100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is Truth Subjective? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
In this situation we have three things. We have a statement, we have fact/reality, and we have correspondence. Truth is that correspondence. You recognize that there are three aspects to this definition. 1. The actual state of affairs which you call 'fact/reality'. I'm ok with that. Ok. 2. The statement that describes the state of affairs. In other words, the all-important description which is being corresponded with the state of affairs or fact/reality. No!, not "in other words". In those words. In this situation, we have three things. We have a statement, we have fact/reality, and we have correspondence(or not) between the statement and fact/reality. To talk about statements "being corresponded" is to talk about the verification/falsification methods of the claim by humans. That is our looking to see if the claims correspond. That is another matter altogether that cannot be properly set out until this one is. 3. Truth is this correspondence. In other words, truth is the recognition that the description correctly describes the state of affairs. Because that is precisely the correspondence we are referring to. No!, not "in other words". In those words. Truth is correspondence. Truth is not "the recognition that the description correctly describes the state of affairs." That would make truth equal to mental states of the mind. Truth is correspondence. So that is "my" definition of truth Well, it's not really "my" definition, this is what humans have meant by 'truth' for millennia. I learned this myself from having been a scientist and mathematician. Yeah, well. That definition is wrong. And it appears now that you are fully on-board with this but still seem to have some objections. The screaming pretentiousness.  You're still trying to 'separate' this concept of 'correspondence' between a description and a state of affairs, and somehow 'objectify' it in it's own right as though is is some sort of independent mysterious thing called 'truth'. That's not how I view this. I'm not going to say that you are 'wrong'. I'm just going to say that this isn't how I view this. I'll try to convey why I feel this way, and perhaps you can respond with why you feel differently. I see no reason to 'objectify' this correspondence into some sort of independent entity in its own right. Where would that lead? As far as I can see that would only serve to unnecessarily confuse the issue at hand. Well, I am going to say that you're wrong, because you are in more than one way. This thread is about truth. Before we can discuss truth, we must first get to it. Your setting it out the wrong way, therefore if we follow your path, we cannot get to it. Not only is your definition wrong, your use is wrong as well, your depiction of my use is waaaay wrong, and conflicts with a month's worth of posts. My patience with that conflation between what you think about what my position is and what my position is... is wearing. I'm not speaking in uncertain terms here. My use had been consistent throughout. Despite very consistently laying things out, you've continued to misunderstand what I've written. That comes from the "in other words" kind of thinking. No!, not in other words. My position is put forth in my words. Use them when attempting to understand what that position is. Pay attention. Correspondence is connective. Truth is connective. No objective, no subjective... connective. The terms "objective" and "subjective" have no part in a proper discussion of truth. That has already been supported more times than I care to count. We have two things that are being corresponded. The state of affairs (or fact/reality if you prefer), and the statement (or description) of the state of affairs. Those are the elements involved and when the description (i.e. statement) is said to correctly describe the state of affairs we assign a truth value of true to that statement. So at that point the 'truth value' belongs to the statement. That precisely what we have done. We have assigned 'truth' to this statement. Truth value and truth are not the same thing. One(truth value) is assigned by humans. Truth is not. Truth is correspondence. Truth value can be falsely assigned. Correspondence cannot be false. A statement either corresponds or not. So the statement is now said to be 'true'. In other words it is a 'truth'. And all we mean by that is that this statement (i.e. this description of the state of affairs) has passed this process. And that's what we mean by 'truth'. That's why you're wrong. You've called what is believed to be true statement "truth". Correspondence is what makes that statement true, not our assessment of it. Truth is that correspondence. That how I view this process. I keep things SIMPLE. Kind of like Occam's Razor. Why make things unnecessarily complicated? Fantastic question! If there is an absolute, then that is an absolutely fantastic question. Tell, which is more simple? 1. Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. 2. Truth - A correspondence between a description of a state of affairs, where the description correctly describes the state of affairs. If this criteria is met, then the description itself can actually be referred to as "a truth". Now it appears to me that you are attempting to 'objective' truth by creating some mysterious totally independent entity called "correspondence" and treating it as though it has some sort of independent existence in its own right. What would be the point to that? Where does that lead? In what way would that be useful? Where are you going with this mysterious phantom entity that you have created and called 'truth'? In what way are you going to make use of this idea? Well, setting aside the fact that there is no "phantom entity" necessary for the position that I'm arguing for. Setting aside the fact that it's already bee explained why the terms "objective" and "subjective" do not belong in a discussion of truth. Setting aside all of that... It is, and has been quite useful in it's ability to clearly show the flaws in the historical, conventional, religious, and lay-man (mis)conceptions of truth, while simultaneuosly being able to take all things, old and new, including yet to have been discovered knowledge about the way things are into account. I would say that that is quite an accomplishment. Ever heard of Goedel's Completeness Theorem? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as the philosophical question is truth subjective. I would say yes it is. Remember the Socrates story about people in the cave? They only saw shadows of things so for them the shadows were what existed, the "truth." One escaped and saw daylight and living humans and other things, not just their shadow, before he was caught. When back among the "shadow" people, they all thought he was crazy to saw what he did. After all, the shadows were truth. I don't even understand what I was trying to say! Maybe explore the truth with a grain of optimism? The people set things out the wrong way to begin with. The shadows were not "the truth". The shadows were states of affairs. The shadows were fact. The people believed that the shadows were the only things that existed. The belief was false because it did not correspond to fact/reality. The mistake the shadow people made was to presupposes that they perceived everything that existed. The fact that people set truth out in the wrong way does not make truth subjective, it makes people's understanding subjective. But the "truth" is subject to people's understanding, which makes it in fact subjective to what people believe. We contaminate the "truth" if you will. That is why I am cautious about it, I know my subjective understanding could be wrong, like it is in physics. Then again, I knew physics was in a state of flux anyway. So I try and keep an open mind about everything as it can change in ways unknown to expose a "better truth" can I say? Geez, this is getting too complex of an argument since I don't want to be a philosopher! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to being able to think about the properties of a tree; the leaves, the trunk, the branches, the bark, the fruit, etc. Prior to being able to look at these things, prior to being able to use them, prior to being able to think about how it all works and in what way it works... One must first believe that the tree is there. Truth is central. What? So are you now equating belief to truth? No. What that example sets out is the fact that one must first believe that something exists, prior to being able to think about it in more complex ways. Thought/belief necessarily presupposes truth/reality correspondence. Knowledge necessitates pre-existing thought/belief. Knowledge of the tree, and it's goings on, are founded upon thought/belief. Thought/belief are founded upon the necessary presupposition of truth/reality correspondence. By the way what kind of 'logic' was that? Shouldn't it more logically be?: "One must first believe that the tree is there." Therefore Belief is central. Thought/belief is central to knowledge. The necessary presupposition of truth/reality correspondence is central to belief, therefore truth/reality correspondence is central to everything thought, believed, and known.  Belief must come before Truth! I believe this is true. Well you're wrong, and that belief is false. Belief presupposes truth/reality correspondence, as the example given clearly sets out, as the studies that Di posted earlier clearly sets out. As your own words set out, even though this setting out of things is completely unbeknownst to you, evidently. I'll show this here... It is a matter of fact that thought/belief necessarily presupposes truth/reality correspondence, it is not a matter of belief. After all... You've just stated a belief that "belief must come before truth" and you think/believe that that matches up to the way things are, just like a Christian believes that God created the universe, and they believe that that matches up to the way things are. Whether or not those beliefs are true is entirely determined by whether or not they correspond to fact/reality. Truth is that correspondence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Sat 08/06/11 12:28 PM
|
|
Well, I am going to say that you're wrong, because you are in more than one way. This thread is about truth. Before we can discuss truth, we must first get to it. Your setting it out the wrong way, therefore if we follow your path, we cannot get to it. Not only is your definition wrong, your use is wrong as well, your depiction of my use is waaaay wrong, and conflicts with a month's worth of posts. My patience with that conflation between what you think about what my position is and what my position is... is wearing. Well, don't blame me for your inability to communicate in a precise and clear fashion. You should be able to type up a single well-organized post that states your position very clearly (especially if you have been working at this for months!). Then when someone is unclear on your position just post that description so they can read your definitions and stance. Such a post should be able to be quite small and concise and to the point. In fact, I should do the same thing. I think I could almost just go back and grab on of my previous posts to use for that. But don't blame me for your weariness of not being able to make your position clear. I'm not speaking in uncertain terms here. My use had been consistent throughout. Despite very consistently laying things out, you've continued to misunderstand what I've written. That comes from the "in other words" kind of thinking. No!, not in other words. My position is put forth in my words. Use them when attempting to understand what that position is. Well, two things here: 1. I do not understand your position because from my point of view it is incomplete and therefore meaningless, and not useful. (see below) 2. I use "in other words" in an effort to show how I view these concepts. BECAUSE they way that you write them they appear to me to be incomplete and therefore meaningless. Example follows: Abra wrote: That how I view this process. I keep things SIMPLE. Kind of like Occam's Razor. Why make things unnecessarily complicated? Creative Responded: Fantastic question! If there is an absolute, then that is an absolutely fantastic question. Tell, which is more simple? 1. Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. 2. Truth - A correspondence between a description of a state of affairs, where the description correctly describes the state of affairs. If this criteria is met, then the description itself can actually be referred to as "a truth". Occam's Razor is not solely about simplicity, it's also about workability. Occam's Razor states that if you have two theories or descriptions of something, and they BOTH WORK, then choose the simpler one. Your stand alone definition of truth is meaningless as it is stated. You state. 1. Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. But you have failed to recognize or describe what it is that is being corresponded with fact/reality. So it's a meaningless statement as it stands. It has no comprehensible or useful meaning. It BEGS the question correspondence with what? What is fact/reality being corresponded with that constitutes 'truth'? You're definition is incomplete and therefore it is utterly meaningless. Sure, my definition may appear to be less 'simple' than your because it contains more information, but that's irrelevant. My definition WORKS! Your's doesn't work. It has no meaning as it is written. You haven't clarified what is being corresponded with fact/reality. So it's nonsense to apply Occam's Razor to these two definitions because one of them WORKS and the other one DOESN'T. You need to have two WORKABLE systems before you can apply Occam's Razor to accept the simpler of the two. The both need to WORK first! ~~~~~~ Show me how your definition WORKS! You state. 1. Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. So then how do you determine truth? How do you determine that a 'correspondence' has been achieve? And what things are being 'corresponded'? Show me how your definition actually WORKS as it stands, and THEN and ONLY THEN can we apply Occam's Razor. And if you end up corresponding your fact/reality with a 'description of that state of affairs, then DUH! You've got my definition, not yours! So show me how your definition works. So me an EXAMPLE of how you determine this correspondence and what exactly is being corresponded. Show me how you determine 'truth' using your definition. Can you do that? If you can show me how your definition actually WORKS then you'll have my attention. And if you can't show me how it works, then why should I believe that it's a "workable" definition? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as the philosophical question is truth subjective. I would say yes it is. Remember the Socrates story about people in the cave? They only saw shadows of things so for them the shadows were what existed, the "truth." One escaped and saw daylight and living humans and other things, not just their shadow, before he was caught. When back among the "shadow" people, they all thought he was crazy to saw what he did. After all, the shadows were truth. I don't even understand what I was trying to say! Maybe explore the truth with a grain of optimism? The people set things out the wrong way to begin with. The shadows were not "the truth". The shadows were states of affairs. The shadows were fact. The people believed that the shadows were the only things that existed. The belief was false because it did not correspond to fact/reality. The mistake the shadow people made was to presupposes that they perceived everything that existed. The fact that people set truth out in the wrong way does not make truth subjective, it makes people's understanding subjective. But the "truth" is subject to people's understanding, which makes it in fact subjective to what people believe. We contaminate the "truth" if you will. That is why I am cautious about it, I know my subjective understanding could be wrong, like it is in physics. Then again, I knew physics was in a state of flux anyway. So I try and keep an open mind about everything as it can change in ways unknown to expose a "better truth" can I say? Geez, this is getting too complex of an argument since I don't want to be a philosopher! I don't want to be a philosopher either. Philosophy is like religion. It's a search for supernatural unicorns.  I prefer the math and sciences and I approach things in a very practical albeit abstract manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as the philosophical question is truth subjective. I would say yes it is. Remember the Socrates story about people in the cave? They only saw shadows of things so for them the shadows were what existed, the "truth." One escaped and saw daylight and living humans and other things, not just their shadow, before he was caught. When back among the "shadow" people, they all thought he was crazy to saw what he did. After all, the shadows were truth. The people set things out the wrong way to begin with. The shadows were not "the truth". The shadows were states of affairs. The shadows were fact. The people believed that the shadows were the only things that existed. The belief was false because it did not correspond to fact/reality. The mistake the shadow people made was to presupposes that they perceived everything that existed. The fact that people set truth out in the wrong way does not make truth subjective, it makes people's understanding subjective. But the "truth" is subject to people's understanding, which makes it in fact subjective to what people believe. We contaminate the "truth" if you will. No it's not. Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. Truth is completely unaffected by people. Your words here are the logical consequence of setting truth out in the wrong way to begin with. It can be corrected. For instance... X is true if, and only if, it corresponds to fact/reality. Let X be thought, belief, or claims thereof. So... 'The cup is on the table' is a true claim if, and only if the cup is on the table. That is why I am cautious about it, I know my subjective understanding could be wrong, like it is in physics. Then again, I knew physics was in a state of flux anyway. So I try and keep an open mind about everything as it can change in ways unknown to expose a "better truth" can I say? A little skepticism is a good thing, especially given the amount of falsehood that are purporting to be "truth". Our understanding is subjective. Our understanding can be wrong, and often is. For instance, the way you have set things out here shows me that truth, to you, is something that is or can be "exposed". That objectifies truth. Truth is not an object. Truth connects thought/belief to reality because truth/reality correspondence is necessarily presupposed within thought/belief. I'll see if I can put this simply... When we look out into the world, we see things going on. These goings on are events/instances. They have things, objects, and what not that the events are comprised of. We form thought/belief that there are things out there, that there are things going on. In order to form thought/belief about these things we necessarily presupposes that the the things are there. That is truth/reality correspondence being autonomously engaged in thought/belief. Truth is that correspondence. The presupposition of truth connects thought/belief to reality. It connects the subject to the world. We are both, objects in the world and subjects taking a personal account of it and ourselves. That account presupposes truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll tell you what Abra. Let's put our money where our mouth is, so to speak. Throughout this thread, you've been quick to make claims about my position, when it is quite clear that you do not understand it. Now, you're overtly claiming that "Truth is correspondence to fact/reality" is a useless way to set truth out.
Back it up. Show an example where it cannot account for things. After we're done with this part of the discussion. I'll be more than glad to continue showing you where your definition fails to be able to remain coherent. I'll show you where your definition fails to be able to account for well known and well documented fact that mine takes into account quite successfully. I'll show you how you're confusing fact and truth, descriptions and truth, and belief and truth. Are you ready? Are you willing? I'm asking that you justify your claim that "truth is correspondence to fact/reality" is useless. Will you back up your claims? Will you put your money where your mouth is, so to speak? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 08/06/11 01:04 PM
|
|
Your stand alone definition of truth is meaningless as it is stated. I don't think that you're grasping the overall strength of the argument here. Truth/reality correspondence is the source of meaning. No words would have meaning. No thought would have meaning. No belief would have meaning, if truth/reality correspondence were not necessarily presupposed in thought/belief. I've given you the beginning, and you've called it incomplete... Too funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 08/06/11 01:20 PM
|
|
Showing why and how a definition of truth fails.
Truth - A correspondence between a description of a state of affairs, where the description correctly describes the state of affairs. If this criteria is met, then the description itself can actually be referred to as "a truth". If truth is a correspondence between a description and a state of affairs, where the description incorrectly describes the state of affairs, then correspondence is not extant. Therefore, the phrase "where the description correctly describes the state of affairs" is redundant. It is unnecessary to denote "correct" correspondence because there is no such thing as incorrect correspondence. Correspondence cannot be incorrect. That simplies the definition to this... Truth is a correspondence between a description of a state of affairs. I'm not willing to call that "a truth". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth is correspondence to fact/reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll tell you what Abra. Let's put our money where our mouth is, so to speak. Throughout this thread, you've been quick to make claims about my position, when it is quite clear that you do not understand it. Now, you're overtly claiming that "Truth is correspondence to fact/reality" is a useless way to set truth out. Back it up. Show an example where it cannot account for things. After we're done with this part of the discussion. I'll be more than glad to continue showing you where your definition fails to be able to remain coherent. I'll show you where your definition fails to be able to account for well known and well documented fact that mine takes into account quite successfully. I'll show you how you're confusing fact and truth, descriptions and truth, and belief and truth. Are you ready? Are you willing? I'm asking that you justify your claim that "truth is correspondence to fact/reality" is useless. Will you back up your claims? Will you put your money where your mouth is, so to speak? What?  You're the one who claims to have a "Workable Definition" of truth. It's up to YOU to demonstrate how your definition works. It's not up to me to prove that it can't work. What kind of an asinine request is that? You're the one who needs to put your money where your mouth is. You claim to have a workable definition of truth. So show us how it works. What's so hard about that? If you can't show how your very own definition of truth works then why should anyone believe your claim that it's a workable definition? I have nothing vested in your definition of truth. If you can't make it work, then I'll be more than happy to accept that it can't be made to work. It's no skin off my nose. It's not my definition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth is a correspondence between a description of a state of affairs. I'm not willing to call that "a truth". I couldn't care less what you are willing to call 'a truth'.  Why should I care what you are willing to call a truth? With all due respect your views and opinions are meaningless to me. I haven't seen you make any sense yet. You haven't even shown how your definition of truth can even work. What's the problem?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are we reading the same thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth is a correspondence between a description of a state of affairs. I'm not willing to call that "a truth". I couldn't care less what you are willing to call 'a truth' Are you willing to call that truth, because that is what your definition boils down to? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you have here is a failure to communicate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have three things... a description, a state of affairs(fact/reality), and correspondence, or the lack thereof.
Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. That exhausts every imaginable claim about the way things are. Any objections? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen any workable definitions for truth other than the one I gave.
So I'm content to accept that thus far I'm the only one who has a workable definition for truth. I had it before I came here, and I'll still have it when I leave. That's all I need. I'm all set. If you are still "searching for truth" then it's obvious that you don't have a workable definition yet. If you did, you wouldn't still be searching for truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you have here is a failure to communicate. Truly.  I'm happy with my state of affairs. If Creative is still discontent with his state of affairs that's his problem, not mine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bah.
Nonsense begets nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the difference between a true and a false belief?
|
|
|
|
|
