perhaps my subconscious mind creates a world which conscious mind might not have chosen but has no control over changing.

This issue is somewhat related to theodicy, the “problem of evil”, except that I am the all-powerful God who has somehow allowed imperfection into my world. I can counter and say that since I never made myself, then I never had a choice in the way my mind operates and appears to have only limited control over how my experiences evolve. I could also conclude that the world of my own mind’s creation is the exact total of all my desires, conscious, and otherwise and that each moment is always perfect in the sense that it would not be other than as his own mind in total had made.

The imperfection of my existence can also be explained through the belief that only through pain, both physical and emotional, can I move to a higher state of existence. Thus, the imperfect present for myself is the direct result of my subconscious compulsion to experience perfection.

I suppose if objective truth was always approached subjectively, then wouldn’t the subjective approach to objectivity be in itself objective?

However, I agree that objective truth should be pretty damn hard to find if it is out there. Since objectivity means unquestionable, not extremely likely, or even extremely convenient, the clever question-asker should be able to question a whole lot of established reality.

To attempt an answer to the original question: “How can there ever be an objective truth when objectivity is approached subjectively?”

Only if the subjective is the objective. Hence, solipsism.

Which is @satyagraha‘s point just above. :)

@ninjacolin, @satyagraha,

Yep, good answers.

@cockswain, @josie,

So does my latest answer address your questions?

It gives me a better understanding of how you think, yes.

@cackle Actually, this is a pretty big problem with claims of the universality of unobjectivity, that these claims must, in order to be true, be subjective. This may or may not bother you.

Kind of poetic, really, that universal doubt must be a matter of belief.

Yeh, I hear ya.

This seems to be an epistemic argument regarding a metaphysical issue (read: square peg, round hole). Even if we were to grant that we could not know what the objective truth was due to having to approach it subjectively (epistemic problem), it would not follow from this that there was no objective truth (metaphysical conclusion). That we might be ignorant itself relies on the assumption that there is something of which to be ignorant (i.e., an objective truth).

This is not to say that there must be objective truths about everything, but only to say that epistemic problems are of limited use when addressing ontological claims. Moreover, global relativism and global nihilism regarding truth are self-defeating. The claim that truth is relative to a believer is defeated by the existence of a believer who holds that truth is not relative to a believer (since this would entail a contradiction and contradictions are necessarily false). The claim that there are no truths whatsoever, meanwhile, is necessarily false on its own merits (if it is false, then it is false; but if it is true, it is still false).

@cackle Sorry if I sound like an incessant douche.

@SavoirFaire I might be putting words in cackle’s mouth, but I read the question as an epistemic argument regarding an implied epistemic truth. Meaning, if we can only approach objective truth subjectively, then there might as well not be an objective truth. (Because we can’t objectively assert that it is objective.)

Also, could you spell out a little more clearly why that’s a contradiction for the global relativist? It seems like your just saying that a theory is debunked because there could be a person who doesn’t believe it. I’m fairly sure that I’m missing your point there.

I didn’t read any of this.

But I’m probably bored already.

@satyagraha

That’s what the topics question is implying. The approach to find an objective truth is an objective approach, but it’s approached subjectively. Subjectivity is within itself the only universal truth despite assumptions about subjective “truths” we make. Granted, what I’ve just said is too, subjective.

@iamthemob,

“Fluther instantly connects you to helpful people.”—- Fluther

Why did you come here to comment then?

Indirect insults?

“Metaphysical subjectivism is the theory that reality is what we perceive to be real, and that there is no underlying true reality that exists independently of perception. One can also hold that it is consciousness rather than perception that is reality (subjective idealism). This viewpoint should not be confused with the stance that “all is illusion” or that “there is no such thing as reality.” Metaphysical subjectivists hold that reality is real enough. They conceive, however, that the nature of reality as related to a given consciousness is dependent on that consciousness.”

There isn’t.

@cackle

My mental states are the only things I have access to.

I cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of my mental states.

Therefore only my mental states exist.

Are you claiming this as an ultimate truth, and if so, is it an objective truth or a subjective truth?

Touché

It’s only an objective truth if the subjective is the objective, otherwise it’s subjective.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” – Philip K. Dick

@Rarebear that’s just it. Ask anyone who has ever been knocked unconscious or perhaps drank themselves utterly unconscious, the whole world seems to have disappeared during that time only to return when the subject returns to consciousness.

@cackle

You seem to be placing objectivity on a pretty high pedestal – as if subjectivity is, somehow, inferior. Something in my nature cannot accept the bland palette of objective truth. I am compelled to personalize reality – even if there is objectivity of the purest order, it is of no use to me until it has been subjectified.

Perhaps the question should really be:

How can there ever be a subjective truth when subjectivity is approached objectively?

Just a thought. :)

@satyagraha The claim that “there might as well not be an objective truth” can be taken different ways. Certainly, the world would be different depending on whether or not there were objective truths—just as it would be different if the objective truths were other than they are now. In that sense, then, it is not the case that “there might as well be no objective truth.” What might as well be the case is not dependent solely on what is available or useful to us for assertoric purposes.

Alternatively, the claim might be that there is no practical difference between what we see being based on an objective truth or not. I don’t take this as a proper reading of the question due to the fact that we are asked how there can ever be an objective truth, not what role it would play. Regardless, if there is no practical difference, then there can be no objection to my continuing talking about objective truths. If any such prohibition followed from this reading, after all, that would be a practical difference.

As for why global relativism is self-defeating, consider the case of a person who believes that global relativism is false. If global relativism is true, then the person who claims that global relativism is false is saying something true (relative to himself). Thus global relativism is true (ex hypothesi) and false (because truth is relative). But this is a contradiction, and contradictions are necessarily false—as are the assumption that lead to them (this being the strategy of a reductio ad absurdum argument). The only alternative is that global relativism is false. But this means that the statement is either false or false (because it is false if it is false, and false if it is true). “False or false” reduces to “false.” Therefore, global relativism is false.

Theories aren’t usually debunked by the existence of a non-believer, but they are debunked if the existence of a non-believer is sufficient to engender a contradiction.

There is no practical differences. You can’t justify classifications. Reality/no reality, Good/evil, Rules/no rules, morals/no morals. One can kill someone today and I would not be able to justify any wrong/right doing, other then that is his/her relative, subjective value. Fundamentally,“self-interest”, “self-pleasure”, “survival instinct”, whatever you call it, it’s one in the same and this is the reason behind an act. This is what drives the act.

@cackle

I don’t think you’re listening to @SavoirFaire. The argument cannot be that there is no practical difference because you are merely asking about whether there is the existence of an objective truth. The fact that what we currently consider objectivity is derived from subjective experience won’t have any effect on whether there is an objective truth – if that truth exists, then what we have derived subjectively may or may not be right, but it will either be true or false – it can be determined.

If your argument is that there is no practical difference, then what I believe you’re asking is how can we ever know an objective truth rather than how can there ever be an objective truth.

There can be an objective truth only under one circumstance: That it is known to be the case. If it is not known to be the case then it simply isn’t true until it is known to be the case.

@SavoirFaire
As for your first interpretation of what I said, I think you’re missing the point of “There might as well not be an objective truth.” I meant exactly that what might as well be the case is what is available to us for assertoric purposes. Meaning, there are many minute nuances to the world around us that we simply don’t know about (subjectively or objectively), and thus are not in a position to make claims about. I’m thinking about the cliche example “If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it ever fall?” My answer is, it might as well not have fallen, as we’re not really in a position to make an assertion either way.

The point being, if we’re not in a position to assert that a truth is objective, then it might as well not be. (In addition, the statement “it might as well be true” is also true.) So I’m saying, sure, the world would be different if there were objective truths out there, but not in a perceivable way. So really, I was getting at your second interpretation.

As for your “argument” against the second interpretation, I have no disagreements. You are of course free to talk about objective truths as if they exist, in the same way that anyone is free to interpret the world as if they are living in The Matrix. The conclusion I’m trying to arrive at is not there are no objective truths, but that their existence would be unfalsifiable.

And thanks for spelling out the argument about global relativism, it makes things much clearer. I’m not really trying to argue against it, but it seems like it might have a bit of a problem. Namely, if global relativism is true, and two people carry opposing beliefs, then there would apparently be a contradiction, since two opposite things are true. But that doesn’t seem right, does it. Meaning, the scope of any given truth can’t be universal if global relativism is to be true. Perhaps we should start talking about the scope of a truth relative to an individual. Maybe truths are only true to the individual that holds them to be true. Of course, this raises interesting questions about the scope of the truth of global relativism. Like I said before, I’m not really trying to argue against that counterexample, just exploring.

@iamthemob,

You’re right. I asked the wrong question in the topic. The question should have been “How can we ever know an objective truth?” rather then how can there ever be.

There may/may not be an objective truth.

@SavoirFaire, @satyagraha

As I wrote before, what causes an act? What is the drive? There is only one drive, but we give it different names..Survival instinct, self-pleasure, self-interest. The point is, any act is automatically relative to the person. If I make truth relative to me, and you make false relative to you, and everyone else on this planet makes truth/false relative to themselves, and our very act is relative, then what you’re viewing on a fundamental level is global relativism. There is a contradiction amongst us humans with our relative subjective values, but if you view existence from a birds eye view, then you can see it’s all global relativism. Now, if you can see fundamentally that it’s global relativism, then we’re absent of a real truth, thus, everything is meaningless.

There may/may not be a universal objective truth, but since we can’t know whether an objective truth is true/false, we only make our choice a relative, subjective value. Classifications have no justification. In order to know a universal objective truth, you have to be out of classifications. We’re stuck in them, which is why subjectivity is within itself the only truth despite assumptions about subjective “truths” we make. The creation of philosophies is within itself subjective, along with the concept of discovery or creation of ideas.

The universal objective truth is universal subjectivity. A real universal objective truth, outside of relativism, may/may not exist.

“There may/may not be an objective truth” – false, i would have to say.
i disagree with @iamthemob on this.

Care to explain here(details)? If you can’t know that a objective value is true/false, then you can’t know if a universal objective value exists.

Typo, meant to write objective truth, not objective value.

Knowledge is what it is.
If I believe my name is Colin… i’m right. Objectively.

Subjective is the objective. Your original question was fine.

Another example: walking on thin ice.

If I believe the ice is safe to walk on,.. I’m right.
If the ice breaks under my weight, my opinion becomes: “Oh shit! The ice isn’t safe to be walking on. Glug, glug, glug”... and I’m right again.

Isn’t that what I wrote in my latest response accept I called (subjective is the objective) a fake objective truth? You don’t know with certainty that the subjective is the objective.

You can’t expect certainty to be any more certain than it has been in the past.

I’m attacking the idea that we can’t “know” things. We DO know things.

@cackle said: “If you can’t know that an objective [truth] is true/false, then you can’t know if a universal objective [truth] exists”

We “know” it is the truth because it fits the “known” rules of logic. Until we know better we know with certainty. That is as certain as certain ever gets, it never exceeds that.

You believe walking on ice is safe to walk on…you’re right. I believe walking on ice is not safe to walk on…I’m right. A bunch of other people believe that the ice is safe/not safe to walk on, they’re all right. You’re eliminating falsehood(which is good since it eliminates classification) by saying everyone is right, but what is the justification for saying that everyone is right?

Solipsism, remember? I’m the only one who’s right.

Ah, arguing as a solipsist. In that case, yes, you’re always right. Although, I’m a solipsist too. Are you part of me, or am I part of you? Now, who’s right? Both of us? Someone must be wrong.

My subjective opinion about what is real is all that I can rely on.
That makes my opinion necessarily objective.

Check my last response, I edited it. I say I’m right, you’re part of my mind. You say, you’re right, I’m part of your mind. Which is it…

Obviously, I’m the real slim shady.

Was going to say something, but I changed my mind. I guess as a solipsist, this works. From a realist reality, it’s global relativism.

Would guys care to entertain the notion that all of us are real and reality does not exist only in each of us? The simplest solution is frequently the best.

No, all existence is part of my mind.

agree with @cackle. that’s the simplest I think.

But if both of you believe that, you can’t both be right, correct? But you each believe you are correct and the other wrong. So what seems the simpler explanation, you are both right, you are both wrong, or one of you is right (and the rest of the world is wrong)?

The simplest solution is that I’m right, just like I believe.

@cockswain,

If @ninjacolin says he is right, he is still part of my mind. I’m still the only one who’s the real solipsist. Likewise for the rest of existence that disagree with me, or claim the same as me. They’re all part of my mind, so I’m the only one who’s right.

But one of you must be wrong. Who is it and how do you know you don’t only exist in the other’s mind? How do you know everything your senses tell you isn’t because the other has allowed it through his existence, not yours?

…
My mental states are the only things I have access to.
I cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of my mental states.
Therefore only my mental states exist.

I’m the only one who is ever right.

@ninjacolin I think this comment conflates truth with knowledge. As they are separate things, it is not the case that truths must be known to be truths. Indeed, the whole point of truths is that we discover them—meaning they are already around to find.

@satyagraha It was inevitable that at least one of my readings would “miss the point” since I was trying to disambiguate between two different things you could have meant and presumably you only meant one of them. But I would again suggest that merely not being able to make an assertion either way about something is not the same as saying it might as well have happened either way. What we do not know can affect us.

As for the falsifiability of objective truths, I think we should not draw conclusions about this in advance of attempting to falsify them. Even if we cannot verify the existence of some objective truths, we very well may be able to falsify the existence of others. We can falsify the ancient belief that one can square the circle, for instance, so we know it is not—and never was—an objective truth that one could do such a thing.

Finally, your scope problem for the rejection of global relativism seems to be left admitting that global relativism is false for anyone that holds it to be false. But global relativism is a universal statement, so its falsity at any locality is not compatible with the claim. Moreover, I don’t think it would make any sense to say that it is true in some localities, false at others, and has no universal truth or falsity. It’s just not the kind of claim that could work that way—that’s the whole point of it, after all.

I realize you were just putting forth the scope problem to explore, not to defend global relativism. This is just my response to that particular exploratory pathway.

@cackle As for what causes an act, there are entire sub-disciplines of psychology that deal with that issue. Your own answer, however, contradicts your global relativism. That is, you try to assert a universal truth about the engine of our actions. Not only that, your proposal is demonstrably false. While many people say that all our actions are self-interested at their base, this is merely a bit of dogma.

This dogma is usually based on some sort of faulty rhetoric that goes something like this: “we always do what we want; therefore, we always act according to self-interest.” But this is to equivocate on the word “want.” If someone has a gun to my head and demands I do X, I may still want (that is, prefer or have an interest in) doing Y instead. Yet I may still want (that is, voluntarily choose) to do X for other reasons. Similarly, if someone has a gun to someone else’s head and demands I do X, I may still do it to protect that other person. So while the first case might be describable in terms of self-interest, the second is not.

“Oh yes it is,” you might say, “because you are only protecting the other person to feel better about yourself!” Or perhaps you would say that it counts as self-interested because I am still acting on my own will (even if someone else’s will is shaping my will in this case). But this begets an important question: if this is egoism, then what is altruism? Any definition that destroys the distinction is self-undermining: the dichotomy between egoism and altruism is destroyed if one term applies to all acts and the other applies to no acts. To use egoism so universally, then, is necessarily a misapplication of words.

Furthermore, that an act is “relative to a person” in the sense that a person must undertake it does not entail anything about objective truth and falsity. You seem to be confusing global relativism (the thesis that all truths are relative to people) with some other thesis about judgments of truth coming from people (cf. Nietzsche’s perspectivism). Your talk about taking a “bird’s-eye view” undermines global relativism insofar as there would not be a bird’s-eye view to take if global relativism were true.

Finally, it also would not follow from global relativism that everything is meaningless. First, the statements that would be true relative to me or you would still have linguistic meaning. They would need to in order to have even relativistic truth-aptness. Second, they might still be important to us (call this “existential meaning”). Indeed, I’m not quite sure what sort of meaning you think is lost. We might lose a certain force, but that is altogether different from meaning.

@SavoirFaire -

Indeed, the whole point of truths is that we discover them—meaning they are already around to find.

The above is “true”, however, only if objective truth does in fact exist. Considering the general limitations of our perception, I think it’s reasonable to assume that it doesn’t. Therefore, the problem with the above is that it colors the rhetoric of the discussion such that we rest on certain things as true and thereafter cease to be critical of them. Whereas I agree that we can agree to truths, I think that the whole point of them is that we don’t struggle to “find” them, we struggle to create them – which is an ongoing and continual process.

In many ways this is why I like the consistent comparison of truth with light – light exists both as a wave and a particle, and in many ways “exists” only at the moment where it interacts with matter we see. From it’s perspective, though, it exists in all places at once. Truth, as well, can be said to “exist” at the moment we perceive it – but it may very well be something different from our perspective a moment later. From it’s perspective, it may be “objective” in that it exists as a whole based on all of these individual actions and perceptions, but our perspective in time is unfortunately (perhaps) limited to one that is linear. Therefore, it’s reasonable to accept something as true as a present conception of truth as long as it’s recognized that the present is inherently transitory, slippery, and oddly impermanent and imaginary.

@iamthemob I worry that we don’t have a common understanding of what a truth is. Facts are states of affairs (ways the world is). Truths are a type of sentence, specifically assertions that accurately describe (or correspond to) the facts. These are fairly standard philosophical definitions of the terms. Given this, saying that “the whole point of truths is that we discover them” does not seem terribly controversial. As such, a relativistic view about truth might be seen as collapsing into the view that there is no truth at all, having very strange metaphysical commitments, or requiring a linguistic reinterpretation of what “X is true” means.

What we agree to, then, are assertions that may or may not be truths. It may be a practical necessity, and it may even be pragmatically justified, to call them truths so long as we agree to them—but this is not the same as saying that they are truths during that period of time. Truth, like knowledge, is factive. The limitations of our perceptions only make it reasonable to adopt some form of fallibilism.

In the words of William James, “we have to live today by what truth we can get today, and be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood.” But having a policy of questioning our beliefs is not relativism about truth. It is fallibilism. When we discover that our previous beliefs were false, we also say that they were never truths and never knowledge. We just thought they were.

@SavoirFaire – I’m not denying that there’s a jargonistic accuracy that makes the statement a good one. However, it’s like using “theory” in science – in the popular discourse, it has a more general meaning.

If philosophers, academics, or scientists are to be able to inject views into popular discourse, I think that there’s a necessary limit to the accuracy of the terms that are used – an anathema in expert discourse.

That’s the problem I address when I discuss the rhetorical danger involved. For instance, scientists refer to the fact of evolution. This often creates pushback when there’s the parallel discussion of the theory. Of course, it makes sense in terms of the jargon of science – so the conflict is in the translation.

And even based on this accepted set of definitions, and I may be misunderstanding this, but wouldn’t a sentence that could be considered true or false based on facts, if true, be a fact then? The problem with focusing on a vocabulary that is too clear means that there is a realm that is suitable to critique and one that is not. While I agree that there is a utility to focusing on critique on areas outside those that have been generally accepted, I wince at deeming certain things “facts” in that even the most material facts are derived from limited perceptions.

Conceptually, I think that we’re on the same page – and I feel like I’m in many ways repeating what you stated above. I approach it not from the perspective of whether or not the argument is accurately described (e.g., we’ve settled on a vocabulary) but whether it can be accurately and publicly communicated in a more universal manner.

It’s because we have overlapping schools examining “truth” that I have a problem with structuring any statement about truth where a real truth is separated from a subjective truth. “Discover” adds a materiality to the concept being discovered – surrounds it with a sort of “thingness.” As my education is legal, I may be reacting against it because of the concept of “natural law” that runs through many spheres of legal philosophy – that there is a natural law that can be discovered as it is set by a higher authority – e.g., something out there in the ether that we’re waiting to pluck out of it. Of course, “discover” in that sense connotes not only a materiality but also that authority – and then we get into battles over what the authority is.

So I find a danger in any discussion of truth that tends to create “material” concept of it, rather than a “consensus” concept of it.

@iamthemob In topics like these, which are already steeped in philosophy, I see no reason not to insist on using the rigorous definitions. We have them, after all, to keep ourselves from accidentally equivocating and never communicating. There are too many philosophical ideas at play here for me to think of this as a non-philosophical discussion (though perhaps this is a case of “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”).

As for a sentence that is actually true, it is not thereby a fact. Facts are states of affairs, not sentences. Truths are sentences, not states of affairs. Facts are that in virtue of which sentences are true (when they are true). This distinction can be difficult given that we only have words and sentences to elucidate it, but there is a difference between the cat being on the mat and someone saying “the cat is on the mat.” The first is the fact of the matter, the second is the truth of the matter. These are used interchangeably in ordinary parlance, and I don’t doubt that philosophers conflate them from time to time as well. Strictly speaking, however, they are separate.

As for the issue of natural law, that there are some statements with an objective truth to be discovered in no way requires us to think that truth is normative or that there are normative statements with objective truths to be discovered. That is, there can be objective truths about some things and not about others. There may be objective truths, then, without there being any such thing as natural law. To say that we discover a statement is true is only to say that we discover that it corresponds to the facts. No authority need be involved, and the accuracy of our declaration of discovery can always be challenged.

@SavoirFaire – I can readily accept agreeing to terms in private discussions/circles/conversations – it creates clarity.

In that sense – thanks for the clarification. Is it accurate then to say that a fact is akin to the “objective reality” and truth is the communication or expression of that objective reality? (of course, that’s bringing in a new term of “reality” to describe “facts” and “truths” and different from either).

And if that’s the case – I still don’t really see the difference or utility in discussing facts as facts. The problem with a discussion of it is that the expression of a fact as a truth is always subject to subjectivity – i.e., there is no way to “discover” a truth because the discover is inherently subjective because we have to express and therefore interpret the fact, so it’s already messy. For instance, I could say “the cat is on the floor” when the cat is on the mat, which is on the floor. Is it therefore true? Arguably it is – also it is not. The cat is in fact not on the floor – it is on the mat. But in the realm of things on the floor, it is a fact that we would include the cat as one of the things on the floor as opposed to on the table (which may also be on the floor). And this doesn’t take into account the fact that the cat may arguably not be “on” anything, considering that matter can also be expressed as a function of energy, and therefore the cat is really drawn to the floor by forces such as gravity but repelled by other atomic forces so that it is really “near” or “above” or “underneath” or “approaching” the floor depending on your orientation.

I know that this may seem more relative than necessary, and may seem like a pointless argument based on the epistemological regress problem…but I feel like the problem of defining the terms (re)produces those issues as we attempt to determine the acceptable terms.

That being, I think that a construction that recognizes facts as apart from truth, and discovery of truth as something that is true because it corresponds to facts, a meaningless one (ironically). It creates the problem that it avoids.

@iamthemob Facts and reality are the same thing on this terminology (reality is the sum total of all facts—i.e., of all states of affairs). The distinction is not made for the sake of discussing facts as facts, but rather for mapping out and understanding the logical space within which we are working. By separating facts from truths, we help maintain the difference between what is and what is said. This helps us understand what is at stake when asking about things like truth. A truth is a statement that corresponds to the facts. Thus a statement can be true even if we do not know that it is true. Thus there can be objective truths regardless of our epistemic limitations.

Then there is the separate issue—which the aforementioned distinction again helps us see is a separate issue—of whether or not subjects can discover which statements are true. The problem you raise regarding the cat being on the mat is just another problem of ambiguity: once we understand what the cat is and what would be sufficient for being on the floor, we are well on our way to understanding whether or not being on the mat is sufficient for being on the floor. Indeed, this is why we have words like “directly,” so we can ask things like “do you mean directly on the floor or just not on the counter?”

In the end, however, the distinction between facts and truths, and the connection between facts and truths, is driven by ordinary usage. That ordinary usage raises questions is the start of philosophy, not the refutation of it.

@SavoirFaire

I don’t think I’m attempting to refute philosophy. I look at the recognition of epistemic or ontological limitations as, in fact, the starting point (or at least, where we should start from at this point).

It’s mostly still that I don’t see the utility or benefit of arguing any concept of “fact” in order to describe the space of the epistemic community outside of what is accepted as fact – in essence, still by definition a relativistic notion of fact. Recognizing something that is universally recognized as a fact may really not be a “fact” in the strict sense doesn’t undermine an understanding of what’s at stake. I don’t see any difference in value in understanding “2+2=4” is a fact as opposed to understanding “2+2=4” is universally accepted as fact.

Does that make sense?

@iamthemob I don’t take you to be attempting to refute philosophy, either. But I do not take the philosophical recognition of problems that arise out of ordinary usage to “create the problem it avoids.” There is a problem, and philosophy comes in to figure it out. So there is already a distinction, and philosophers try to keep it clearly in mind so as to figure out what problems arise out of not being mindful of that distinction. That is to say, ordinary parlance gets into trouble by having the distinction and then forgetting it when making various arguments. We confuse ourselves with our own discourse.

The difference in value in understanding “2 + 2 = 4” is a fact as opposed to understanding “2 + 2 = 4” is universally accepted as fact is part of the benefit of fallibilism: when we recognize that we can be mistaken, we are more aware of to what extent we have or have not proven something and are in a better position to fix our mistakes. When we simply call everything “fact” instead of distinguishing between what we accept and what we have proven, it becomes difficult to consider the possibility that we are incorrect.

@SavoirFaire,

You’re playing semantics. Very well, I won’t argue back the point I brought up. I won’t even argue as a solipsist. Instead, I’ll just ask if you agree that the creation of philosophies is within itself subjective, along with the concept of discovery or creation of ideas? If you answer yes to this fundamental question, then you just annihilated the idea of ever knowing something to be true/false because anything that builds off of subjectivity is just more subjectivism. Is the whole world not subscribed to these fundamental subject creations? You’re forever stuck in a classification (true/false). All of mankind is. I’ll just say the opposite of everything you say, because I can, and you will never be able to justify your values over mine nor will I to yours. I create meaning, you create meaning, as does everyone else, it’s true/false. How do you, or anyone else expect to get out this classification? If you agree that you can’t get out of this classification, then what will your conclusion be?

Have to go, I’ll be back on Sunday.

We’ll just keep rambling on in the back of your subconscious until then.

@cackle I’m not playing semantics, I am parsing your semantics to show where you have been led astray. And no, I do not agree that the creation of philosophies is within itself subjective (the second part of your question is gibberish and will need to be restated in English before I can answer it properly). But even if I create an idea, I can go look in the world to see if anything corresponds to it. Idea creation, then, does not doom the entire process to subjectivity.

You also seem to be conflating the subjectivity of values with the subjectivity of everything. Even if you can demonstrate that there are no objective values (that is, no objective normative truths), it does not follow from this that there are not objective truths whatsoever. The same might also hold true of the creation of meaning that you mention, though this is again too obscure as of yet for any proper response to be made. You would need to clarify what you mean by “creating meaning” (linguists and existentialists would understand such a term in different ways, after all).

I’m having coffee with my wife and listening to some Chopin right now. Going to kick a soccer ball around with my daughter in a little bit. Thanks for letting that happen, @cackle. And thanks for the pleasant weather in Denver today too.

@SavoirFaire the name for the fallacy I believe you are factually committing is called begging the question. I’m having a hard time figuring out exactly how that works, but I’m pretty certain that’s the nature of your mistake.

Sates of affairs are themselves subjectively interpreted.

@SavoirFaire,

Start with the first part. Why don’t you agree that the creation of philosophies is within itself subjective? How was philosophies created objectively?

You also asked “if this is egoism, then what is altruism?”

There is no altruism. A neutral does not act. It is stagnant, like a wall. Selflessness can only be positive, it’ can’t be neutral. Only a positive acts, hence survival instinct, self-pleasure, self-interest.

Your whole argument failed…

@SavoirFaire,

Pay attention.

“That all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames)—from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be.”
—Special relativity.

Now, look at the quantum physics. Heisenburg’s Uncertainty Principle is the fact in quantum physics (the study of miniscule particles) that if you observer/measure a particles precise position, you cannot know its speed, and vica versa. This phenomenon is a mathematical catch 22 – it is impossible to measure one thing without altering another. Also, all observation slightly changes what is being observed. So even with the most expensive and accurate scientific equipment, measurement causes error and a lack of knowledge. At a very fundamental way, at the height of science, we know that we cannot obtain absolute knowledge.

@SavoirFaire,

Not only was Heisenberg uncertainty principle approached relativistically as special relativity points out, but it’s relative, subjective conclusion to this method is uncertainty. Furthermore, even if the method concluded with certainty, it would still be a relative, subjective answer because the method was approached relativistically as special relativity points out.

Now, this example is just a step ahead of my original question to you. Science is only around thanks to philosophy, so answer my original question…“Why don’t you agree that the creation of philosophies is within itself subjective? How was philosophies created objectively?”

@SavoirFaire,

I forgot to mention that within the philosophy itself you have the same answers.

If we cannot move on to point 2 until we have proved point 1, and if in order to prove point 1 we must establish it with absolute certainty, then it looks as though we will have a very hard time proving any point at all. First, claiming that “basic beliefs” must exist, amounts to the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance combined with the slippery slope.

See infinite regression
See Münchhausen_Trilemma