Objective Truth

@Resha Caner,

I've read through this thread an can nowhere find an explanation of the question that's being debated. I gather Resha Caner has argued that objective truth is possible - IMHO, a claim equivalent to proof of God, so I should very much like to see it. :whistling:

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

I've read through this thread an can nowhere find an explanation of the question that's being debated. I gather Resha Caner has argued that objective truth is possible - IMHO, a claim equivalent to proof of God, so I should very much like to see it. :whistling:

iconoclast, Smile

Thanks for your input iconoclast, so, that is what this is about, why not just come out with it Caner. Well truth as a term is of necessity meaning, and meaning just is not to be found in the physical world, so yes indeed, I would like to see him present this wonder as well. I do hope from this point on you will be a little more direct caner.

@Resha Caner,

boagie wrote:

I do hope from this point on you will be a little more direct caner.

Hmm. The title of the thread is "Objective Truth", and I made this statement (along with other similar statements):

Resha Caner wrote:

I believe in absolute and objective truth.

How could I be more direct? But, I'll take your word that my explanation of that statement was lost somewhere in the fray - or that I've been unclear.

It seems no good deed goes unpunished. Originally, my intent was to branch off from another thread to avoid hijacking it. I thought the discussion would involve those who followed me from the other thread, but that didn't happen. I've learned my lesson and won't do it again. If you recall, boagie, I thanked you for your first post. How this turned adversarial I don't know. Yes, we hold different views, but ...

Anyway, I had no intention of presenting a proof. In fact, I said exactly that in the very first post:

Resha Caner wrote:

I didn't say I was going to prove anything.

What I offered to do was explain my view. And, I intended to make commentary on opposing views, hoping to highlight where we differ and get people to expand the positions they were taking.

que sera, sera

Caner

@Resha Caner,

Caner,

My apologies if I have offended you. I still have little idea of how you would prove objective truth, do you agree that truth as a term is a meaning, and that meaning is the soul property of the subject. I won't go on until I have some idea of where you are coming from. What is it about the physcial world that you might think capable of containing truth in and of itself? Edit: Does it not come down to this, if there is objective truth, in that it does not belong to the subject, then what would be doing the knowing of this objective truth?

@boagie,

If we lived in a fractal universe would it require something intrinsic and objective to it? Think about it. Laughing

Edit: So that it doesn't seem like spam I will edit instead of creating a new post that is relatively short as much as this.:a-ok:

Boagie,

How does your view of the interaction of subject and object differ between a relational reality and a "not" relational reality.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

I still have little idea of how you would prove objective truth, do you agree that truth as a term is a meaning, and that meaning is the soul property of the subject. I won't go on until I have some idea of where you are coming from. What is it about the physcial world that you might think capable of containing truth in and of itself? Edit: Does it not come down to this, if there is objective truth, in that it does not belong to the subject, then what would be doing the knowing of this objective truth?

I will reiterate that I don't claim to prove objective truth. All I am trying to do is explain my view of it.

Also, I assume you mean "sole property", not "soul property". I don't mean to nitpick, but I'm trying to tread very carefully. In using your nomenclature, I may "translate" something incorrectly, and give an unintended impression.

With that said, let me try to answer your questions.

First, I think I can agree with this statement: truth as a term is a meaning, and that meaning is the sole property of the subject.

However, where we probably differ is in stating the identity of the subject. I would say the subject is God (Though I'm still pondering the implications of saying that. It may have an element I've not yet considered)

So, as to your next question (What is it about the physcial world that you might think capable of containing truth in and of itself?) I would answer: basically nothing. If the world has any truth in it, it is because God sustains that truth through his non-physical nature (what I would call the "spiritual").

I don't expect you to agree with that. All I ask is: do you understand it?

@Resha Caner,

Caner,

Well, you are quite right on this account, I do understand it, and I do not agree with it. One needs to take a leap faith I imagine, why would you present it as something debatable, or as something resolveable, you have faith that this is so, that really does not cut any ice here.

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

I've read through this thread an can nowhere find an explanation of the question that's being debated. I gather Resha Caner has argued that objective truth is possible - IMHO, a claim equivalent to proof of God, so I should very much like to see it. :whistling:

Why would it be that if it is (objectively) true that water=H20 then God exist? I don't understand that.

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

Also, I assume you mean "sole property", not "soul property". I don't mean to nitpick, but I'm trying to tread very carefully.

Is that what he meant. It is hard to tell what Boagie means.

@boagie,

boagie,

I'm glad we finally seem to understand each other.

boagie wrote:

why would you present it as something debatable, or as something resolveable

It has to be resolvable for me to post it? Really? What if I just want to hear people's opinions on a subject (which is closer to my intent for this thread).

But, I'll answer the question, rephrased this way: why did I bring up the subject of "objective truth"? (aside from the pragmatic reason of trying to salvage another thread).

The short answer: if there is objective truth, it completely changes the debate from this point forward.

The long answer (I hope I can state this clearly):

Let me try an analogy. Think of a person (A) 10,000 years ago watching birds fly, and he asks the question: Do you think humans could fly?

Another person (B) replies: We can't fly.

A: No, not now. But do you think it's possible?

B: Maybe. But I can't fly, so why should I consider it?

With that attitude, the airplane would never have been invented.

So, my question is this: if objective truth is possible, why not seek it? I contend that if you make the declarative statement "objective truth is not possible", that is as much a statement of faith as making the declarative statement "objective truth is possible".

Therefore, the statement you choose becomes a fundamental assumption of your philosophical view. I agree that these fundamental assumptions (or faith statements if you want to call them that) are not really debatable, but only in a certain context.

What context is that? In short, it is unlikely anyone will change their fundamental assumptions because of chatting on the Internet. It usually takes a crisis in the real world for people to question the fundamentals.

But, they can be debated in many other contexts. The one I proposed amounted to this: for the sake of discussion, change your position on something and search out the implications. In my case, if I consider only the physical universe, then I come to the same conclusion on objective truth as you, boagie.

A second context in which it can be debated is to ask: what does that mean?

A third context is that of persuasion. I expect this is the one you decry, especially when it takes the form of religious proselytization. But, philosophy always involves some amount of persuasion. Why?

In logic, one begins by stating every definition and assumption. Then, by agreed upon rules of manipulation, one lays out a process for moving from point A to point B. If that process is successful, all who agreed to the definitions and assumptions must concede point B.

In philosophy, we never agree on all the definitions and assumptions, nor on the rules for laying out a path to a conclusion. Because of that, I say your position is as much a "leap of faith" as is mine. If so, why is the path you take better suited to this forum than mine?

- - -

Just a quick digression on my "leap of faith". I don't deny faith plays a part in the assumptions I make. What intrigues me so about discussions such as these is that people often deny that faith plays any part in their position. They treat it like rock-solid fact. Facts must be proven. If they can't be proven, it is an assumption, which is similar to faith.

In my mind, the two terms are separated by an important distinction. An assumption is something I'm willing to concede, to change if it will lead to a more profitable path. Matters of faith are non-negotiable. In that case, you are right. This is not the place to debate such things.

Second, terms such as "faith" can have both positive and negative connotations. I use it in a positive way, as something which I know apart from reason. The negative connotation places faith beneath reason as an inferior thing - as something "unreasonable".

Rest assured, I am well aware that the only discussion you'll have with me is one based on reason. And I think we can do that.

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

:
A second context in which it can be debated is to ask: what does that mean?

Doesn't it mean that it (a statement) is true independently of what anyone believes? What else would it mean?

@Resha Caner,

Caner,

If you want to continue in this dialogue you must get to the point of presenting something of the nature of the materials you intend to build a foundation out of, if an imaginary fairy godfather is part of said building plans, this dialogue simply will not fly. The foundation of most any philosophical dialogue comes down to the relation between subject and object, what to this duel formula do you intend to add, we really cannot do anything unless you present something.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Doesn't it mean that it (a statement) is true independently of what anyone believes? What else would it mean?

Yes, I would agree with that ... as long as your "anyone" only means humanity.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

If you want to continue in this dialogue you must get to the point of presenting something of the nature of the materials you intend to build a foundation out of, if an imaginary fairy godfather is part of said building plans, this dialogue simply will not fly. The foundation of most any philosophical dialogue comes down to the relation between subject and object, what to this duel formula do you intend to add, we really cannot do anything unless you present something.

Hmm. Though you didn't know me before this thread, that didn't stop you from jumping in and commenting without asking for my foundation. So, I only take this reply as a dodge.

If you don't want to discuss it, then don't reply. As I said earlier, I'll respect your decision to bow out. If no one replies to me, that will solve the problem, won't it?

But, as I said, I'm stubborn. So, I'll ask another question (and note that in no way do I invoke God).

Given that the term "fact" implies an ability to prove said fact, is your position that all truth is subjective a fact?

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner,

Ah, I see. You can't demonstrate objective truth, merely believe in the possibility. Well, yes, I agree. It does seem like it should be possible and yet somehow, every attempt falls short. Until an epistemological Wright brother comes along I'm content to leave it there. Considering the possibility impossible in no-way diminishes the desire to see it proved. It's reasonable that I should, just as it's reasoanable, on the basis of the evidence to consider it impossible. beliefe in the possibility is unreasoable, but I don't have to have faith in the possibility in order to examine means of doing so. Man didn't invent flight by girding his faith, R. Kelly style: I believe I can fly, I believe I can fly, and then jumping off cliffs - but by applying his reason to understanding the nature of the problem. And for me, until you demonstrate some understanding of the nature of the problem...i shall not be responding further.

iconoclast.

@iconoclast,

:)Caner,

"I don't have to have faith in the possibility in order to examine means of doing so. Man didn't invent flight by girding his faith, R. Kelly style:"

Yes, I do believe I understand, the means was what was asked of you. Your incompetence on the subject does not belong to me.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

"I don't have to have faith in the possibility in order to examine means of doing so. Man didn't invent flight by girding his faith, R. Kelly style:"

Yes, I do believe I understand, the means was what was asked of you. Your incompetence on the subject does not belong to me.

I don't understand the purpose of this.

iconoclast wrote:

Ah, I see. You can't demonstrate objective truth, merely believe in the possibility. Well, yes, I agree. It does seem like it should be possible and yet somehow, every attempt falls short. Until an epistemological Wright brother comes along I'm content to leave it there. Considering the possibility impossible in no-way diminishes the desire to see it proved. It's reasonable that I should, just as it's reasoanable, on the basis of the evidence to consider it impossible. belief in the possibility is unreasoable, but I don't have to have faith in the possibility in order to examine means of doing so. Man didn't invent flight by girding his faith, R. Kelly style: I believe I can fly, I believe I can fly, and then jumping off cliffs - but by applying his reason to understanding the nature of the problem. And for me, until you demonstrate some understanding of the nature of the problem...i shall not be responding further.

Fair enough. So, do you want to give me a test? Smile

I'm not sure what standard you want me to meet. With respect to my last question, I realize it leads to asking someone to prove a negative. I also realize that can't be done, which is exactly the point I wanted to highlight.

Further, I realize it is common convention in logical debates that burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Discussion is supposed to proceed as if something is false until proof is given that it is true. Otherwise, we must entertain every ridiculous claim of fairy godfathers.

So, I risk being called absurd by stating that in some cases, I think the opposite should occur. We should proceed by assuming something is true even if we can't prove it. I'm trying to say that this occurs much more often than people seem willing to admit, and it is called "making an assumption". But, if someone wants to say I'm being absurd, so be it.

In my defense, I'll give what may be the most famous example in mathematics where someone proceeded by assuming something true. It is Euclid's Parallel Postulate. Euclid has given us one of the most beautiful logical systems ever created by man. But, the thorn in his side was the Parallel Postulate, which is stated thus:

"Through a given external point there is only one parallel to a given line."

Euclid wanted desperately to prove this, but never could. Armies of other people tried to prove it, because it felt natural that it should be true, but no one ever did. Some "proofs" involved exchanging this postulate for a different postulate, which is no proof at all.

Then, along came a Russian mathematician named Lobachevsky. He asked, what would happen if there were more than one parallel line through the given point? The result was non-Euclidean geometry, the forebear of Riemann (who laid the mathematical foundation that Einstein needed). And, he was heavily criticized for publishing his results. The lore speaks of rants that his idea would cause people to go insane.

It's an interesting historical side note that Gauss discovered the same thing about the same time, but was afraid to publish the result. He feared it would damage his reputation. That happens too often. It seems only we who have no reputation to damage are willing to buck the trend.

So, who was right? Well, both and neither. Lobachevsky is actually the one who followed the supposed rules. He did not assume the positive of what he could not prove. But what does it really matter? Both are logically consistent mathematical systems, and both have their uses. Why would we want to throw one of them out?

But, to close this post, I'll repeat the question. What is it I am supposed to demonstrate?

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Resha Caner,

Ah, I see. You can't demonstrate objective truth, merely believe in the possibility. Well, yes, I agree. It does seem like it should be possible and yet somehow, every attempt falls short.

Just what would you consider "demonstrating objective truth"would consist of? Scientist, I suppose, can demonstrate that it is objectively true (or just true) that Mars is the 4th planet from the Sun. Don't you think?

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Fido, you have a mind that seems to wander and muddy up issues. I think you may be a little too fond of the abstract.

Common defense of rights is not what makes a community, at least not in the sense that boagie is referring. Community is simply the amalgamation of "relationships" that is the context of most of your thoughts, with "form" not entering into the equation. This forum, for example, is a community with no collective or mutual defense of rights.

First of all, we all abstract reality to know it. We do not know reality, but our abstractions of it, which, if correct, will add to our ability to build and manipulate reality. So, I am not more fond of abstraction than anyone else. I am aware of forms, and even the word form which is invariably used correctly even by people who have no theory of forms. Let me give you an example I read yesterday. It is a quotation in a book called the Greeks, by The World Publishing Company, and is a series of nine highly informative articles by various authors. Now, the Quote was from the historian Thusydides, who said this of his work. "I shall be content if my work is judged useful by those who want a clear picture of what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future, Mankind being what it is, in essentially similar form." This is absolutly correct. Objectively, human beings have changed little except for being more diseased, because our technology can support more disease. We progress when we progress when we manage to change one form for one better. And they will inevitably be similar. And economy of honor will supply many of the same needs as a money economy. Government, when it works will work for the people in any given time, but since the needs from government are based upon human needs, the form will always be similar, and when one form is dumped for another, it is like a snake shedding its skin because the parasites go with the old skin, and the people supporting only their relationships find they have plenty enough. So, forms are one objective truth of human existence. And not a particular form; but all forms. A community is a form. When it works, what does it do exactly? I think it defends rights, and I see this from primitive communities, and I see it in modern communities as well.

@kennethamy,

A thought on 'objective reality' (the (contentious) term 'truth' might better be limited to a 'believer's convention'... I'm willing to equate 'Reality' with 'Truth');

If, as the mystics and the sages claim (along with 'scripture'), that the notion of a seperate 'self' (an egoic self 'image') is a 'fantasy'; 'ego' as something to be 'transcended' (not believed), then all there is must be objective 'reality', as there is no 'subject' of 'substance'.

If as they say, 'All is One', the universes 'complete' as Perceived, then all there can be is 'objective reality', of which we, in all our forms and permutations of Perspective, are an integral 'part' (in 'that' with no 'parts').

But as there can be no 'Perspective' without the existence of it's polar opposite, the very term 'objective' becomes meaningless as well.
All there can be is 'Reality', but the words again fail as the polar opposite of the word/notion 'reality' must synchronously arise with the notion of 'Reality'.
'Logic' (all rational discourse) is too flawed a tool to be of much use in the more 'metaphysical realms' of exploration and existence.

Philosophy Forum

Objective Truth

Quick Links

My Account

able2know