On The Relativity Of Truth

@karmapolice,

karmapolice wrote:

boagie :rolleyes:

"I never meant to assert the existence(or non-existence) of an objective perceiver/God. I was merely trying to prove the point that "truth" depends on the subject. However, from your assertions that truth is subjective, i can draw that you have in fact rejected the existence of an objective perceiver/god. Your point is well taken that the existence of such a being can not be established. But as i'm sure you've heard this line of logic before, an objective perceiver's non-existence can not be established either. I am a skeptic who believes in all possibilities. I only have faith in reason. Therefore as a demonstration of my epistemic humility, I've considered both subjective and objective accounts(perhaps not as effectively as I'd hoped) as possibilities, never claiming one to be 'truer' over the other."

Karmapolice,

I reject the objective observer for the same reason/s I rejected other claims of the supernatural being,when in the real world there is not even a legitimate connotation for such a reality.That meaning of any kind is subjective seems to me inescapeable.I do not consider the suggestion towards supernatural speculation a sign of open mindedness but a falling back upon humanities tendency for supersitition.

You say you have faith in science,why so? Science is very much before you to observe and make your experience,experience makes said faith unnecessary. You seem to be telling me that after much thought you are undecided,never claiming one to be truer over the other.There is in this world every indication that all knowing is subjective,all truths the relations between subject and object.What evidence do you have that would indicate objective knowing,objective truth-----------there is nothing,your
indecision is puzzleing.:confused:

Karmapolice,

Welcome aboard,you seem a welcome addition to these forums,you will just have to work on agreeing with me more throughly:p -----again Welcome!!!!!!!!!

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean wrote:

If someone advances the proposition that 'truth is relative' then how can the proposition itself be true?

If all truth is relative then the proposition "the truth is relative" must also be relative and therefore not true. Those who believe that truth is relative don't seem to have a leg left to stand upon. Any thoughts or ideas?

-- Pythagorean

Why, if the proposition that truth is relative is true, can it not be true? It cannot be absolutely true (unless it is an exception to the general principle that all truth is relative) but why can't it be relatively true if all truth is relative? The proposition cannot be absolutely true, but surely, it could be relatively true.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy,

I would define 'relative' in this sense as something that is changeable, contingent, only circumstantial. And I would describe the search for truth on the part of humanity as the search for ultimate foundations and certainty. The question seems to be: is the proposition that all truth is relative a plausible foundation? Is it a reasonable platform upon which I might 'hang my hat' in my search for truth? Does it get to the heart of the nature of things? Is it a plausible substitute for alternative metaphysical speculation?

I would note that if all truth is relatively true, then it becomes a self-defeating proposition. It undermines its own claims to being true. It is a paradox, like the liar's paradox: "This sentence is a lie."

Liar paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course the 'relativity of truth' may satisfy these conditions (as in the Heraclitean fashion) or it may not. It depends upon how you flesh it out.

You say that truth is relative? then I guess I would ask, relative to what? Can you give more detail as to how it comes to be relative?

--Pyth

@Pythagorean,

Hi Everyone!

Truth is subjective, it is relative in a sense, when it is our shared experience. The collective subjective you might say. The sun rises in the east, is a collective subjective experience, that makes it relative. Truth is relative to something, some subject just as subject and object are one. I think where the difficulty here might lay is you are trying to identify truth through a group,population or collective or between groups, in which case truth is agreement, agreement is the collective subjective.Truth to me is precieveing what is real of the objective world, it is meaning and thus dependent on a subject. I don't know if this helps much but I suppose the question of relativity is not absolute in the general sense of the word or there would not be disagreements, on the other hand we know there is no separating subject and object,the only place meaning can occur.

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

By being relatively true, as a matter of context and the ongoing narrative, what is true today is false tomorrow, right here, wrong there.

Truth is a harlot. It sells to the highest bidder. Market forces apply to the economy of pain the same as to any other.

There is no absolute value to it, except as a means to serve whatever purpose.

They're not loosing sleep over any loss of equilibrium.
The ignorance of their bliss is what matters the most.

-- RH.

Could you give an example of what is true today, and false tomorrow? Please?

@kennethamy,

"A lone voice does not make you wrong." Dr Laura:D

Basically it is undeniable that truth is relative to a subject.

Two subjects agree, does not make it anymore true.

five thousand peope disagree, that does not make it true or false.

Truth is for ever the property of the subject.

To the individual truth is perception, to the group it is agreement, both start from individual perception. A common perception is labeled truth.

If you are now changing the premise to state that there is no such thing as truth, I do not have a problem with that. The dialogue has been on what commonly is considered truth, being relative to place, time and populations. Truth if there be such a creature, I think limited to the individual as subject.

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

Belief is as much truth as we will ever need, therefore our equilibrium is maintained by anything that answers to either our expectations or what we choose to acsept as truth. There are many examples that show this, I propose that it not only lingers on the surfice of our everyday lives but goes right to the core of our understanding. Money, edicate, language, personal identity and even time.

But belief , as such, is not true, since it is possible to have a false belief. So how could belief be as much truth as we need? And, what we choose to accept as true need not be true, and need not "maintain our equilibrium". If I accept as true that the truck coming down the road will not hit me if I walk fast enough, I may be in for a surprise that upsets my equilibrium-perhaps permanently.

@Pythagorean,

@Baza,

Wow, my head is spinning. I just read this entire thread! fantastically hard to grasp. See if im on the right track...

There is nothing we can precieve that is not relative, nor is there anything we precieve as truth that is not subjective, because our perception of it is coruptive to objectivity. Truth is allways a relationship between subject and object and is threfore allways relative (eccept for this one true statement that truth is relative).

That does not mean that we have no truth, it means that "truth" should allways and continually be questioned and tested in a constant state of flux. Didn't Descartes say that because of our falibility everything should be questioned eccept that we are because we think?

Life wuold be no fun if we had to go around and verify boring truths/facts all the time, so some truths we have are from repetative perception (like gravity), some by scientific process, and then there are the dangerous truths taken by simple faith (groundless and unsubstantiated). But that doesn't mean they arn't all true, anything can be true untill it is proven false;)

Philosophy Forum

On The Relativity Of Truth

Quick Links

My Account

able2know