Is objective truth possible?

[TooCurious]

"Objective truth" is reality as it exists independent of an observer--the state of being of what is actual.

None of us can directly access objective truth. Humans, and all other living beings of which I am aware, process the world through the two filters of sensation and perception. This leaves us with a subjective interpretation of objective reality--how we understand the universe to be.

That is, of course, my subjective understanding of the nature of objective truth.

 

[Brimshack]

Odd that peoploe would become so focused on the "objective" part of objective truth, they would forget the truth part. Truth refers to a quality of statements, beliefs, propositions, etc. An objective truth cannot be a thing-in-itself; it must have soe reference to a subject. And that is only a problem for those that have become so obsessed with objectivity, they forget the origin of the question. Truth is a standard we use to judge our own ideas, and when we cease to use it in that context, the word becomes meaningless.

The quest for "objective truth" is an effort to use objective standards to determine truth. This does not mean an absence of subjective input. And it certainly does not mean some mythical thing-in-itself, entirely divorced from human experience and thought.

 

[elman]

Yes since God is possible, absolute truth and beauty and life and love is possible.

 

[Brimshack]

That would make "absolute truth and beauty and life" very contingent indeed.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

That would make "absolute truth and beauty and life" very contingent indeed.

 

[Eudaimonist]

First, define truth, and then define objective truth, both from your perspective of course. Please try not to google/cut/paste. Let's see what you can come up with on your own.

Truth: An accurate comprehension of reality

Objective truth: An accurate comprehension of reality

As you can see, I typically use these words as synonyms for each other.

Sometimes I speak of "personal truths", which are ideas that are so deeply ingrained in one's worldview that they are partly constitutive of oneself and one's way of seeing reality, but that is a separate subject, since personal truths can fail to be objectively true.

 

[elman]

That would make "absolute truth and beauty and life" very contingent indeed.

I agree. I think it is contingent on the existence of God. I think it is the defintion of God.

 

[Magisterium]

First, define truth, and then define objective truth, both from your perspective of course. Please try not to google/cut/paste. Let's see what you can come up with on your own.

Second, take the poll.

Third, explain your answer.

Truth refers to that which corresponds to the actual state of being. That is to say, truth refers that which holds being or existence independent of one's perception. Which is closely related to the idea of reality.

As a result of this definition, truth is necessarilly objective in that it exists independent of one's perception. This "objective" qualifier is unnecessary. If someone holds something to be true but it does not correspond to the actual state of being, it is not true but a lie or a mistake. (mistake actually is comprised of this understanding in that the prefix mis- means badly or wrongly and -take refers to holding or posessing)

That said, objective truth cannot be definitively conveyed among peers because of the way peers communicate. We communicate through means which are fallible (such as speech and writing). This means that we receive information and then must evaluate it and decide if we will believe it (or hold it as true). When something objective is transmitted from one peer to another, it can appear subjective to the receiver because they have to "decide" to accept it.

By analogy, If I was to tell you that I could cause tons of steel and glass to sustain flight, reason might be inclined to reject such an idea on the basis that both materials are far heavier than air. However, once an airplane is seen to do just that, there is now evidence to indicate that the idea actually corresponds to reality as observed first hand. That fact that you have now witnessed it does not give rise to it's truth, it only gives rise to your willingness to accept that truth.

It is also woth noting that you can still choose to deny what you've witnessed and attibute it to your own lack of sleep or perhaps some other kind of light refraction phenomenon which causes widespread delusions of people feeling as though they're seeing airplanes. The fact is, nothing is ever undeniable even that which is the actual state.

Finally in closing, it's fascinating that truth is itself so fundamental that it's not even logically possible to deny it's existence. In stating that there is no such thing as truth, one immediately removes any possibility of that statement being "true".

 

[Miss Shelby]

I wish you posted more often, Magisterium.

Michelle

 

[quatona]

First, define truth, and then define objective truth, both from your perspective of course. Please try not to google/cut/paste. Let's see what you can come up with on your own.

Second, take the poll.

Third, explain your answer.

"Truth" in general, and "objective truth" in particular aren´t part of my active philosophical vocabulary. I can´t link any of my concepts to these terms.
It seems odd that you ask me questions about terms I have no use for (but apparently point to concepts that play a major part in your thinking), and at the same time want me to define them myself.
I might be able to answer your question, if you would explain your concepts behind these terms, and then ask me whether I consider these concepts possible, meaningful, useful.

 

[wanderphilos]

Truth is defined.
Objecive truth is the undefined.

Example I can create a bowl out of clay.
As the creator of the bowl I have defined it in truth as 'Bowl made of clay'.
And the objective truth is matter in a form.

 

[jpr7]

I believe there is objective truth. If I held a pen up and asked if this pen was created I would get mainly three answers: yes, no, maybe. To prove that this pen was created we would just go to the maker (which would probably be BIC) and ask them if this pen was created in one of their factories. The answer would be a resounding, "Yes."

 

[ReluctantProphet]

First, define truth, and then define objective truth, both from your perspective of course. Please try not to google/cut/paste. Let's see what you can come up with on your own.

Second, take the poll.

Third, explain your answer.

I DO wish more people would learn that any time there are 2, there are 3 - that which is neither and/or both. You have included the "neither" with the "Im not sure" choice, but there is also the "both" choice...

The question asks for a yes, no, or not sure answer. The answer, due to the exact phrasing of the question is in fact "both". The reason for this is simply due to not specifying what degree of objectivity you are referring to. But to answer...

Truth = A mental model accurately representing the consistencies of that which has affect (existence/reality).

Objectivity = Observation void of the persuasion of desire.

If you intended on asking if such a thing as absolute perfect objectivity is a possibility, then the answer is certainly NO. No mind at any time anywhere, regardless of size or design can ever achieve this goal with the one exception of God Himself. But anyone achieving such pure objectivity would inheriently have to be that very same God.

I don't say this due to some preference or wild guess. I am familiar with intimate detail as to how intelligence functions and its limits.

Every intelligence must make decisions within a given time (else why bother), The physical requirements to calculate the exact details involved in the discernment of a truth require that absolute zero possibility of error be established. This requires, among other things, an infinite amount of time from any intelligent system. In addition it requires that all other possibilities be known to have zero probability. Thus any mind must stop at some point and simply guess from what it had time to deduce. This creates error which can not be avoided.

Error in perception or deducement of perception when applied to judgments makes error in judgment. In religious terms, this is labeled "sin". Thus the only means to avoid sin is to make no judgments at all, but obviously a degree of judgment is required by survival and reality, thus sin and error are unavoidable.

The thing called the Holy Spirit is an effort within every mind that strives for the most perfectly accurate assessment of reality achievable by the conditions at hand. It attempts this by removing all other passion which might cause luster within the mind.

That lust is what being non-objective is all about.

The sinless, lust free, or objective state can only then be achieved by arranging that any perception error be totally compensated by its expectation and counter. This allows for all error in assessment to be balanced into what is no longer an error simply because such was designed as the mental model of affect, and thus becomes perfect by default much like an axial keeping a wheel in balance. In religions, this is referred to as forgiveness of sin by God and "being made perfect by the Holy Spirit".

But all of this requires that any intelligence be surrounded by expectations of error and compensation for such. This would be causing the state called the Kingdom of God where all is in harmony, each compensating for any lack or error in the other.

But also this results in God and the Kingdom of God becoming one and the same (Heaven on Earth). Which is the objective of the Holy Spirit (the effort which compensates for all things).

Of course, all of that was not really what you were asking, was it. You were most probably asking about reasonable objectivity such that any error would be insignificant to consequence. this leads to a much shorter story...

Reasonable objectivity can be easily obtained simply by not having any strong preference concerning what is being observed yet having a strong preference of actually being accurate (free of sin).

Jesus taught to achieve this by loving God to the utmost (removing any preference that reality be any different than whatever it actually is) and praying with the Holy Spirit which is constantly striving for the most accuracy achievable within the time limits and information available.

Of course all of this entire explanation requires that you actually understand what those terms mean.

So the answer is, if you are talking about reasonable objectivity, then it is certainly possible and more common than you might think. If you mean absolute perfect objectivity, then no, not until you become God.




Arn't you glad you asked?