Is objective truth possible?

[""]

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.

 

[Maxwell511]

I said I don't know. Cos I don't. We can say things that are truths of sorts such as a mathematical truth 2+2=4. But is maths "true" or is it a subjective construct of humanity.

 

[Maxwell511]

Just thinking.

If an objective truth is possible than does mean that a Yes answer to the above question is an objective truth?

However if an objective truth is not possible than is a No answer is an objective truth so therefore the answer is must be Yes? (i.e. it is an objective truth that there are no objective truth).

Does that mean the statement "there are No objective truths" is incorrect and the correct answer must be Yes?

 

[psychedelicist]

I think if objective truth exists it must be what exists regardless of our perceptions. According to QP, there is not a clear line between our perceptions and outside existence, though we can safely assume that there is an outside existence. This outside thing would be objective truth.

Now, as to your second question, I do not really know if it is attainable or not. Certainly our minds in their normal state could not see existence clearly. We percieve things at a conceptual level, and at this level, we can only give meaning to things by their opposite (beauty only means anything when compared with ugliness, an object's front is only definable by defining it's back (which ironically can only be defined by first defining a front)). At this level, no, I do not believe we can 'see' objective truth. If we stop seeing things semantically, it might be possible, but at that level, no concepts can exist, thus once one is in this state he no longer has an intellectual 'understanding' of the truth, just an awareness of it. Because of this it would be more or less impossible to communicate this truth using words or books, etc. because these rely on semantic thought. This is the basic buddhist/hindu/taoist train of thought.

 

[PKJ]

Truth is the best consensus on a topic at a given time. Objective truth is an Ideal: we can't reach it, but we can try. Only a deity could have access to objective truth.

So, no, there cannot be objective truth for humans (or anything really objective, in fact), but you can have intersubjective truth.

 

[Nightson]

I think it's possible. But I don't think that if there is an objective truth, that it can be known.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

The question should really be, it seems:

1.) Is objectivity possible?

and

2.) Is truth possible?


If we are going to ask if objective truth is possible we may as well also ask:

a.) Is subjective truth possible?

b.) Is objective non-truth possible?

c.) Is subjective non-truth possible?


I guess it depends on how one defines objective. Objective seems to mean "Existing independent of thought and feeling." In other words, if every thinking, feeling being was to cease to exist the things that are objective would still exist.

But just because something exists independent of beings that think and feel does not necessarily mean it is true. Everything could be a lie. In that case whoever or whatever is lying will have to fess up before the rest of us can know the truth. Either that or we will have to somehow be able to prove that something is or is not a lie.

I guess objective truth is possible. But before we can know any such truth we will have to be able to know the objective and we will have to be able to prove that some of it is not a lie.

 

[elman]

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 is Reality. Subjective truth is my perception of reality. Objective truth is all truth that is not subjective truth.

 

[elman]

I think it's possible. But I don't think that if there is an objective truth, that it can be known.

Why is 2 plus 2 equals four not objective truth?

 

[PKJ]

Why is 2 plus 2 equals four not objective truth?

Because math does not count for "reality". Math is pure theory.

 

[elman]

Because math does not count for "reality". Math is pure theory.

I guess you will have to define theory. I am of the opinon that 2 plus 2 equals four is fact and not theory. Why would math not count as reality? Maybe I need your defintion of reality also.

 

[PKJ]

I guess you will have to define theory. I am of the opinon that 2 plus 2 equals four is fact and not theory. Why would math not count as reality? Maybe I need your defintion of reality also.

Let's not mix up theory and hypothesis. When in say that math is pure theory, I do not mean that "it's only a theory" in the common sense of the term, but that it is a purely theoretical entity.

There are objects in front of you. Your reason detemines that they correspond to the concept "pencil" and, under the category "quantity", have the value "four".

A pencil + a pencil does not really equal a (pencil * 2), and not even "two pencils". It equals one pencil, and one more. Numbers are objects of pure reason. We do not see numbers walking naked in the woods. We make up these concepts to facilitate our perception of reality.

 

[Latreia]

My first thoughts are probably not correct. But objective truth I first distinguish from fact or reality, which exists without observation.

Objective truth must still be judged by subjective truth, but requires stablizing consensus; that is that the objective truth can easily be seen or sensed in some way simply for what it is by almost all subjective senses. Thus it is as near to fact or reality that living perspectives can observe or apprehend.

This is not what I call mere opinion, that can be obtained from any mind merely from conjecture without observation or first hand perspective. This will not be assumed as objective truth.

That the majority of those who observe or perceive something all find it remarkedly similar, I think, can be called objective truth. It is possible, necessary, and vital to the human relationship with the world.

Clearly, two cents worth.

 

[elman]

Let's not mix up theory and hypothesis. When in say that math is pure theory, I do not mean that "it's only a theory" in the common sense of the term, but that it is a purely theoretical entity.

There are objects in front of you. Your reason detemines that they correspond to the concept "pencil" and, under the category "quantity", have the value "four".

A pencil + a pencil does not really equal a (pencil * 2), and not even "two pencils". It equals one pencil, and one more. Numbers are objects of pure reason. We do not see numbers walking naked in the woods. We make up these concepts to facilitate our perception of reality.

I think you want to limit reality to physical objects. What we think is also real and it is part of reality.

 

[PKJ]

I think you want to limit reality to physical objects. What we think is also real and it is part of reality.

Careful, I think I just saw a pink unicorn walking around your fridge. Quick! Save your lettuce!

 

[elman]

Careful, I think I just saw a pink unicorn walking around your fridge. Quick! Save your lettuce!

OK everything we think may not be real but thinking 2 plus 2 equals four is real. And many other ideas we have are real.

 

[bob135]

Truth doesn't seem like a very meaningful concept to me, so I answered "I don't know."
I find the whole idea of truth very confusing. If I say "P is true" and you say "P is false," do we really mean "I assert P" and "I assert ~P?" Why do we say something is true or false?
How would you ever prove that any definition or statement about truth was true?

 

[PKJ]

OK everything we think may not be real but thinking 2 plus 2 equals four is real. And many other ideas we have are real.

I agree, but why is it real? And how do we know that it is? (Idealism vs empirism debate coming up )

 

[Multi-Elis]

I didn't read the instructions. I voted wrong.
Any way:
Objective truth is possible. Maybe you ment to ask is objective truth graspable? Because then the answer is no. You can experience truth but you can't grasp it objectively. Only subjectively because you experienced it.

 

[elman]

I agree, but why is it real? And how do we know that it is? (Idealism vs empirism debate coming up )

Reality is not limited to being able to see it. Two plus two equals four is truth, not idealism.