Who is connected to the truth, and how? Is truth ever more than justified belief? Is the objective world largely made of consensus?

Is there an essential difference between rhetoric and logic? Or is logic what we call our personal rhetoric?

Do we want the truth in itself? Or only in the pursuit of other goals, as a means? Do those who claim to seek truth as an end do so for quasi-religious reasons?

"Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth." Peirce 1901


I can get down with this. Though it's not all that can be said on the matter.

---------- Post added 12-11-2009 at 11:12 PM ----------

.

I'm pretty sure that everything in this world is subjective, to the eyes of everything. Even to God, if there is one. An objective truth is a subjective truth, to whoever may know this objective truth. Being this way, because they're the only one who believes this objective truth, possibly not making it any sort of truth at all. What's true is what's accepted by society. Things such as mathematical equations.

2+2=4. Is it an objective truth? What if someone was told that 4 is really 5, and the person is swayed. They will then believe that 2+2=5, and to him and the one that told him, that will be the truth. The truth is made of what's accepted.

The truth is made of what's accepted

Could you say a something on what you think it means to say that something is subjective? And maybe what it means to say that an objective truth is a subjective truth. That last confuses me a little. And maybe I am not the only one it confuses.

Let's remember, by the way, that for a long time it was not accepted that the world was round, and also that many people accept that God exists, and many other people do not accept that God exists. So, if truth is what's accepted, which is true; that God exists, or that God does not exist?
And again, you just asked me "Which is true?"

You're right, that was really unclear! What I meant was this...

One person could believe in 'the truth'. This truth isn't based on some supernatural force that allowed them the mindset to know the truth. It's subjective to their experiences.



What do I have to say? I haven't been to heaven, if it is there. I have no proof of God, and no personal relationship with him, whether psycological, or real. So, my answer is subjective, based upon how I was raised, and what I know. Whether someone answers "Yes", or "No" to that question, it's subjective. It's based upon what they know to be accepted. So my answer, (Which is not an objective truth), is that there is no God.

Yes, it was accepted that the world was not round. Back then, the world being flat was, "The truth", to most people; It was the truth because it was accepted. They didn't know that the Earth wasn't flat because they were bound by sight. We have Space Cameras now, which lead us to believe that the earth is round. As well as many mathematical equations that "prove it". There are STILL to this day a group of people who believe that the earth is flat. No matter all the evidence, it is not objectively accepted that the world is round. Thus, it's still a subjective matter.

If you mean that the experiences through which we discover what is true are subjective, I cannot deny that. My experiences are my experiences, and your experiences are your experiences. That's a truism. But that need not mean that the truth we discover is subjective just because how we experience the truth is subjective. That would be like arguing that because I use my foot to kick a tree that when I am kicking the tree, I am kicking my foot. What I kick with my foot is not my (own) foot. And what I discover through my (subjective) experiences is not my (subjective) experiences.

I don't understand what you mean when you say it is not "objectively accepted that the world is round". But that is not the point I was making. What I was pointing out was that if, as you say, the truth is made up of what is accepted, and if some people accept that the Earth is round, and other people accept that the Earth is flat, then, according to you, which is the truth. Is the Earth round, or is it flat. Or does it, perhaps have no shape at all?

That's really interesting. Thank you, you've given me a new perspective on that.



You're asking someone who grew up in a society where most people are taught that the world is round. You're not asking someone who was born in the past where the world was "flat", and you're not asking someone who was raised in the future, who could be taught something completely different. You're asking someone with a subjective idea on the subject. You're not asking an all-knowing figure. And you never can, unless God is real. But seeing as their are still people who believe in the worlds flatness, you will never find an objective answer to the question.

You do think the Earth has some shape, don't you?

Objective: emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art"



Yes, but I can't speak for everyone in the Universe. In other words, I couldn't give you an objective answer. There is a true answer. But noone in the world can no for sure, because we still have limitations, and we still have clashing beleifs.

You mean that there are people who think there are some objects without some shape? Hmmm. Why cannot some people give an objective answer to that according to what "objective" means above? Do you think that when I, for instance, say that Earth is round, that I am inserting my personal feelings about the matter. I don't think I have any particular personal feelings about the shape of the Earth. Do you?

You mean that there are people who think there are some objects without some shape? Hmmm. Why cannot some people give an objective answer to that according to what "objective" means above? Do you think that when I, for instance, say that Earth is round, that I am inserting my personal feelings about the matter. I don't think I have any particular personal feelings about the shape of the Earth. Do you?

I'm sure you not enjoy being mocked as you know you would be if you went around saying the earth is flat. But the earth's shape is something about which there is a strong consensus. If an alien took you on his ship and showed you that by the lights of his superior science the world was -dimensional and then dropped you off on planet earth, you would be in a funny position. What would you believe, human or alien knowledge?

I don't think anyone here denies the existence of a world beyond our perception. But what this world outside our perception is must be inferred.
I would say the objective is inferred from overlapping subjectivity.

Why do you italicize "must be inferred"? Is knowledge by inference supposed to be inferior to non-inferential knowledge? The most part of what we know is inferential, and if some philosophers are to believed, what we do not think is inferential knowledge is inferential. For example, our knowledge that we have two hands. I don't know what you mean by your last sentence. But if it is true, so what?

What I said is that whatever the shape of the world, it must have some shape. Don't you agree? And that shape is (in one sense of the term) its objective shape. And that shape is independent of our knowing what it is.

You mean that there are people who think there are some objects without some shape? Hmmm. Why cannot some people give an objective answer to that according to what "objective" means above? Do you think that when I, for instance, say that Earth is round, that I am inserting my personal feelings about the matter. I don't think I have any particular personal feelings about the shape of the Earth. Do you?

What shape would a gallacy have since they are all differently shaped... What shape has a galaxy is the shape it has... What shape has the earth??? Wouldn't it be earth shaped???Sperical is more accurate than round, and the words we choose should never fail their aim...It is the second intention to talk about talk, though it does become necessary.

the world has all the shapes we or other sentient beings perceive it to have. .

Hmmm. Are you supposing that people can never make a mistake about the shape of the world? I wonder why. They did, you know, in the Middle Ages.

These aliens I play poker with keep laughing at me when I say the world is spherical. They mock us humans for seeing space as 3-dimensional. For them, the shape of the world is "Hf76skkd00fll5." They wrote this down for me as the best approximation possible of their spoken language, which the human ear cannot hear all of. Lucky me, they have a translator that speaks English. He said he learned it thoroughly in an Earth-day, while his ship, invisible to our best technology, orbited to do a little study, and prepare for a visit. Apparently the they have their sort of Darwin on board, studying the varieties of sentient beings and also their perceptions of "reality." They pat me on the head sometimes, pitying me for not seeing 4 of the seven dimensions. But the translator joked that perhaps they too were limited, that there might be 20 dimensions. Not everyone laughed.

Lmao. Nice.

This is what I was talking about before, with our limitations. Profero gave us a statistic about how long the universe and the earth have been in existance, and how long the human race has been in existance. It was pretty shocking. We'd only have civilized for a couple of minutes or so. Just imagine a couple of days in this time frame. How far would our limitations be pushed back? A year in this time frame, maybe? With all the factors of natural selection and technology advancements, we'd have gone pretty far, imo. What we know for and have evidence of now can be completely different sometime in the future, which goes back to the original theme of what the truth is. Again, I stand by my thesis that For as much as we know, the truth is what's accepted.