Twig pentagram
High Priest
I don't think truth is subjective. In order for something to be true it has to be objectively correct. What do you think?
-
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 truth subjective?
- Thread starter Twig pentagram
- Start date
Morpheus
Member
There is absolute truth and relative truth.
I am not aware of any human capable of knowing absolute truth. One would need absolute and complete knowledge of the universe.
Humans can only know relative truth. eg a 2 kilogram rock is twice as heavy ralstive to a 1 kilo rock. Our truth is based in knowledge of our physical world. To assume this is absolute truth would require that this physical realm is the sum total of all existence. Science and religion both know that this is not so.
I am not aware of any human capable of knowing absolute truth. One would need absolute and complete knowledge of the universe.
Humans can only know relative truth. eg a 2 kilogram rock is twice as heavy ralstive to a 1 kilo rock. Our truth is based in knowledge of our physical world. To assume this is absolute truth would require that this physical realm is the sum total of all existence. Science and religion both know that this is not so.
This. Very good response.
To claim there is an objective reality is to indulge oneself in speculative metaphysics. The only reality we know is subjective. However, there seem to be intersubjectively verifiable facts, propositions, or truths.
That is, there seem to be subjective impressions that can be collaborated by other people, such as the notion that the sky appears blue in certain circumstances.
Experience has taught us that not everyone is equally adept at judging whether something is the case. Yet, there seem to be things that all, almost all, or at least the great majority of rational, disinterested, and informed observers will agree on.
Rational as opposed to irrational. This not only includes being reasonable, but also includes compensating for, or managing, one's biases.
Disinterested as opposed to having an agenda. There are many motives for messing with truths. Religious, political, social, financial, etc. etc.
Informed as opposed to either ignorant or willfully ignorant.
Observer as opposed to someone who has not, at least, studied it.
Of course, nothing prevents anyone from speculating that an objective reality exists, but let's call that for what it is: speculation. Moreover, such speculations are largely idle. Nothing practical rests on their outcome. Science, for instance, does not rest on the assumption that there are objective realities but instead rests on the fact that there are intersubjectively verifiable facts, etc.
Last edited:
Wombat
Active Member
I say I love her....she says she loves me......any way we can determine an 'objective' truth?
Everything is subjective and objective, depending on how it's viewed.
Truth, though, is invariably objective. As soon as we realize something as true, it gets cast across this immense divide to rest on the objective side. You could even say that that "side" is systematically constructed by each thing that gets tossed over there.
Truth is relative, rather than subjective. The truth of things deemed "subjective" is an objective assessment, but people rarely realize that.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Not all truths relate to the universe. 2+2=4, invariably.
But this is an objective statement, for any meaningful definition of "objective."
Morpheus
Member
Yes 2+2=4, relative to a decimal world. In a binary world it is nonsense (literally).
Everything can be viewed from different perspectives so it must be all relative.
Some (people's) universes are bigger than others.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
That's like saying, "I am six feet tall" is not valid German, and so isn't true. 2+2=4 is as true in binary as it is in decimal; it is merely expressed differently. (i.e. 10+10=100)
Truth must be invariant to be truth. However, how we each describe that is subjective, as noted by both Sunstone and Willamena. In this regard, the concept of vijnana and jnana may be of some relevance.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2448200-post460.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2448200-post460.html
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I wrote this for 'something else'....but maybe it helps here too.
Let's say.....you're standing on one side of a large object.
On your side of it...you see certain character about it.
My side is different.
Years later we meet, and it comes up in conversation....we've both 'been there'.
But your recall will be different than mine.
Your perception was not the same.
We both have truths...are mine the same as yours?
They should be....we were 'there'.
And the Earth is indeed a large object.
As for things...not of this Earth....
Logic should prevail.
Not science...no experiment can go there.
Not equations....numbers don't 'count'.
When it comes to God...you just have to think about it.
Let's say.....you're standing on one side of a large object.
On your side of it...you see certain character about it.
My side is different.
Years later we meet, and it comes up in conversation....we've both 'been there'.
But your recall will be different than mine.
Your perception was not the same.
We both have truths...are mine the same as yours?
They should be....we were 'there'.
And the Earth is indeed a large object.
As for things...not of this Earth....
Logic should prevail.
Not science...no experiment can go there.
Not equations....numbers don't 'count'.
When it comes to God...you just have to think about it.
I hope your point was that "they should be" relative to our unique perspectives. Nothing more is required, or should be expected, of truths.
If science can't "go there," how can logic? The latter built the former.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Science leans to experiment and equation.
Have you heard any scientists bang their ideas back and forth?
Often sounds like insanity.
Suskind and Hawkings have been doing a thirty year discussion.
Only recently did they come to a pivot point.
Still...as great as their thinking and formulas maybe...
There is no experiment....no equation of resolve.
Logic doesn't need the repeatable experiment.
Like chess....no numbers....no substantial geometry....
Problem solving...with only one effect as target...check mate.
Some topics can't use numbers or petri dishes.
You just have to think about it.
Nonsense. It's a subjective statement. Are you perhaps confusing "absolute" with "objective"? But if you think it's an objective statement, then by all means, please prove it.
Nope. Not in my book. Sorry to hear yours is.