-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it Actually Possible that You...
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Last edited:
So, how would you properly compare fact to truth?
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
You are talking about "non-subjective" and "objective", which means that you apriori have some notion of what "non-subjective" and "objective" are. This suggests that if you were given a objective truth, you would be able to recognize (by virtue of your understanding of subjective, non-subjective, and objective) whether or not that truth is objective, just as if you were confronted by an animal, you would be able to say whether or not the animal was blue or whether or not the animal was a cat.
If you are trying to say that you are unable to establish objective truths at all, then it seems that you cannot have any coherent notion of what an objective truth is or is not. You might as well be talking about determining if truths are asdhfdkjshfka or not asdhfdkjshfka. Your question (and by extension your discussion of the matter) would then be meaningless jibber-jabber, because apriori you have no notion of what you are talking about.
Err...I did. But since I didn't think I had a non-subjective way of determining objective truth I didn't respond.
I non subjectively and by miraculous means affirm that he has indeed read the OP.
Do you count occasionally making intuitive guesses?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
If that's the case then we can compute the ultimate answer.For a truth to be established as objective, it has to be reviewed by many, and all agreed it makes sense to them.
Maths judges it.
So in the rules of reasoning presented, personally believe it is possible to ask a series of logical questions to reverse engineer any question.
The periodic table is all mathematical equatable, therefore we're all maths; the Fibonacci sequence within our finger print, snail shell, ocean wave, galaxy spiral, means we're being sequenced mathematically from a single Source, therefore everything is quantifiable.
Our brain is using mathematical sequences like music to ask its own questions, so mathematical logic can present objective reasoning, if we have the right sequence of questions.
In my opinion.
For now I'll stick with the number 42.
You (mind) are the means, just as you are the means of establishing what is subjective.
Nonsense--a truth is true regardless of anyone, and objective despite everyone.
"Objective" means despite us.
Well, would that even be true if you subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth? (The correspondence being between objective reality and the subjective map created by the sentient being?)
Good question.
There are numerous variations of the Correspondence Theory that do not presuppose an objective reality. These days, most people who subscribe to the CT subscribe to one or another of those variations precisely because assuming reality is objective opens a can of worms about how you can know it's objective.
But the direct answer to your question is -- yes, even if you subscribed to the CT or one of its variations, you would still be faced with the fact you ultimately have only subjective means for establishing truths. Humans have access to no objective means for establishing truths.
I believe that even the scientific method admits it is possible to reconsider our certainties to reaffirm a new truth that replaces the old one.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Absolutely.
Those who say that moral judgments are subjective are mistaken. When two people disagree on the judgment of a specific case, one of them is wrong.
The standard, accepted world-wide, is the majority opinion based the collective conscience of a jury unbiased on the specific case given all the relevant facts.
Conscience has to be accepted as the moral authority because it's the only moral guide we have.
Last edited:
At the fulfilment of Revelation 10, the Taxi that took us to Atlantis was 64, as Taxi 42 didn't know the way.
In my opinion.
Fair enough mathematical truths exist in reality, yet no one will accept another person's subjective opinion on it, unless the maths can be shown objectively.
In my opinion.
Correspondance would require pattern recognition abilities, which are subjective, or at least separate from that which is being analyzed.
Question: would an objective mirror (which has no sentience) reflect an objective image that is true? Would the necessary imperfections (even if quantum imperfections) within the construction of the mirror make the image imperfect or would it make it untrue?
(You can observe mirror imperfections by reflecting mirrors off of each other, creating an infinite regress, accompanied by a noticeable greenish distortion due to glass not being perfectly clear--having a slight greenish tint.)
I have no such means, and therefore nothing much else to say.
As I have tried (probably in vain) to make clear, it is my view that there is indeed "a reality" at some level, but that reality is subjectively perceived by everything within it. The flower that I see isn't the one the bee sees. The dense planet I'm standing on practically doesn't exist for the neutrino, that zips right through it without "noticing."
But within my own subjective reality, I call "truth" that which accurately describes the reality I know.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
The objective truth of the force of gravity can be demonstrated by tossing people off the edge of a cliff.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
There are no objective truths.
Everything is subject to humans (in human related issues.
The Jewish religion even explain further, that our entire reality is generated within ourselves and your thought are those constructing your reality.
There is only one thing the is considered objective in the Jewish religion.
God.
Even the rules of God are subjective to humans.
I Think today when we say "Objective", we mean from the POV of humans living on earth.
As for objective "good" or "bad". Again, it is subjective to humans (Also based on the Jewish belief).
What's "good" for humans, can be bad for animals.
Whats "bad" for humans, can be great for animals.
So eventually it all depends on the POV.
Based on the Jewish belief, There is no such thing as "good" and "bad". there is only "good".
What we call "bad" is eventually good but we cannot understand it as we experience it from humans POV.
An example might be slapping a child trying to poke he's finger in an expose electrical outlet.
From the child's POV, we did something bad, from the parent's POV it was good.
Everything is subject to humans (in human related issues
.The Jewish religion even explain further, that our entire reality is generated within ourselves and your thought are those constructing your reality.
There is only one thing the is considered objective in the Jewish religion.
God.
Even the rules of God are subjective to humans.
I Think today when we say "Objective", we mean from the POV of humans living on earth.
As for objective "good" or "bad". Again, it is subjective to humans (Also based on the Jewish belief).
What's "good" for humans, can be bad for animals.
Whats "bad" for humans, can be great for animals.
So eventually it all depends on the POV.
Based on the Jewish belief, There is no such thing as "good" and "bad". there is only "good".
What we call "bad" is eventually good but we cannot understand it as we experience it from humans POV.
An example might be slapping a child trying to poke he's finger in an expose electrical outlet.
From the child's POV, we did something bad, from the parent's POV it was good.