Is objective truth possible?

[immortalavefenix]

We can only achive aproximate objective truth about the natureal world.

 

[Patzak]

I consider truth to be a concept pertaining to knowledge and knowledge can be nothing but subjective. I don't reject an objective reality, I just think it does nothing for the status of the truth.

 

[Charlie V]

Is objective truth possible?

From a certain perspective, yes.
From a certain perspective, no.

So, yes, objective truth is possible, but the possibility of objective truth isn't an objective truth. Or to put it another way, it's not an objective truth that objective truth is possible.

Charlie

 

[elman]

From a certain perspective, yes.
From a certain perspective, no.

So, yes, objective truth is possible, but the possibility of objective truth isn't an objective truth. Or to put it another way, it's not an objective truth that objective truth is possible.

Charlie

Is that like everything changes except the fact that everything changes?

 

[PKJ]

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

How did you get that knowledge? (Or were you born with it?)

Also, in base 3, 2+2=11.

 

[JBrian]

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.

Again, you are saying that it is true that we cannot know truth.

 

[JBrian]

Any denial of truth is a truth claim. You cannot deny truth without saying your theory is true. It is self defeating.

 

[JBrian]

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.

If a group decides on something, for example that they don't exist, then that doesn't make it true just because they had a consensus. Truth is what corresponds to reality, regardless of whether the group thinks so.

 

[Brimshack]

Subject and Object are actually a pair part structure. If truth has to do with either of them, then it has to do with both. And those who debate the subjectivity or objectivity of truth are simply fighting over their favorite brands of error.

 

[PKJ]

Again, you are saying that it is true that we cannot know truth.

Did you read Peirce by any chance? Ok I give up. Why bother pretending there is the "phenomenal world" and the "noumenal world"? Since that we can never know that so-called "real world", why not take our world and call it the real one? Pragamatism rules!

Truth is what corresponds to the actual state of the world.​

There is objective truth and it's right in front of you!​

 

[Moros]

Facts are truth. Facts are objective by nature. Objective truth is possible.

 

[MoonlessNight]

How did you get that knowledge? (Or were you born with it?)

Also, in base 3, 2+2=11.

But you are just rearranging our ways of referring to concepts, not the concepts themselves. I highly recommend, if you have the time, that you look into the field of Abstract Algebra. It is all about finding the underlying structure and concepts behind what we talk about in math.

But look at it this way. We define 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 as numbers. We define a + b to mean something to the affect of "to take a number of steps past b, equal to the number of steps a is past 0", where taking 1 step means finding the next number given an ordering system. And we order our numbers so that 1+0=1, 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 1+3=4. Now, given this system, is there any way that 2+2=4 or (1+1+2=4) can be false?

Perhaps I'm muddying things with my bad set of definitions, but the point is that if we set things up right, the statement must be true, or else all of our logic, and indeed everything that we use to determine the veracity of a statement, is flawed. Sure it's only true in that context, but it is objectively true in that context. And that's a start.

I suppose you could say that there is no reason to suppose that logical principles such as the law of non-contradiction should apply, but without them it's impossible to make conclusions about anything, so it wouldn't be possible to answer the question "is objective truth possible?" in the first place. It could just as easily be possible and not possible. But assuming that the quesiton is answerable, I will say that objective truth must exist.

 

[JBrian]

Did you read Peirce by any chance? Ok I give up. Why bother pretending there is the "phenomenal world" and the "noumenal world"? Since that we can never know that so-called "real world", why not take our world and call it the real one? Pragamatism rules!

Truth is what corresponds to the actual state of the world.


There is objective truth and it's right in front of you!​

It is also self defeating to say that we cannot know anything about the noumenal world, since that purports to know something about it.

 

[elman]

How did you get that knowledge? (Or were you born with it?)

Also, in base 3, 2+2=11.

No I read about it being a position of a Greek philosopher and agreed. I think he said you don't step into the same river twice. I don't know what base 3 is so when I talk about 2 plus 2 I am not talking about base three.

 

[Patzak]

No I read about it being a position of a Greek philosopher and agreed. I think he said you don't step into the same river twice. I don't know what base 3 is so when I talk about 2 plus 2 I am not talking about base three.

As MoonlessNight pointed out, whatever system you use (decimal, binary, hexadecimal), 2 + 2 is still 4 (because II + II = IIII), so it doesn't really matter. It's just a matter of notation, which is completely indifferent to mathematical truth.

 

[doaftheloaf]

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

Math is theory in the sense that everything else in history has been/is/will be theory. Theories can be true, you know.

For instance, the only way 2 + 2 can equal 5 is if you assign "5" the value that "4" currently has. You see, we can call the numbers what we want, but the numerical values are what they are.

 

[humblemuslim]

First, define truth, and then define objective truth, both from your perspective of course.

Definitions can be dangerous. However attempting to correctly describe the essence of something in words is different. Just as long as one accepts their description (Sometimes referred to as a "defintion") might be false.

If i was asked to determine what I think is the essence of truth (i.e. What it is) then I'd be inclined to say something along the lines of the following:

Truth is something which is absolute. Truthes can never contradict one another. Truthes must be objective. In fact the very term "Subjective Truth" is like saying the "Married Bacholer" which makes no sense. These are some characteristics I think truth's essence contains.

Therefore as I see truthes, all truthes are objective by nature.

 

[humblemuslim]

Math is theory in the sense that everything else in history has been/is/will be theory. Theories can be true, you know.

First of all what do you mean when you state the word "Theory". If you are suggesting math is by theory accounting for facts, then I disagree. Math is fundamentally the Relations of Ideas. There are no facts when it comes to Relation of Ideas. The only two criteria which govern Relations of Ideas are the Law of the excluded middle and the Law of Contradictions. So in other words in the realm of relating ideas, an idea may not contradict itself or another accepted idea and may not both be and not be at the same instant. I would suggest that if humans had three fingers on each hand that "Math Facts" would be in base 3, not base 10. Facts don't change: Relation of Ideas can change and still be correct as long as one understands what you are relating.

 

[Verv]

In many senses of the word it is not possible -- we are neer going to be able to do anything ut use our man-made creations and continue to attempt to understand science and understand the way that things work better, but in reality we are fairly lost when it comes to a lot of the things that really matter; issues that truly fascinate us that involve politics, religion, philosophy (P/R/P).

Most P/R/P questions cannot ever be answered by any amount of objective truth, and so as a result we must debate endlessly.

furthermore, man is prone to flaw and a lot of the methods of which we have come up to determine truth are flawed when we put them into practice, so the notion that we are going to find some sort of truth in what is going on through a steady application of science becomes a lie.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

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 is Reality.
Objective truth is something which is real even if not verified by a subject. It basically does not depend on a subject for its reality.

And it is my opinion that objective truths are not possible.

But it is also my opinion that there is an absolute truth.