Not entirely clear what your confusion is. Do you want to know how I reconcile the existence of objective truth with the existence of subjective "truths"? Or how I would respond to somebody who questions the possibility of objective truth due to subjective valuations like "vanilla is better than chocolate" being both true and false at the same time since the statement would be true for one person but not another?
It is language which gets us confused. Consider this statement:
"My brain produces happiness hormones if I eat chocolate ice cream"
Here it is not difficult to categorize the statement as objective. But that is basically what we mean when we say "Chocolate ice cream is good". We do not intend to make a statement about ice cream but we intend to make a factual claim about our psyche. But due to our semantical laziness we get confused.
The concept that truth is objective accurate. By appending a word to the word truth, you are altering the word as well as the concept, which changes its meaning altogether. That being the case, objective truth becomes a distinct concept as well. They are juxtaposed and basically extrapolate upon the word "truth." Therefore, you still must define ultimately truth as something that conveys, or describes something objectively, with no other conclusion able to refute it. A rock is a rock.
So there is both subjective and objective truth, and some truth is both. However, merely subjective truths are statements of opinion that in no way oblige a truth-seeker, except to their own subjectivity (if they're concerned with figuring out whether they prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream), while objective truths oblige any and all truth-seekers to believe them.
@hxrtotally It's worth noting that there always remains some recalcitrant subjectivity to knowledge, for viz. "all knowledge is the knowledge of a knower." If there were no subject, there would be no mind that could know. Thus a subject is necessary for knowledge, and the truth of a belief is required for something to count as knowledge. But this sort of subjectivity is clearly not a problem for the objectivity of certain truths, for asserting that there are no objective truths is contradictory.
I think there are subjective truths but not in the way you assert here, however it is a very muddy issue with an unavoidably arbitrary component.
For example we can go from
'vanilla ice cream (VIC) tastes better than chocolate ice cream'
to
'VIC tastes better than stale soup'
and then to
'VIC tastes better than dog shit'
Clearly we are moving from an entirely arbitrary taste preference for two excellent, highly calorific sweet and fatty foods, through to something we have .....
....very understandably evolved a highly developed taste aversion to. Maybe some people would insist that even the last of those three statements does not class as 'true' but I have no problem in seeing such statements as a subjective truth statement. the problem is where down the line between chocolate ice cream, stale soup and dog shit do we draw the line? It is like a sliding descent in or out of validity
Objective truth certainly exists, but opinions can be either true or false depending on whether the subject matter has an objective truth ie. 1 + 1 = 2. Or they can be just opinions if the truth is not known by any party, or if they pertain to a subject matter like the flavour of icecream. I think too it comes down to the use of language. A lot of how we communicate isn't crystal clear in terms of the way we use words, as a comment by @TheMessianicDrew states rather well.
Ice-cream is real so true. Whether one flavor is better then another would be a personal truth . That would be objective, But ice-cream is real and subjective.
Truth is contingent on the agreed criteria for truth....not many agree upon someone's personal criteria for truth..if it would even be possible without a great measure of denial.
The simple answer is that to be true is to be objectively true, so opinions lack true-values. The complex answer is that some opinions are so well supported and cogently justified that it's damn near impossible to not refer to them as true.
Ex: Which sports team is better is a matter of opinion. Even when one team beats another, it can be argued to be a fluke, a variation, or some contigency. But is it just "opinion" that the World Cup champs are better than your high school's JV soccer team?
I think a problem arises because there's a continuum on the subjective-objective scale, and on the scale of an opinion's support & merit. The problem is more about objective-subjective and these sliding scales than it is about truth.
There are other issues, like "who owns language", and the role of consensus in determining empirical "facts" (which are presumably, after math & pure logic, the arch-type of objective truths). These show that there's a social role to making a claim true.
In case it isn't obvious, I'm a coherentist. Quine is my hero. Not only do I think that truth claims are, in a sense, constructed (that's NOT my calling them arbitrary or being committed to the extreme kinds of post-modern skepticism), but I also think that even the semantics of truth is a social (linguistic) construction. In other words, for me to dispute your poistion about "truth", or for you to dispute mine, is for us to engage in an argument over definitions - HUMAN definitions.
Great to see you back Telemantros! To answer your question, we must remember that an opinion holds no propositional content. Opinions are primarily based on personal taste. However, just because they hold no propositional content, universally speaking, it does not mean they do not hold objective truth to a degree. It is objectively true that person X prefers chocolate ice cream, but this is not a proposition nor can it be universally applied. It can only draw truth about that person.
I don't see the difficulty. There are objective truth claims irrespective of the claimant, which reflect objective reality apart from the claims of the subject, and there are subjective truth claims which are objectively true to the subject.
Dear God, I'd never imagine seeing you on YT again. I'm planning on making a video related to this though, so I'll be sure to leave it as a response once I make and upload it. ;)
As far as subjective opinions go, i.e. questions of taste, I think that what determines their "truth" is the inter-subjective value that is granted to them by the majority. For example, estetic values are accepted almost uniformly--people agree that someone like Nicole Kidman is prettier than, say, Joy Behar. Alrthough it's still subject to varying personal tastes, it's an agreed upon statement in large.
No, I'm saying that truth does not existence within those things exist. It exists as meta-claim about claims about existence. So, "is" refers to the syntactical and grammatical structures that relate meaning, not to the property of being within existence.
Now, is it objective? Is it objectively true that you have this opinion on ice cream? At least at this moment, that is objectively true. Could you really say that your opinion is subject to opinion? I think not. I think you have to use some other power than opinion to change your opinion (i.e. the power of reason). Thus, opinions aren't any more subject to opinions than the universe is subject to God's opinion rather than God's creative power.
I would say our opinions are true if they accurately represent the thing in question. The only reason truth is objective, is because things are objective. If your opinion about your opinion on ice-cream is an accurate reflection of that opinion, then the former opinion is true, while the latter opinion has not yet been considered.
I take it you have been speaking to a few moral relativists? hehe nah, but in reference to your question, It seems that the question you are implying a scenario with the question: "what is truth?" Is truth Ice cream (relative), or is truth not ice cream (objective)? Well, I see that subjective truths can be true perspectively or personally, but are they ultimately true (keyword being ultimately)? No. Once subjective truths are revealed over entirety (ultimately), it shows otherwise.
I consider truth to be a contextually-sensitive indirect correspondence relation between a statement and the World. This allows, I think, for there to be truth-apt opinions in a certain context (hence the context-sensitive parameter in the correspondence relation), but when the 'semantic bar' gets raised to require a more direct correspondence, opinion statements to fail to be truth-apt. Just my two cents. Hope you get better!
Truth I would say is not an object, but it is objectivity itself. Truth is always in regards to what is the fact of the matter when it comes to the nature of reality.
It depends on what kind of question ur asking. One's own personal opinion is a truth to himself in the taste, touch and feel world. All you can do is disagree and say what kind of flavor YOU like. Your two opinions are your own truth but it affects no one but yourselves. When a subject starts touching both people and more, then the truth is more important. Two or more gathered together in my name have me in the midst of them-it went something like that.
There is objective truth. Saying there isn't, is a self contradiction. There are very few things that would be considered "absolute truths." (something that is true for everybody for all time/circumstance) Truth is a statement about the world that is accurate. Meaning, I'm wearing a green shirt. Is that statement true for everybody, no. Is that statement true tomorrow, probably not. It is true though. It accurately corresponds to the way the world is at this moment.
To further add to your point. Your opinion is true for you. My opinion is true for me. I like vanilla more than chocolate. That statement is true for me. I battered this around in my head for a bit as well. Truth doesn't change based on the person observing it. It's not "subjective." It doesn't change when the subject (you or I) changes. The statement is an accurate correspondence despite me saying it, or you saying it about me.
Listen to Greg Koukl's podcasts and whatnot. I don't remember which podcast deals with this exactly, but perhaps if you contact someone within their organization, they can point you at the correct one. He has a call in radio program that I find very enlightening. One of the callers asked a very similar question. Much in the same way morality isn't absolute either. So, go visit str.org for some more reading on it...and objective =/= absolute.
I would say truth is not objective, because objectivity is impossible, because we are hopelessly bound to our senses. We can't escape the fact that we are humans with human needs and human perceptions. Why would a humans perspective on truth be any different than an elephants perspective on truth?
@MaximumAxiom how are they not bound to our senses? our senses are everything we are. without senses we wouldn't have thoughts to even perceive logic.
It seems to me that even if all our senses were destroyed we could still theoretically think, but that is not the main issue.
Any argument you try and present to limit the laws of logic and imply that they don't necessarily work is self-defeating. Every argument assumes the laws of logic, and if your conclusion is that the laws of logic aren't absolute then your argument will always take the form:
@MaximumAxiom Thinking requires language, language requires something to talk about... which always has to do with what we perceive. Please present an argument for logic that does not require my senses to understand it.... oh wait you can't. Senses are building block number 1. Whatever precedes the senses, it's definitely not logic.
Nearly all or else all of the statements about God, spirit etc. are true or false in the same way that statements about flavours of ice-cream are true or false. It's painful to me that you can't see that.
@MarkLucasTube Are you serious? This is a fundamental fallacy! As said before the perception of taste is a subjective. In a naturalist world something either exists or it doesn't. The question of god is a question of existence not subject to relativism or subjectivity!
@alberstube If what you say is true then it must also be true that there is a universally applicable definition of God and spirit. If there is such a definition then you are correct and we can indeed examine the question objectively. I’d be happy to. However for as long as there are conflicting definitions of these words how on earth can one make a start? Your god may well exist but how is anyone to discover what that actually is if only you know and cannot convey that knowledge?
@MarkLucasTube Hi there. Yes that obviously true. That is why in any debate one must define god. If god is everything well then I agree that god exist. But of course you also know that there is a more or less common definition at least to a certain degree. (transcendent being etc)
What do you mean by "convey that knowledge" ? What knowledge?
We all have more or less the same brains. So if we define the word god then we can examine if there is any evidence for us to believe in such a being.
@alberstube How would I describe the colour blue to you? The only practical common definition we have of blue is what we gain by ostension. I can point to the sky and then say it's blue. Only then can you understand what I’m referring to. God is experienced differently by us each and cannot be pointed to. Therefore what I know as God is beyond my ability to convey. We can fool each other and pretend we’re in agreement but there is no way to know if our understanding is of the same actual thing.
@MarkLucasTube "the color blue" ?really?We may not know if your blue equals my blue, I agree. But we agree on the label for what ever color it is we see. Ok, your blue is my red. Who cares? Red has a wavelength of 350nm thats objective. And furthermore we more or less share the same evolved eye which would make it at least rational to believe that the colors match. And I don't think you understood my point on existence. But please share your alleged own "knowledge of god" so that we can discuss
@alberstube I mean come on! Your first comment is just so wrong. Your, I believe relativism, would mean that if someone stated that god existed and someone else would state that he doesn't exist, then both would be right. So god would have to exist and at the same time not exist....
truth is a word, nothing more nothing less. People make up their own definitions about what "truth" is. I hold to the philosophy that there is no objective truth. You would do well to full understand what pluralism is all about.
@askirojadu Truth is not Ice cream. A moral relativistic stance of morality has many flaws. For example, moral relativists cannot accuse people of doing wrong; they cannot demand justice or fairness and they most definitely cannot promote any kind of tolerance. What is true for you, most of the time will not be what is ultimately true given that truth remains true whether you know or not. Also, torturing babies for fun is always wrong.
morality is highly subjective. For example its immoral to kill people, but if you defend yourself in self defense then some people will say that you did nothing wrong. Morality becomes so situational there is no way you can say its objective or is "always" the case. Another example: A christian may say that homosexuality is wrong and a homosexual will say there is nothing wrong with about natural instincts that don't cause harm to other people."wrong" is defined differently
Situational =/= subjective. Almost all objective moral theories factor in circumstances.
"there is no way you can say its objective or is "always" the case"
You act as if "objective" and "always the case in every circumstance" mean the same thing. I think you are confusing "objective" and "absolute" morality.
"vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate" is either false, or it means nothing other than "my preferences are such that vanilla ice cream is better tasting than chocolate".
If stated as "vanilla is better than chocolate" it is not true.
If stated as "I like vanilla better than chocolate" then it could be true. Factual statements about an individuals preferences are possible.
I think the only reason this is confusing is because we use language inefficiently.
Re: ""vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate" is either false, or it means nothing other than "my preferences are... If stated as "vanilla is better than chocolate" it is not true."
I think you run into problems by default assigning false to non-propositions (so have no truth value). For instance, if you say "vanilla is better than chocolate" is false, then it follows that "vanilla is not better than chocolate" is true, so tempting "Chocolate is at least as good to vanilla."
For obviously pure-opinion statements (not "opinions" that by their nature can have different merits to their jusitifications), I think we're tempted to call them false because we're noting the statement is a pure opinion, and so we implicitly read it as having a hidden clause of universal applicability. So your example "vanilla is better than chocolate" is tempting to call false because it implicitly reads as "everyone agrees that vanilla is better than chocolate", which IS false.
Re: "If they mean exactly what they said, that is a false statement of fact. (as literally stated it is a proposition)"
Then "chocolate is at least as good as vanilla" is true. By symmetry, also "vanilla is at least as good as chocolate" is true. Thus "vanilla and chocolate are equal" is true. That's not a catastrophe, but it is uncomfortably making an awful lot of truth claims where none seem to fairly apply. I think "not a proposition" is a better claim-evaluation than "false"
If this is a statement of fact about the world, then it could be objectively true (I just so no reason to think that it actually is). The question that statement raises is "according to what standard". Once we get specific and minimize the vagueness of the statement we can better assess if the statement is true or false, a statement of fact or a statement of preference.
My point was that saying that "chocolate is better than vanilla" is false implies that that statement's negation is true. Hence "chocolate is not better than vanilla" is true, hence "vanilla is at least as good as chocolate" is true. You end up with many truth claims on matters probably better identified as matters of opinion rather than truth. I fully agree that the statement's subjectivity is due to its vagueness. Add appropriate qualifiers to it and it becomes a proposition.
I think it just depends. Opinions can be true, but unless the opinion is proven to be fact - which would no longer make it an opinion - it still remains an opinion relative to those who actually have yet to prove it's truth.
For me, it is true the chocolate is better than vanilla - but I would say that that's a true preference (in that it exists), it's not a true fact.
I kind of had trouble understanding what you're getting at, but I hope I answered it well enough.
I would take a non-cognitivist position regarding statements of taste. "Vanilla ice cream is best" is not a literally true or false statement. I think it is more like an idiom for "I enjoy vanilla ice cream the most."
Not entirely clear what your confusion is. Do you want to know how I reconcile the existence of objective truth with the existence of subjective "truths"? Or how I would respond to somebody who questions the possibility of objective truth due to subjective valuations like "vanilla is better than chocolate" being both true and false at the same time since the statement would be true for one person but not another?
Dogschach 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
your voice got way deeper :-)
theman77777777232 4 months ago
@Telemantros:
It is language which gets us confused. Consider this statement:
"My brain produces happiness hormones if I eat chocolate ice cream"
Here it is not difficult to categorize the statement as objective. But that is basically what we mean when we say "Chocolate ice cream is good". We do not intend to make a statement about ice cream but we intend to make a factual claim about our psyche. But due to our semantical laziness we get confused.
MoralityIsAReligion 5 months ago
The concept that truth is objective accurate. By appending a word to the word truth, you are altering the word as well as the concept, which changes its meaning altogether. That being the case, objective truth becomes a distinct concept as well. They are juxtaposed and basically extrapolate upon the word "truth." Therefore, you still must define ultimately truth as something that conveys, or describes something objectively, with no other conclusion able to refute it. A rock is a rock.
Boanerges7 5 months ago
I think the question is fairly simple Truth can be both Objective and Subjective.
Its objective truth that you THINK vanilla is better than chocolate. It is subjective that ,to you, vanilla better than chocolate.
Subjective relates to internal (subjective) judgement
Objective relates to external (objective) judgement
TheDutchPhilosopher 5 months ago
Subjective - of or relating to a subject
Objective - of or relating to an object
So there is both subjective and objective truth, and some truth is both. However, merely subjective truths are statements of opinion that in no way oblige a truth-seeker, except to their own subjectivity (if they're concerned with figuring out whether they prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream), while objective truths oblige any and all truth-seekers to believe them.
hxrtotally 5 months ago
@hxrtotally It's worth noting that there always remains some recalcitrant subjectivity to knowledge, for viz. "all knowledge is the knowledge of a knower." If there were no subject, there would be no mind that could know. Thus a subject is necessary for knowledge, and the truth of a belief is required for something to count as knowledge. But this sort of subjectivity is clearly not a problem for the objectivity of certain truths, for asserting that there are no objective truths is contradictory.
hxrtotally 5 months ago
I think there are subjective truths but not in the way you assert here, however it is a very muddy issue with an unavoidably arbitrary component.
For example we can go from
'vanilla ice cream (VIC) tastes better than chocolate ice cream'
to
'VIC tastes better than stale soup'
and then to
'VIC tastes better than dog shit'
Clearly we are moving from an entirely arbitrary taste preference for two excellent, highly calorific sweet and fatty foods, through to something we have .....
noelplum99 5 months ago
@noelplum99
....very understandably evolved a highly developed taste aversion to. Maybe some people would insist that even the last of those three statements does not class as 'true' but I have no problem in seeing such statements as a subjective truth statement. the problem is where down the line between chocolate ice cream, stale soup and dog shit do we draw the line? It is like a sliding descent in or out of validity
noelplum99 5 months ago
Objective truth certainly exists, but opinions can be either true or false depending on whether the subject matter has an objective truth ie. 1 + 1 = 2. Or they can be just opinions if the truth is not known by any party, or if they pertain to a subject matter like the flavour of icecream. I think too it comes down to the use of language. A lot of how we communicate isn't crystal clear in terms of the way we use words, as a comment by @TheMessianicDrew states rather well.
damianGray 5 months ago
Ice-cream is real so true. Whether one flavor is better then another would be a personal truth . That would be objective, But ice-cream is real and subjective.
hellavadeal 5 months ago
Truth is contingent on the agreed criteria for truth....not many agree upon someone's personal criteria for truth..if it would even be possible without a great measure of denial.
Hexdoll 5 months ago
The simple answer is that to be true is to be objectively true, so opinions lack true-values. The complex answer is that some opinions are so well supported and cogently justified that it's damn near impossible to not refer to them as true.
Ex: Which sports team is better is a matter of opinion. Even when one team beats another, it can be argued to be a fluke, a variation, or some contigency. But is it just "opinion" that the World Cup champs are better than your high school's JV soccer team?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
(cont)
I think a problem arises because there's a continuum on the subjective-objective scale, and on the scale of an opinion's support & merit. The problem is more about objective-subjective and these sliding scales than it is about truth.
There are other issues, like "who owns language", and the role of consensus in determining empirical "facts" (which are presumably, after math & pure logic, the arch-type of objective truths). These show that there's a social role to making a claim true.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
(cont)
In case it isn't obvious, I'm a coherentist. Quine is my hero. Not only do I think that truth claims are, in a sense, constructed (that's NOT my calling them arbitrary or being committed to the extreme kinds of post-modern skepticism), but I also think that even the semantics of truth is a social (linguistic) construction. In other words, for me to dispute your poistion about "truth", or for you to dispute mine, is for us to engage in an argument over definitions - HUMAN definitions.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
"I shaved my head and I'm cold"....LOL!!
TheFunkyTheist 5 months ago
I think you're right.
"Chocolate is better than vanilla" would be a subjective statement.
"Person X believes that chocolate is better than vanilla" would be an objective statement.
The difference is between *expressing* and opinion versus *talking about* and opinion.
antybu86 5 months ago
Great to see you back Telemantros! To answer your question, we must remember that an opinion holds no propositional content. Opinions are primarily based on personal taste. However, just because they hold no propositional content, universally speaking, it does not mean they do not hold objective truth to a degree. It is objectively true that person X prefers chocolate ice cream, but this is not a proposition nor can it be universally applied. It can only draw truth about that person.
BassP86 5 months ago
I don't see the difficulty. There are objective truth claims irrespective of the claimant, which reflect objective reality apart from the claims of the subject, and there are subjective truth claims which are objectively true to the subject.
1tmoch 5 months ago
Dear God, I'd never imagine seeing you on YT again. I'm planning on making a video related to this though, so I'll be sure to leave it as a response once I make and upload it. ;)
jcrebel18 5 months ago
As far as subjective opinions go, i.e. questions of taste, I think that what determines their "truth" is the inter-subjective value that is granted to them by the majority. For example, estetic values are accepted almost uniformly--people agree that someone like Nicole Kidman is prettier than, say, Joy Behar. Alrthough it's still subject to varying personal tastes, it's an agreed upon statement in large.
Good to see you again brother! Hope you get well.
regelemihai 5 months ago
There is existence. There is no truth.
theowarner 5 months ago
@theowarner
The second statement condradicts the argument.
regelemihai 5 months ago
@regelemihai
Yeah. Existence is not a truth claim.
theowarner 5 months ago
@theowarner
Not in the mathematical sense, but otherwise it is. The act of denying it is evidence in itself that you exist in some form.
But I was refering mainly to your second statement which in itself is a truth claim ("There is no truth"). It's a self refuting statement.
regelemihai 5 months ago
@regelemihai
No, I'm saying that truth does not existence within those things exist. It exists as meta-claim about claims about existence. So, "is" refers to the syntactical and grammatical structures that relate meaning, not to the property of being within existence.
theowarner 5 months ago
Great question btw.
owchywawa 5 months ago
Now, is it objective? Is it objectively true that you have this opinion on ice cream? At least at this moment, that is objectively true. Could you really say that your opinion is subject to opinion? I think not. I think you have to use some other power than opinion to change your opinion (i.e. the power of reason). Thus, opinions aren't any more subject to opinions than the universe is subject to God's opinion rather than God's creative power.
owchywawa 5 months ago
I would say our opinions are true if they accurately represent the thing in question. The only reason truth is objective, is because things are objective. If your opinion about your opinion on ice-cream is an accurate reflection of that opinion, then the former opinion is true, while the latter opinion has not yet been considered.
owchywawa 5 months ago
TRUTH is objective and subject to the law of non-contradiction.
sincitypreacher 5 months ago
Truth has to be objective because to think otherwise would be completely illogical. It's really that simple.
therealtony 5 months ago
I take it you have been speaking to a few moral relativists? hehe nah, but in reference to your question, It seems that the question you are implying a scenario with the question: "what is truth?" Is truth Ice cream (relative), or is truth not ice cream (objective)? Well, I see that subjective truths can be true perspectively or personally, but are they ultimately true (keyword being ultimately)? No. Once subjective truths are revealed over entirety (ultimately), it shows otherwise.
xTheUnknownTruthx 5 months ago
I consider truth to be a contextually-sensitive indirect correspondence relation between a statement and the World. This allows, I think, for there to be truth-apt opinions in a certain context (hence the context-sensitive parameter in the correspondence relation), but when the 'semantic bar' gets raised to require a more direct correspondence, opinion statements to fail to be truth-apt. Just my two cents. Hope you get better!
izzytjkcmd 5 months ago
Truth I would say is not an object, but it is objectivity itself. Truth is always in regards to what is the fact of the matter when it comes to the nature of reality.
hippo11222 5 months ago
@hippo11222 Well said.
xTheUnknownTruthx 5 months ago
It depends on what kind of question ur asking. One's own personal opinion is a truth to himself in the taste, touch and feel world. All you can do is disagree and say what kind of flavor YOU like. Your two opinions are your own truth but it affects no one but yourselves. When a subject starts touching both people and more, then the truth is more important. Two or more gathered together in my name have me in the midst of them-it went something like that.
Licmycat 5 months ago
There is only 1 (ONE ) TRUTH that I know, since you asked... That Truth is Jesus, The Christ .
cheesestr4wz 5 months ago
There is objective truth. Saying there isn't, is a self contradiction. There are very few things that would be considered "absolute truths." (something that is true for everybody for all time/circumstance) Truth is a statement about the world that is accurate. Meaning, I'm wearing a green shirt. Is that statement true for everybody, no. Is that statement true tomorrow, probably not. It is true though. It accurately corresponds to the way the world is at this moment.
Gherit1 5 months ago
@Gherit1
To further add to your point. Your opinion is true for you. My opinion is true for me. I like vanilla more than chocolate. That statement is true for me. I battered this around in my head for a bit as well. Truth doesn't change based on the person observing it. It's not "subjective." It doesn't change when the subject (you or I) changes. The statement is an accurate correspondence despite me saying it, or you saying it about me.
Gherit1 5 months ago
Listen to Greg Koukl's podcasts and whatnot. I don't remember which podcast deals with this exactly, but perhaps if you contact someone within their organization, they can point you at the correct one. He has a call in radio program that I find very enlightening. One of the callers asked a very similar question. Much in the same way morality isn't absolute either. So, go visit str.org for some more reading on it...and objective =/= absolute.
Gherit1 5 months ago
I would say truth is not objective, because objectivity is impossible, because we are hopelessly bound to our senses. We can't escape the fact that we are humans with human needs and human perceptions. Why would a humans perspective on truth be any different than an elephants perspective on truth?
siekertr21 5 months ago
@siekertr21
The laws of logic aren't bound by our senses, and any sort of argument against that would be self-refuting.
MaximumAxiom 5 months ago
@MaximumAxiom how are they not bound to our senses? our senses are everything we are. without senses we wouldn't have thoughts to even perceive logic.
siekertr21 5 months ago
@siekertr21
It seems to me that even if all our senses were destroyed we could still theoretically think, but that is not the main issue.
Any argument you try and present to limit the laws of logic and imply that they don't necessarily work is self-defeating. Every argument assumes the laws of logic, and if your conclusion is that the laws of logic aren't absolute then your argument will always take the form:
x = laws of logic are absolute
1) x,
2) ...
C) ~x
Which is self-defeating.
MaximumAxiom 5 months ago
@MaximumAxiom Thinking requires language, language requires something to talk about... which always has to do with what we perceive. Please present an argument for logic that does not require my senses to understand it.... oh wait you can't. Senses are building block number 1. Whatever precedes the senses, it's definitely not logic.
siekertr21 5 months ago
Nearly all or else all of the statements about God, spirit etc. are true or false in the same way that statements about flavours of ice-cream are true or false. It's painful to me that you can't see that.
MarkLucasTube 5 months ago
@MarkLucasTube Are you serious? This is a fundamental fallacy! As said before the perception of taste is a subjective. In a naturalist world something either exists or it doesn't. The question of god is a question of existence not subject to relativism or subjectivity!
alberstube 4 months ago
@alberstube If what you say is true then it must also be true that there is a universally applicable definition of God and spirit. If there is such a definition then you are correct and we can indeed examine the question objectively. I’d be happy to. However for as long as there are conflicting definitions of these words how on earth can one make a start? Your god may well exist but how is anyone to discover what that actually is if only you know and cannot convey that knowledge?
MarkLucasTube 4 months ago
@MarkLucasTube Hi there. Yes that obviously true. That is why in any debate one must define god. If god is everything well then I agree that god exist. But of course you also know that there is a more or less common definition at least to a certain degree. (transcendent being etc)
What do you mean by "convey that knowledge" ? What knowledge?
We all have more or less the same brains. So if we define the word god then we can examine if there is any evidence for us to believe in such a being.
alberstube 4 months ago
@alberstube How would I describe the colour blue to you? The only practical common definition we have of blue is what we gain by ostension. I can point to the sky and then say it's blue. Only then can you understand what I’m referring to. God is experienced differently by us each and cannot be pointed to. Therefore what I know as God is beyond my ability to convey. We can fool each other and pretend we’re in agreement but there is no way to know if our understanding is of the same actual thing.
MarkLucasTube 4 months ago
@MarkLucasTube "the color blue" ?really?We may not know if your blue equals my blue, I agree. But we agree on the label for what ever color it is we see. Ok, your blue is my red. Who cares? Red has a wavelength of 350nm thats objective. And furthermore we more or less share the same evolved eye which would make it at least rational to believe that the colors match. And I don't think you understood my point on existence. But please share your alleged own "knowledge of god" so that we can discuss
alberstube 4 months ago
@alberstube I mean come on! Your first comment is just so wrong. Your, I believe relativism, would mean that if someone stated that god existed and someone else would state that he doesn't exist, then both would be right. So god would have to exist and at the same time not exist....
Existence is objective
alberstube 4 months ago
truth is a word, nothing more nothing less. People make up their own definitions about what "truth" is. I hold to the philosophy that there is no objective truth. You would do well to full understand what pluralism is all about.
askirojadu 5 months ago
@askirojadu Truth is not Ice cream. A moral relativistic stance of morality has many flaws. For example, moral relativists cannot accuse people of doing wrong; they cannot demand justice or fairness and they most definitely cannot promote any kind of tolerance. What is true for you, most of the time will not be what is ultimately true given that truth remains true whether you know or not. Also, torturing babies for fun is always wrong.
xTheUnknownTruthx 5 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx did you reply to the wrong comment? My reply has nothing to do with morality and neither does the video.
askirojadu 5 months ago
@askirojadu Yes it does; it has everything tl do with it.
xTheUnknownTruthx 5 months ago
@xTheUnknownTruthx
morality is highly subjective. For example its immoral to kill people, but if you defend yourself in self defense then some people will say that you did nothing wrong. Morality becomes so situational there is no way you can say its objective or is "always" the case. Another example: A christian may say that homosexuality is wrong and a homosexual will say there is nothing wrong with about natural instincts that don't cause harm to other people."wrong" is defined differently
askirojadu 5 months ago
@askirojadu
Situational =/= subjective. Almost all objective moral theories factor in circumstances.
"there is no way you can say its objective or is "always" the case"
You act as if "objective" and "always the case in every circumstance" mean the same thing. I think you are confusing "objective" and "absolute" morality.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@askirojadu I respectfully agree to disagree based on the evidence for objective morality.
xTheUnknownTruthx 5 months ago
"vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate" is either false, or it means nothing other than "my preferences are such that vanilla ice cream is better tasting than chocolate".
If stated as "vanilla is better than chocolate" it is not true.
If stated as "I like vanilla better than chocolate" then it could be true. Factual statements about an individuals preferences are possible.
I think the only reason this is confusing is because we use language inefficiently.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Re: ""vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate" is either false, or it means nothing other than "my preferences are... If stated as "vanilla is better than chocolate" it is not true."
I think you run into problems by default assigning false to non-propositions (so have no truth value). For instance, if you say "vanilla is better than chocolate" is false, then it follows that "vanilla is not better than chocolate" is true, so tempting "Chocolate is at least as good to vanilla."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
(cont)
For obviously pure-opinion statements (not "opinions" that by their nature can have different merits to their jusitifications), I think we're tempted to call them false because we're noting the statement is a pure opinion, and so we implicitly read it as having a hidden clause of universal applicability. So your example "vanilla is better than chocolate" is tempting to call false because it implicitly reads as "everyone agrees that vanilla is better than chocolate", which IS false.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Thats why I said this is all a result of inefficient language.
It all depends upon what a person actually means when they say "vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate".
If they only mean "I like the taste of vanilla more than I like the taste of chocolate, then that is a statement of fact.
If they mean exactly what they said, that is a false statement of fact. (as literally stated it is a proposition).
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Re: "If they mean exactly what they said, that is a false statement of fact. (as literally stated it is a proposition)"
Then "chocolate is at least as good as vanilla" is true. By symmetry, also "vanilla is at least as good as chocolate" is true. Thus "vanilla and chocolate are equal" is true. That's not a catastrophe, but it is uncomfortably making an awful lot of truth claims where none seem to fairly apply. I think "not a proposition" is a better claim-evaluation than "false"
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
""vanilla is at least as good as chocolate"
If this is a statement of fact about the world, then it could be objectively true (I just so no reason to think that it actually is). The question that statement raises is "according to what standard". Once we get specific and minimize the vagueness of the statement we can better assess if the statement is true or false, a statement of fact or a statement of preference.
Epydemic2020 5 months ago
@Epydemic2020
My point was that saying that "chocolate is better than vanilla" is false implies that that statement's negation is true. Hence "chocolate is not better than vanilla" is true, hence "vanilla is at least as good as chocolate" is true. You end up with many truth claims on matters probably better identified as matters of opinion rather than truth. I fully agree that the statement's subjectivity is due to its vagueness. Add appropriate qualifiers to it and it becomes a proposition.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
I think it just depends. Opinions can be true, but unless the opinion is proven to be fact - which would no longer make it an opinion - it still remains an opinion relative to those who actually have yet to prove it's truth.
For me, it is true the chocolate is better than vanilla - but I would say that that's a true preference (in that it exists), it's not a true fact.
I kind of had trouble understanding what you're getting at, but I hope I answered it well enough.
aveyowyns 5 months ago
@aveyowyns I agree.
xTheUnknownTruthx 5 months ago
I would take a non-cognitivist position regarding statements of taste. "Vanilla ice cream is best" is not a literally true or false statement. I think it is more like an idiom for "I enjoy vanilla ice cream the most."
TheMessianicDrew 5 months ago