Can truth be subjective?

[m5lange1]

We have 5 sences with which to perceive that about us. Most of us believe our senses but Ihave seen magic shows and the like.

It was considedred a common truth in ancient times that the sun moved across the sky of a stationary Earth.

Naturally this was not true, but is truth a consideration of the time?

How many things do we all accept as fact that are not as we perceive them at all?

If someone makes a statement that is not a lie,
eg. "My keys are in the pants I wore to work."
when they actuallly had dropped unnoticedout of thier pocket when they were in the bathroom. Are they telling the truth?

Are absolute truths the same for everyone?

A lot more philosophy than religion but I am curious to see how many will check "yes" above.

[the_anawim]

Crap! I meant to vote yes!--so as it stands, the poll should be that 100% say truth is subjective!

I think you have to allow that all systems of belief take on faith (without empirical data) a central core concept. I don't mean just religious traditions either, but science, mathematics, etc. I don't think that allows for extreme relativism, however, because "rival traditions" (to borrow MacIntyre's term) can prove to be more rational than others. I am not at all a proponent of emotivism, a modern theory extremely influential in our culture that maintains that truth is located within the mind of the individual, because this theory ignores the tradition- and community-dependence of all human beings and their thought processes. In other words, I think "truth claims" are set forth by distinctive communal traditions, and that each "individual's" perception of the truth is by definition shaped by a certain tradition--so truth is community dependent, not individualistic, but there is still a sense of (communal) relativism.

[the_anawim]

By the way, if you want to read a book dealing with such a theory (who states it much better than I have), see Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue (Univ of Notre Dame, 1981). His book deals explicitly with moral philosophy, but he's doing epistemology (how we know) in a broad sense.

Were truth to be subjective, it would necessarily be true that there is no reality, therefore no individuals. Since we each cannot be mistaken about our own existence, it follows that reality does in fact exist, though it may not take the form we desire or perceive, so necessarily truth cannot be subjective.

It seems that you are asking about beliefs of which some are certain at some specific time. Beliefs can be and often are mistaken, but this does not change the facts of the matter. It was always a false belief that the earth is flat regardless of the beliefs of anyone at any time.

Also if truth were to be subjective, then all meaning of all words disappears. For imagine that scenario where truth is subjective. In such a scenario the statements:

1. I am 12 feet tall
2. I am not 12 feet tall

are both true and both false. Without a truth value, a single truth value, we cannot derive any meaning at all from either of these. What would you be uttering in any situation if truth were subjective? Are you uttering that truth is subjective? But according to that belief, then the statement:

Truth is subjective.

Is itself false therefore denying its own claim. This is a vicious self defeating circle.

[the_anawim]

Lightbearer, I should have clarified what I meant by "truth." And I think you should clarify what you mean by "truth." It seems that m5lange1 originally meant by "truth" those things that are commonly taken as "real" according to our sense data or experience. And my point is not that there is no such thing as reality, or that there is nothing that is "real," I simply meant that I think m5lange1 is right that we can't separate what is "real" from our experience of it--ie, if no one ever experienced "me", would I be "real"? How could they prove it? Such descriptions of "truth"--meaning by that "reality"--always resort to sense data/experience, and are not therefore theoretically verifiable. So I think there is reality, but that one's perception of reality is shaped by their experience--and when you get into metaphysical truth, moral claims, and the like, the modern tendency to locate what's "good" or "true" or "beautiful" in the opinion of the individual is distorted because it lacks how our experience with others in the world has shaped our perception of the truth.

Does that make more sense?
scott

[m5lange1]

Very perceptive aniwim. You hit my meaning dead center.

I quite simply mean TRUTH. False belief is never truth, mistaken observation is never truth, unfounded assumption is never truth...

To roughly define it truth is correspondence to reality. And though it should not be necessary to even mention given the meaning of the word, reality is what actually exists.

Truth is not a popularity contest. So no matter how popular a false belief is, it remains a false belief.

As for the assertion that reality does not exist, you cannot hold this belief and that belief be true at the same time. For if you exist to hold that belief, then reality necessarily exists. If reality did not exist, then necessarily NOTHING exists, so you cannot exist to hold this false belief. Again we see that the position is necessarily self-defeating. If you want verification of this very basic point, check out the first two meditations by Descartes.

Presuming that nothing is verifiable is simply a false and unfounded assumption. Thousands of years of science provide ample counter-examples, though one need only the most basic observational abilities to come up with a single counter-example, which as we all know is sufficient to disprove the universal claim.

Appealling to morality as purely subjective fails to work as well, for you see we do have observable and objective evidence in that field as well, if only we cease pretending that it is purely subjective and actually employ the methods that have given us all knowledge to date.

How do you propose, or do you propose at all, to get around the self-defeating characteristic that have been noted?

[m5lange1]

The difference we are referring to is:

Reality is a constant. If you believe truth equals reality then it naturally follows that you would believe no truth other than objective truth is possible.

On the other side of the coin, a person states something something they believe to be true but they are in error as far as reality is concerned
(as in my example above with the man who says his keys are in his pocket but he has, unbeknownst to him actually dropped them).

Is he telling the truth? I would say yes. Others would say no. That is why I posted the poll :)

If, like myself, you see a difference in truth and reality, then you are more apt to see truth as somewhat subjective.

[floridian]

"Joe is Good"

That statement can be true. That statement can only be evaluated via a subjective perspective. Ergo, some truths are inherently subjective.

Which still leaves all of the self defeating nature of the claim that truth is subjective completely unadressed.

Your example confuses the issue by implying that only two options exist, in other words it relies on a false dichotomy. By your reasoning it is true that the keys are in his pocket and it is true that the keys are NOT in his pocket. By asserting that directly contradictory statements are simultaneously true, you remove all meaning from both of these statements.

The individual may BELIEVE that he is telling the truth, and it can accurately be said that he is not intending to deceive (AKA lying) but it is false to claim that in fact he is uttering a true statement.

Certainly I cannot see any separation between what is true and what is true, for you see this is obviously an identity relation. To claim otherwise results in the meaninglessness I have noted, else a self defeating position, also as previously described and thoroughly ignored.

[m5lange1]

Ok so you believe that truth, by definition, must be objective.
Cool.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
To claim otherwise results in the meaninglessness I have noted, else a self defeating position, also as previously described and thoroughly ignored.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> :rolleyes:

We went through this on another post. Do you always go out of your way to try prove anyone who holds an opinion differing form yours is somehow your intellectual inferior?

I point out that BY NECESSITY truth cannot be subjective. Please, please stop your use of strawmen tactics.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
We went through this on another post. Do you always go out of your way to try prove anyone who holds an opinion differing form yours is somehow your intellectual inferior? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Sigh.. why on earth would you jump to such bizarre conclusions? Never once have I commented on any other individual's intelligence here. Is this a fear of yours? Is that all this obsession signifies?

I simply pointed out that the arguments and assumptions made were necessarily fatally flawed. Given that these arguments and assumptions were offered as "refutations" of the facts, why do you imply that I ought not be allowed to use the tools of reason to demosntrate the facts are as they are, but instead should blindly accept that which cannot be accurate?

Reality is not your enemy. Truth is not your enemy. My referring to either does not make me your enemy.

Ideas are not your children, do not treat them as such- Socrates. What Socrates is telling us, reminding us, is that we can be mistaken, but that does not make us without value. Being able to recongize our errors and change is our greatest strength. The only way in such discourse that we lessen ourselves is if we refuse to learn from our errors, or to abandon false beliefs.

As I have stressed previously, only to be consistently ignored, it never matter who is correct, only what is correct.

[m5lange1]

Haha
I was going to quote some of that but I think your post speaks for itself and says everything I wanted to say.

Edit.
Maybe not quite. I started this post to see some opinions on a question I see as fun. Do not have the gall to tell me not to use strawmen tactics or any other I choose to use.

I intend this as an opinion poll.

Not a grandstand for someone trying desperately to be an itellectual bully.

We clearly have different values. I do not know why you would choose to try to be an intellectual bully, but you are correct I should not have tried to suggest that you are somehow required not to do so.

However I meant my request as one of mutual respect. I have shown you the respect that is granted to all in intellectual discussions, such that I do not employ the intellectually dishonest tactics such as ad hominem attacks, strawmen tactics, mischaracterization, and the like, and I was merely asking that you show a similar respect so that we could actually communicate instead of you spending all of your time targeting me as a person rather than discussing issues.

It seems appropriate to once again point out that ideas are not your children. There is no reason to react emotionally when another demonstrates some error in your arguments. It is not a personal attack, merely the foundation of honest civil intellectual discussion.

If you do not like some conclusion necessitated by your statements or arguments, then perhaps you ought to consider abandoning those statements, which is the process of learning which we all must go through else continue to hold false beliefs, rather than attacking the individual who just happens to note those necessary conclusions. Or if you believe the refutations to be in error, why not offer a sound argument, or at least a civil one, responding to the issues. Either way, nothing positive is served by name calling and other personal attacks.

[G. Adams]

By it's very definition, truth cannot be subjective, but what we deem to be truth certainly is.

And in regards to "Were truth to be subjective, it would necessarily be true that there is no reality, therefore no individuals", that is not neccesarily true, it just means that we might not recognise reality.

Or from an extreme idealist point of view, you can't be sure there is any reality beyond the confines of your thoughts.

[Pooeypants]

As far as I'm concerned, truth does not always match fact, and that implies it is subjective to me.

[m5lange1]

Very interesting. As of the time of this post it is more votes for subjective truth.

I believe it but am surprised at having so much company .

But M5 you do not have any company.. after all there is no truth or reality..

[x4btorz]

I would not think that truth is subjective. I frequently hear statements of varying degrees about the validity of the claims of that which is truth, so I will attempt to address a few of them.

First and most extreme claim is that truth does not exist. This is a more primitive form of "truth is subjective", but it still delineates the idea that an absolute truth does not and cannot exist. This is contradictive. Here's what the statement looks like spelled out in a full thought:

(1) The truth about truth is that truth does not exist.
-Well, if this is, in fact, true, then no truth can exist. If so, then it cannot be true that truth does not exist, so it must be true that truth exists.
-On the other hand, if this statement is to be more accurate, it would have to be an un-truth. If it is untrue, then the content of that which it is supposing is not an accurate description of the universe, so what it is essentially saying must therefore be true.

In either case, this is a logically impractical stance and it, by virtue, strengthens the claim of the existence of truth.

Onto that which is subjective truth versus absolute truth. I have two thoughts. The first is about the supposition of that which is subjective truth and about knowing that which is subjective truth.

For the former, the statement would read "[all] truth is subjective." This is founding a definate, an absolute, about the nature of truth:

(2) It is true that all truth is subjective.
-Truth is either subjective or it is not; something cannot be partially absolute--that is contradictory to that which is absolute. If all truth is subjective, then it automatically pressumes a definate by stating that [all] truth is subjective.
-If [all] truth was subjective, then it would stand to reason that some would be subjective-truth and some would be absolute-truth; this cannot also occur because you cannot have a have and a have-not about a single entity/complex.

In these cases, the question of subjective truth also creates paradoxes.

Those who claim truth is subjective might as well be epistemological nihilists, because that is what it would invariably lead to. If we examine the conditions necessary in order to for one to claim to know, we will notice them as the following:

If A knows Z if and only if...
(1) A believes Z,
(2) Z is true,
(3) A has justificaton in belief for Z.

A fourth clause about accidental justification-belief relationships is sometimes thrown in there, but it is unnecessary to mention it.

To be brief, if truth is subjective, then it amounts to little more than belief in that which is [pre]supposed to be true. By this token, simply believing in proposition Z would provide more justification, more than fallable justification (usually observation), than necessary to sustain belief in Z. This means that I may suppose, if truth is subjective, that I am a sheep-cow that may fly because it requires only belief. If I genuinely decide to believe this proposition for whatever reason, then it would, since it is true in my own perspective, be accurate, and therefore I could know myself to be a sheep-cow that may fly.

This is accurate? Is this true? Of course not. This eliminates the margins between fact and fiction and knowing becomes a matter of illusionary imagination. You could even go so far as to say that knowledge would not exist; or even all knowledge could exist and we could all, hypothetically, become omniscient.

This obviously cannot happen, as there is absolute truth for the reasons explicated above.

[cinderellie]

The idea that 'it is true that there is no ultimate or objective truth' is obviously faulty, as it contradicts itself.