Truth - Subjective or Objective?

[dreamcore]

Is truth subjective or objective?

Imagine there is a person A and person B. Person B says something that person A conciders truth, however, it is a lie. Can we call person B liar when he/she was not consciously aware that what he told is lie?

This is question I have posted in one of facebook INTP's groups.

 

[Rixus]

Person B is neither a liar nor are they telling the truth. They are misinformed. Person A may be knowingly lying, but person B should accept responsibility for not verifying the information before passing it on as truth.

If the question was posed on a Facebook group, the answer is particularly pertinent. If Person B does not check the content of a post to be factual before sharing it as truth, they are at fault for not verifying the information. In these cases, I would forgive the stupidity but for the fact that I have corrected their knowledge before now and been completely ignored, and they continue to share the same mindlessly non-factual posts regardless of being given the correct information, even when links are provided to verify my correction. At this point, they have consciously chosen to uphold the lie and therefore become liars themselves.

It's that choice to accept the truth when it is discovered or uphold the lie that separates being given misinformation or lying in this context. I think it's also worth asking the question, "did Person B have reasonable cause to accept the truth as it was presented or were there grounds for questioning?" And of course, was it reasonably plausible for them to ascertain the truth?

 

[dreamcore]

I tend to agree Person B is not a liar, he just gave misinformation, liars are more likely to give disinformation so they could gain something from this

 

[onesteptwostep]

It just depends on whether your girlfriend think it's a lie or not. It's relative.

 

[Grayman]

Depends how you go about validating their view as true or false. Many things are subjective in part or whole and therefore cannot be categorized in such a manner.

 

[gilliatt]

Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which could be altered, in whole or in part. This is irrational, emotional....Objectivity-a relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality existence independent of any perceiver's consciousness. Also, a person gains knowledge by reason, logic etc. this is how one gets to truth..

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Damn, what a necro.

 

[gilliatt]

This might be off subject...What is Reason? It means 'Order'. I always think more than I have said....tends to be an INTP trait.

 

[Grayman]

This might be off subject...What is Reason? It means 'Order'. I always think more than I have said....tends to be an INTP trait.

How can one order their thoughts and emotions if they don't test them against others on a regular basis? Wouldnt that testing require much speach and deliberation?

 

[scorpiomover]

Is truth subjective or objective?

Imagine there is a person A and person B. Person B says something that person A conciders truth, however, it is a lie. Can we call person B liar when he/she was not consciously aware that what he told is lie?

How do we know that person B wasn't consciously aware that he was lying?

 

[Daddy]

Kind of seems irrelevant if this involves degrees of truth, like in politics. Then everything is kind of a truth and a lie and we're all full of shit to some extent (though some people are clearly more full of shit than others).

 

[BurnedOut]

As sad as it sounds, truths are subjective by their property of arising from perspectives if we consider this notion from a higher perspective. From an individual's perspective they are objective.

 

[sushi]

i used to think about this question but then its really easy

if truth's existence is independent of observation, then its objective.

if truth is dependent on observer and observation, then its subjective

often mutiple observers disagree on the same truth when they observe an event or occurance. hence subjectivism.

the closest to objectivism is multiple observers agree on the same thing, assume they cant lie.

 

[gilliatt]

The only mind that you can project completely is your own at its most consistent, clearest level of functioning. Writing here, I am trying to convince myself.
The process of clear, clarity in writing is the opposite of subjectivism, a complexed difficult responsibility. 'If I write for myself, I know what I want to say, and anything I write will be clear to me even a few shorthand notes. What is required in writing is strict objectivity. That is why you must write to yourself as if you did not know the subject. In writing, your best reference is yourself. Switch perspective between that of the writer and that of the reader. the best training in objectivity. Sometimes, step back and read your writing, judge it by reading it like a stranger.

 

[Black Rose]

nothing outside the self is provable

anything that we can prove is already in the self

Determinism I think

 

[Grayman]

i used to think about this question but then its really easy

if truth's existence is independent of observation, then its objective.

if truth is dependent on observer and observation, then its subjective

often mutiple observers disagree on the same truth when they observe an event or occurance. hence subjectivism.

the closest to objectivism is multiple observers agree on the same thing, assume they cant lie.

A herd of liars are the most dangerous. Aka the media

 

[Beliefofmine]

A person can be wrong and not a liar. Lying implies knowing something is not true but saying it anyways.

You can be wrong and believe you're correct.

Person B tells Person A there's 20 marbles in a jar. But there turns out to be only 19. They're wrong, but they weren't lying because they were speculating on something that they didn't have proof of when making the statement.

If Person B counts the marbles and tells person A there's 20 marbles in the jar. There's two possibilities. One they miscounted and genuinely believed that there was 20 marbles, or they maliciously were trying to misrepresent the count to person A.

How do you prove the malicious intent? Person B even if they were malicious, could deny it and claim it was simply an error. Short of finding some physical evidence where person B had counted and written down several times the count to be 19, but still represented it as 20 to person A, it would be difficult to "prove" they are lying.