I don't know if this is related to our chat in the other topic as we talked a bit about that as well?
But if it is or isn't, I would like to try to explain it.
"I can give you my answer to what the truth is for me, But to find the answer you are happy with, you must find the answer for yourself"
I think the issue why there might be a conflict or what to call it, is more about how the words are used, such as truth, proof and evidence when related to a personal experience.
Where you might perceive something as being evidently true to you personal, doesn't mean that it is to someone else. Which sort of conflict with how we understand this word. And this is where the problem occur as I see it.
But you don't see as see a problem. The problem is a subjective evolution in you as the following absurd form: To you as subjectively true is only objective truth valid, but that is only subjectively true.
Because in some cases your truth is contradicting someone else's truth and therefore we are not really talking truth anymore, but rather personal opinion or feeling. And therefore per definition you can't say that you have a proof for your claim, unless you somehow can disregard why this other truth is not correct.
Well, you can't see as see other otherwise trough external sensation experience truth, so your rule of truth is dead in the water, because you use a subjective rule for truth, which is not objective.
The problem with this is that skeptics will then laugh and say, so you do not have any proof.....But who is the proof actually for?
The proof is for you and not the skeptics.
The problem is that you are not speaking for the skeptics, because you are not them. You are speaking for your subjective understand of truth
Im not talking about you and me discussing the existence of God. Im talking about you having one understanding of something in the Qur'an and someone else having a contradictive understanding of it.
If your solution to this contradiction is as above,
"I can give you my answer to what the truth is for me, But to find the answer you are happy with, you must find the answer for yourself" then it is simply wrong to talk about your personal opinion as truth. Even if you think it is, "Truth" can't be contradictory.
This is either an apple or it isn't. It can't be both. Because the statement is contradictory.
View attachment 49087
And therefore your personal evidence for why you might not think it is an apple, which eventually lead to your personal truth about it. Just doesn't make sense in regards to truth, it purely an opinion that may or may not work for you.
It doesn't mean that it can be useful for you to believe what you do, but the distinction need to be there. And I think that is why skeptics react to it, and even others of your own religion might react to it, if they disagree.
The problem is that your example rests on the subjective belief that all of the world/the universe/reality/everything is objective. It is not so and the proof of that is that we 2, you and I, think differently and act differently as it goes on in part in this thread. You are reading it right now. Your words in part correspond to your thinking that truth can only be objective, but that is false, because that the following is only subjectively true: You think that truth is objective. But that you think that is only true, because you think it.
So here is the long answer:
Logic is about a thing at a given time and space in a given sense. But that doesn't stop a different thing at a different time and space to be in a different sense. It is that simple. If everything had to be a thing at a given time and space in a given sense, then we couldn't be different and exist at different times, spaces and senses, but we do.
So for the same, similar and/or different, you can learn the following:
The everyday world is neither just objective or just subjective. It is:
- Objective in part as per your apple.
- Objective in part as abstract cognitive for example logic.
- Intersubjective in part for laws, rules, customs and so on.
- Subjective in part for feelings and what matters existentially.
There is more if you look closer, but for this thread it will do and truth is different in these 4 cases.
Now when we play "truth" as skeptics, you and I are not the same kind of skeptics, because we do it differently. I don't believe in truth like you do, yet we are both able to live in the everyday world. That is what you can't show as a contradiction and thus show as not true, because it is subjectively true that we think differently.
There is off course more, but as long as you in effect subjectively treat everything as objective, I will just do it differently subjectively for a part of the everyday world.