"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."
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:
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!!!!!!!!!
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?
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.
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.