Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

well?

Originally posted by Biscuit
well?

Polite point- your definition of objective is wrong.

Both.

The word "truth" that we use to express a "meaning" is objective, obviously , but maybe the "meaning" it want to express, the meaning of truth, is not.

It does not necessarily need to be objective, words and definitions are objective, but they are just tools that we like. Just a matter of preference.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Polite point- your definition of objective is wrong. i just explained it to fit the context. it means "external to the mind;actually existing;real" il rephrase the question -

is truth "from the individual consciousness" or "external to the mind" i.e. indisputable

i phrased it like that because i believe that peoples perceptions r wot make up the world, so "external to the mind" would mean, to me, the common accepted truths.
(sorry to post 2 posts they shudv bin the same, oops)

Originally posted by Biscuit
i phrased it like that because i believe that peoples perceptions r wot make up the world, so "external to the mind" would mean, to me, the common accepted truths.
(sorry to post 2 posts they shudv bin the same, oops)

I see.

So you are asking if all truths are solipsistic?

erm not exactly....let me think of an example..........say for example i was taught that the numbers 5 and 4 were the other way around, and i grew up believing that we counted 1, 2, 3, 5, 4... to me it would be true that 2+2=5 but you might say that this is wrong....this probably isnt makin any sense but the point is that my truth would be different to your truth so how do we know which truth is 'true'...

Originally posted by Biscuit
erm not exactly....let me think of an example..........say for example i was taught that the numbers 5 and 4 were the other way around, and i grew up believing that we counted 1, 2, 3, 5, 4... to me it would be true that 2+2=5 but you might say that this is wrong....this probably isnt makin any sense but the point is that my truth would be different to your truth so how do we know which truth is 'true'...

Yeah, that's what I thought you meant.

Personal truths.

That particular example is slightly trivial because it would simply be a disagreement over nomenclature.

Both would agree that

'1 1 1 1' is the same amount of figures, despite what you each call that total.

It depends what you mean by truth though.

i know it wernt a very good example but its hard to explain! maybe a better example would be taste...do things taste the same to me as they do to you? if not then which of us can say that what we taste is the 'true' taste? is it just true to us or does it depend on some external force....

Originally posted by Biscuit
i know it wernt a very good example but its hard to explain! maybe a better example would be taste...do things taste the same to me as they do to you? if not then which of us can say that what we taste is the 'true' taste? is it just true to us or does it depend on some external force....

It all depends on what truth is. Why do I sound like Clinton?

Everybody has their own truth, I suppose, though if youre looking for the betterment of all, it would be the same truth as others in a way of gravitation towards the positives in life....and making a difference...It comes down to "Who Are You?"

Truths are subjective. All truth is, is a matter of perception, but some truths of others we have enternalised as our own. Such as that 2+2 is 4.

If you and I are sat at the table, and on the table i see an apple and you see a plum, who would be telling the truth?

There is no absolute truth, only an observation. That is my truth.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Truths are subjective. All truth is, is a matter of perception, but some truths of others we have enternalised as our own. Such as that 2+2 is 4.

If you and I are sat at the table, and on the table i see an apple and you see a plum, who would be telling the truth?

There is no absolute truth, only an observation. That is my truth.

That's a matter of semantics though. It's true to say you both see something of a different name. It's true to say you both see something.

Absolutely- Lil, that is mistaking perception for truth.

Fact is, all truths are objective, and in biscuit's example above, the truth is simply that things taste differently for different people, and to make out there was one correct taste above all others would be a falsehood.

But the method by which that food or drink causes that particular taste in each person would be an objective fact.

But facts are facts regardless of any non-existant or erroneous observation of them.

People are in danger of steering into personal verificationism here, which is basically void, philsophically speaking (alarm bells go off whenever you hear someone say 'my truth').

I agree with you that there is a difference between perception and truth.

But I can't help it wondering about Philosophical Sceptisism

That would still accept the difference. It would just say that the truths are unverifiable.

Aah true, good point (been too long since I looked at anything remotely close to philosophy)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Absolutely- Lil, that is mistaking perception for truth.

I am?

So how do you find truth, if not by perception? Does truth just randomly appear?

How did man release that grass grows - did he observe such happening, or did he just know?

Some truths don't differ. Like what?

6, 000 years ago the truth was that the gods made rain. Now we know different. So what if in another 6, 000 years, a truth of why its raining changes, which truth is correct?

It was never true that the gods made rain, nor was it ever true that the earth was flat.

Humans just lacked the means to discover the absolute objective truth in question so they took it upon themselves to draw a conclusion. It's not "Now we know different". Believing the world to be spherical isn't an alternative view, it's the true view. We now know the truth because we have means of discovering it. If someone chooses to believe the earth is flat now, they're an idiot.

The world didn't become spherical when we discovered the ability to observe it. It was always spherical. Just like it has always rained for the reasons that it factually rains.

-AC

Absolutely. What a very odd view that you have, Lil! Back when everyone thought Gods made rain, everyone was simply wrong. That wasn't true.

Now we know the truth (to any rational standard).

Regardless, one way or another, there is only one true method via which rain works, and people either have the true idea about that or they have a false one.

Just because a truth cannot be perceived, that does not stop it being the truth.

(not that relevant to the debat for which I apologize but lil her view corresponds with the idea of the "Mage"RPG in which something is true or real because ppl think it is true or real)

This is very true (though even Mage had to have a system where certain absolutes existed).

I'd say the answer to this question depends on perspective

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If you and I are sat at the table, and on the table i see an apple and you see a plum, who would be telling the truth? Thts a much better example than mine!

Hmmm....was waiting for someone to mention Mage when I saw this....

Anyway, truth and perception are two different things. You may see an orange and call it an apple, but does that make it an apple? No. It's still an orange, that doesn't change.

That's getting into the possibility that we all perceive differently which is, while not completely unprovable, not the most realistic viewpoint. So I tend to operate under the assumption that we perceive, for the most part, the same here.

Saying there are no objective truths is stupid. Just stupid.

-AC

The actual point is that if one party believes the object is an 'orange', and one an 'apple', who is correct?

The answer is neither. That's an example of subjective truth.

There are of course objective truths present, namely that both parties perceive an object.

That's about the size of this debate.

How I see it is not so much as perceiving things differently (which I don't, for the most part, think people do), but if you're taught that something is another thing than what it really is, that's different. Like, if a child is told from birth that red is blue and blue is red, then they're going to think that's the truth because that's what they know. It isn't the truth, but that's how they perceive things and what they believe.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Absolutely. What a very odd view that you have, Lil! Back when everyone thought Gods made rain, everyone was simply wrong. That wasn't true.

Now we know the truth (to any rational standard).

Regardless, one way or another, there is only one true method via which rain works, and people either have the true idea about that or they have a false one.

Just because a truth cannot be perceived, that does not stop it being the truth.

What I was trying to say though, was that today's truth will not be an absolute or permanent one forever. If that was the case, then why bother looking for anymore answers - if we know everything as it ''really is'' why bother progressing anymore?

I could be really wrong - its my perception on things. I cannot hope to be absolutely right and what im saying is ''the truth'' if i dont believe in an absolute.
Perhaps after more examination I might see it differently.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The actual point is that if one party believes the object is an 'orange', and one an 'apple', who is correct?

The answer is neither. That's an example of subjective truth.

There are of course objective truths present, namely that both parties perceive an object.

That's about the size of this debate.

But what if this happens - i see an apple, you see a plum and Raz doesnt see anything at all on the table. Which one of us would telling the truth?

The absolute truth of each of us seeing an object is gone.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But what if this happens - i see an apple, you see a plum and Raz doesnt see anything at all on the table. Which one of us would telling the truth?

The absolute truth of each of us seeing an object is gone.

That would only alter the truth to the extent that one person present could not see the object.

There are definitely subjective truths, as you are pointing out.

There are, and will always be, objective truths.

The 'truth' that there is an object on the table wouldn't change.

In order to make a true statement about the perceptions (important distinction) of the onlookers, you would have to alter it from what it previously was. IE- all onlookers can see the object becomes 'two of the three onlookers can see the object, one cannot'.

In terms of your question 'which of us would be telling the truth', the answer could be all of us, and none of us.

I could truthfully say that what I see, I know as a plum. Whether it is a plum is arguable.

The same would apply for you, with the term 'apple'.

The person that cannot see the object would be telling the truth if they say 'I cannot see the object'. If however they assert that there is no object to see, they will be wrong.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That would only alter the truth to the extent that one person present could not see the object.

There are definitely subjective truths, as you are pointing out.

There are, and will always be, objective truths.

The 'truth' that there is an object on the table wouldn't change.

In order to make a true statement about the perceptions (important distinction) of the onlookers, you would have to alter it from what it previously was. IE- all onlookers can see the object becomes 'two of the three onlookers can see the object, one cannot'.

In terms of your question 'which of us would be telling the truth', the answer could be all of us, and none of us.

I could truthfully say that what I see, I know as a plum. Whether it is a plum is arguable.

The same would apply for you, with the term 'apple'.

The person that cannot see the object would be telling the truth if they say 'I cannot see the object'. If however they assert that there is no object to see, they will be wrong.

I see. What you said makes sense.

You said there are always going to be absolute truths. Can you give me a (different) example of an absolute truth?

Can perceptions of absolute truths vary? If so, would that make them lies?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I see. What you said makes sense.

You said there are always going to be absolute truths. Can you give me a (different) example of an absolute truth?

Anything that is a provable fact.

'You are now reading this sentence.'- A self-proving example.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Can perceptions of absolute truths vary? If so, would that make them lies?

Perceptions of absolute truths can vary.

Imagine there is a cow in a field. Factually, there is an animal in a field.

If people were to disagree over the name 'cow', or the word for 'one', that would be an example of subjective truths clashing.

However, the name 'cow' isn't an absolute truth, or the word 'one'.

The way that perceptions could vary is that you could see one cow (whatever you might call those words), and I might be able to see two (for some reason).

My perception would be wrong, because there isn't a second cow there, no matter what I believed. It wouldn't so much be a 'lie' as flawed perception.

Absolutely. As I said from the start, never confuse percpetion with truth.

A truth can be perceived differently, but that does not alter the status of that truth- it just means someone (or perhaps everyone) is seeing it wrong.

If today's 'truth' is not permanent- as in you are saying it will be replaced by something better in future- then today's truth is simply incorrect, and maybe the next one will be, and the next and the next- but the fact is that there is, somewhere, an objective fact about every single thing. Even if it can never be perceived in the entire life of existance itself, the fact is still there.

And as VVD alreayd says, in your example, probably all of the people are telling the truth as best they can see it. But their knowledge of what the objective truth is might be severell flawed. In the example, even 'nothing' is a conceptual entity that was being observed- or if you prefer, the air just above the table. Each person has an observation, be that of a plum, an apple, or bugger all. it's possible that one of them is right and the other two wrong. It is possible that none ofd them are right. it;s even possible that what is actually there is a strange sci-fi object that is in fact a plum, an apple and nothing at the same time- impossible to our modern logic though that is.

But the nature that a correct, factual answer exists is continuous and can never be denied. That answer is the truth.

The idea that facts can only ever conform to people's perceptions is known as Personal Verificationism, and is a deeply flawed philisophical idea. The reality is that fact exists regardless of perception; perception is simply a (normally flawed) effort to discern the truth. It is not the truth in of itself.

According to PV, if someone used a holographic generator to alter the way the stars look (so, say, he takes away the constellation of Orion), the fact that everyone would perceive the fact that Orion is not there would mean that it was actually, factually, not there. But the truth is that IS there, even if no-one can see it. Even if no one has ever or will ever see it, it would still be there.

Hence, truth is objective. In fact, I would label what has been called 'subjective truth' above as opinion, not truth.

Originally posted by Ushgarak


Hence, truth is objective. In fact, I would label what has been called 'subjective truth' above as opinion, not truth.

You could certainly do that. The term 'subjective truth' is slightly paradoxical in any case.