Your opinion: absolute truth or subjective truth?

[QuickTwist]

In this poll I am asking for your authentic response in whether you hold a core value that truth is absolute or that truth is subjective.

 

[Analyzer]

I view it from an epistemological Misean or Kantian point of view.

There are both. You could say a priori truth is a necessary truth, while a posteriori is subjective.

All bachelors are unmarried - a priori necessary truth. This is based on a tautology or logic.

The sun is in the center of the solar system - a posterior truth based on empirical evidence or observation from senses.

 

[The Void]

I don't know. I have no opinion.

 

[scorpiomover]

In this poll I am asking for your authentic response in whether you hold a core value that truth is absolute or that truth is subjective.

It has been shown to me, that there are absolute truths.

But the path to truth is blocked by many obstacles. Even more, much of physics, mathematics and philosophy suggest that one's knowledge is always partially incorrect. So it seems that humans probably know very few absolute truths, if any. Thus the majority of things that humans call "truth", are most likely, relative truths.

 

[Jennywocky]

Unprovable, ultimately.

However, there are lots of things we can test that give consistent results that would seem to suggest an enduring truth (if you take the betting odds). We just can never quite verify it or know if it's just a subjective truth within a larger framework.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Yes and even if it would apply in every case you can think of, every test you can apply, you cannot rule out the possibility that it would fail just once sometime under some conditions.

Unprovable and truth should be protected, so that one group of people doesn't impose their subjectivity on another group as it happens now under the name of the absolute or axiom.

 

[TBerg]

Truth is only an a priori prerequisite for communication. Otherwise it does not mean anything. It is also a necessary belief in order to try to understand anything.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Truth is only an a priori prerequisite for communication. Otherwise it does not mean anything. It is also a necessary belief in order to try to understand anything.

I don't think so. You could understand something and see how this cannot be true and something else is more true than this thing.

I responded to your post not even knowing what you mean by your truth, so there was no true value of truth established.

Also, there are many communications that do not even establish any truth value, it would be required in sharing the information that would later be interpreted in the same way by both. Depends how you define communication, if it is sharing information then obviously it is otherwise.

See it is even impossible to establish something like this, you can believe and have functional truths while communicating, no real truths to it.

 

[Cherry Cola]

subject and object are ultimately intertwined yet in a discrete relationship with one another in a way that is currently beyond our scope of understanding

the question is pointless

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

but objectivity is also our subjective concept, what is going on?

objectivity could be something that is not that we have and it is something that we can create in small and closed systems that we control in every detail, if there are such systems or if there ever will be

 

[Brontosaurie]

why does your poll have alternatives for two separate questions?

you're not gonna get any useful information from it.

 

[RaBind]

why does your poll have alternatives for two separate questions?

you're not gonna get any useful information from it.

^This. If things aren't mutually exclusive people shouldn't be made to face a false dilemma.

 

[QuickTwist]

I can see why people think in communication that truth is subjective given the nature of what communication is at its root, using language and the like to communicate. One person uses a thing as a reference point to get an idea across and this point of reference is suppose to establish an idea to another party. It is understood that this can be a error of reference between the communicator and the party receiving the message. But even in this, once the reference has been established it can easily be understood by the recipient of the outgoing message. Does this constitute as a truth?

On the other hand outside of communication there seems to be certain staples that hold this universe together and in this I believe there is then great objectivity for the claim that there is such thing as absolute truth. Furthermore, I believe that it is possible to prove that there are such things as absolute truths in this reality however difficult it may seem; it is possible.

Outside the confines or reality it must be understood that everything would indeed fall apart. This can be applied to anything that is worth communicating as well as what is know and can be know, for our presence in time is sure to prove that without a measure of what truth is we will cease to exist.

 

[BigApplePi]

While I voted truth is subjective. If we use the scientific method, we can head toward objectivity and call it objective if we can't find exceptions and enough experts agree.

Such was the case with Newton being true until Einstein came along. Practically speaking though, Newton is true. Cursory observation reveals the Earth is the center of the universe. Broader study reveals it ain't so. the Sun isn't either, BTW. The Sun orbits the outer edges of our galaxy. The black hole at the center of our galaxy ain't the center either ... but I digress.*

There is another kind of truth which is subjective but absolute. That is when a person decides on hir own what is true. This is what people of action MUST do.

Now is truth provable? My answer to that relies on the very steps of the proof. Can we accept the method as true or not? Look at this:

I am lying.
Therefore I'm telling the truth.
Therefore I'm lying.

*Some people claim THEY are the center of their universe. Fancy that.

 

[QuickTwist]

While I voted truth is subjective. If we use the scientific method, we can head toward objectivity and call it objective if we can't find exceptions and enough experts agree.

Such was the case with Newton being true until Einstein came along. Practically speaking though, Newton is true. Cursory observation reveals the Earth is the center of the universe. Broader study reveals it ain't so. the Sun isn't either, BTW. The Sun orbits the outer edges of our galaxy. The black hole at the center of our galaxy ain't the center either ... but I digress.*

There is another kind of truth which is subjective but absolute. That is when a person decides on hir's own what is true. This is what people of action MUST do.

Now is truth provable? My answer to that relies on the very steps of the proof. Can we accept the method as true or not? Look at this:

I am lying.
Therefore I'm telling the truth.
Therefore I'm lying.

*Some people claim THEY are the center of their universe. Fancy that.

(In bold) this was basically one of the points I was trying to make; thank you for pointing this out. The other point that goes along with this is that although this is true IMO it seems as though what is "proven" in modern times may have certain elements of subjectivity to them, however, the longer we use the same terms and the more basic they seem to us to describe something as represented as truth the more valid the terms become because they are not dis-proven. Of course this is not without some changes to the outer-lying parts of the principle but if the core remains the same, we have come closer to reality.

 

[Minuend]

If truth is subjective, then that statement is subjective. Doesn't that create a paradox

I think it's probable there is a state of matter that is truth, but whether humans are able to observe any of it is impossible to tell. We can only make assumption based on knowledge we have and what seem probable. There is a chance that we are very wrong, but it's impractical living a life where we don't make any assumptions. I think there is a truth to how the universe works.

 

[Milo]

Unprovable, ultimately.

However, there are lots of things we can test that give consistent results that would seem to suggest an enduring truth (if you take the betting odds). We just can never quite verify it or know if it's just a subjective truth within a larger framework.

I concur.

Actual truth is unprovable, so it is only practical to view subjective truth which then becomes the next best thing to explore, IMHO (which is in fact malleable to any way in which you wish to perceive it).

 

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi
While I voted truth is subjective. If we use the scientific method, we can head toward objectivity and call it objective if we can't find exceptions and enough experts agree.

it seems as though what is "proven" in modern times may have certain elements of subjectivity to them, however, the longer we use the same terms and the more basic they seem to us to describe something as represented as truth the more valid the terms become because they are not dis-proven.

If truth is subjective, then that statement is subjective. Doesn't that create a paradox

I think it's probable there is a state of matter that is truth, but whether humans are able to observe any of it is impossible to tell. We can only make assumption based on knowledge we have and what seem probable. There is a chance that we are very wrong, but it's impractical living a life where we don't make any assumptions.

Wasn't it DeCartes (sp?) who said, "I think, therefore I am"? He never defined "I". A baby feels but can't say, "I am." That's because the baby hasn't acquired the experiential personal subjective expertise to form the concept of an "I."

One of the problems is, why are we trying to define "truth" in the first place? Psychologically speaking all we are doing is trying to get at something reliable so we can lead our lives. "Truth" is a word we assign to fulfill this psychological desire. I have a theory that eventually all philosophy will be determined to be a branch of psychology, but I don't think academia is ready yet to buy off on that.

 

[BigApplePi]

So far I see the poll has two people saying, "Truth is absolute." I would very much like to hear how they experience that. That is because I believe they might have something. It would be a clue as to how some would experience absolute truth while others fail.

 

[QuickTwist]

Sure I'll take a stab at it but its just a guess and nothing more. I hope those who voted that way make their voice heard but if they don't I might as well guess.

The interpretation that I am seeing here, is that truth may not be interpreted as in absolute truth like I wanted it to represent, but instead that saying truth is absolute they are really saying truth is al fine, the end, and that nothing more needs to be said about the subject. Again, just a guess.

 

[Infinitatis]

Ironically, there is no way to answer this question in a way that allows one whom is a believer in subjective truth to accurately convey what is meant. Truth is ultimately paradoxical.

If I answer that truth is subjective, I have deemed that absolute truth is true, if one is to believe such.

If I answer that truth is unprovable, I have deemed that truth's provability is true, if one is to believe such.

I do not believe in truth. Can that be an option?

Well %$@#. I'm not even sure if the nonexistence of truth is paradoxical.

 

[Infinitatis]

Ultimately unprovable, and thus unprovably unprovable, etc.

However, if logic is universal:

We often see that there are two types of truth: absolute (objective) truth and relative (subjective) truth. Absolute truth is constant, unwavering, and consistent. Relative truth is inconstant, variable, and inconsistent.

I don't make many assumptions; however, if I do, I still consider alternatives probabilistically before proceeding. The most easily refuted assumption that I make is that logic is universal. I believe it is universal, but I know that I can't know if logic is universal (although this reasoning is arrived at with logic, so perhaps it is not so). In the following (and previous) arguments, I will be operating under the assumption that logic is universal.

Absolute truth is a logically coherent system. Accordingly, the truth simply is. However, its logical coherence does not necessitate that it exists.

Relative truth, on the other hand, is logically incoherent. If truth is dependent upon perception, and one's perception could be that relative truth does not exist, it would be true to say that something both is and isn't, which is fallacious reasoning, and thus relative truth is not logically possible.

Therefore it can be concluded that absolute truth is the only possibility, right? Not quite.

Many of you will probably think that this isn't quite how you have conceptualized relative truth. This is likely so because we have been trying to conceptualize perception as a form of truth.

If you are a relativist, the next paragraph will probably seem to be a more accurate description of what you believe:

Why operate under the assumption that truth exists? Perhaps truth does not exist. If truth does not exist, nothing can be proven (not even these statements or this parenthesized note), for proof is founded upon truth. It is not self-contradictory to posit it to be true that truth does not exist, but rather is self-constructive, as the very nature of truth is negated thusly.

By this reasoning, I conclude that truth must exist absolutely or not at all, and never "relatively," per se. Of course, the necessity for something to "must exist" is negated without truth, yet it remains logically coherent.

 

[Reluctantly]

Well, to verify the truth of something, you need to first have a basis of what is true or false in order to derive any kind of true or false conclusion(s).

It represents a philosophical problem because any system of logic that aims at proving what is true or false requires assumptions about truth to do so. You can't prove these assumptions/axioms, without creating more assumptions/axioms, meaning you never can truly prove without any doubt that what you think is true is actually true...or even false.




But if absolute truth does exist, then it doesn't matter if we can prove it or not because all we have to do is find it. Following this reasoning, I can induce that absolute truth does exist by assuming it does not. For example, let's say the world has no absolute elements or laws that make it up, that everything in reality is constantly changing. Then if someone were to 'observe' a time-period of the world, they could find certain things to appear constant, at least in that time-period; we could call these temporary constants because they give a temporary form to reality. Of course though, perception is also dependent on the vantage point of the perceiver, making it somewhat subjective. So we could argue any temporary form of reality requires a certain amount of subjectivity to go along with its objective undercurrent/nature to exist.

Now...despite the fact that logically you can't prove or disprove truth, given a changing reality it is possible for perception to give a form to objective reality from its subjective vantage point for a given period of time. Thus the summation of all forms of reality would give an absolute reality that exists as an infinite set of all of its different forms over all time. Now this set, if it exists, may not be countable, meaning it would have no inherent order to its summation; regardless it still would absolutely represent all of its forms, existing as a synthesis of the objective with the subjective.

So...in this case we assumed absolute truth does not exist, yet still found that a collection of all forms of reality is absolute in its representation. And we see that these forms require both the subjective and the objective to exist. So even if absolute truth doesn't exist, it still has to exist.

Or maybe I'm just playing with definitions at this point, but I can't answer your questions directly with this train of thought in my head.

 

[Anling]

I voted that truth is absolute, though I believe that there is both objective and subjective truth. Everything is not relative, there is objective reality. But, a lot of what we refer to as truth is subjective, or conditional. I think there is an objective reality, but our experience of it is necessarily subjective. Scientists try to come to a closer approximation of reality with their theories and hypothothes, but the truth is real whether we know it or not or can understand it or not. Also, the details tend to get complicated.

Rather like I believe in an objective standard for morals, but a lot of what we view as good or evil depends on what our goal is. From a religious perspective, if you believe that your diety or dieties are real and have personality, then some things will be pleasing to them and draw one closer to them and some things will do the opposite. But if you don't care or don't believe that, then it doesn't matter what any religion says. Personally, I think that society needs to be based on the objectively true, on what is good for us as human beings. Divine commands only work if one has enough experience with the entity to trust its intentions. Or alternately know that it really will kick your ass if you don't do what it says, but that doesn't make it moral, just expedient.

Some things are objectively true and some things are true but merely preference. And some things are necessarily true and cannot be otherwise.

 

[Black Rose]

reality is subjective(just take LSD to confirm this)

truth is absolute(I exist and cannot doubt it)

no mathematical proof can prove both completeness and consistency of itself.

 

[PaulMaster]

All of the above. Some is objective, some is subjective. Some is knowable and some is not.

 

[Sly-fy]

I am baffled by people saying that truth is subjective. Opinion is subjective but the truth is the truth. 2+2 is 4. 2+2 can only ever be 4. That is absolute truth. If someone were to claim that 2+2=5, you could objectively say that that person is wrong, and subjectively you could say that they're stupid. However, they're subjectively smart to someone who answers that 2+2 is "an orange," for instance.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

It is the absolute truth that truth is always subjective and ultimately truth is absolutely unprovable; I have absolute certain proof that proves the truth statement that truth is absolutely unprovable. I am totally avoiding contradictions too.

 

[AndyC]

I chose absolute. Not that absolute truth has ever been seen, laws of logic suggests that we cannot know the absolute truth, but it doesn't imply that it cannot exist. Truth is an abstract term like time, which are neither completely understood, but as topics can still have their own attributes. To find truth means to go through never ending deduction, but this cannot be achieved without induction, only leading us to accept truth not as a concept worth understanding, but we use something similar as a tool. In sense, such a tool can be used to find a spectrum of truth. So in the end we needed reason to find ourselves with proof on the more absolute side of the spectrum, bringing about artificial truth. So, we created our own abstract definitions to suit our needs in arguments and reasoning. Natural truth is the only absolute truth, but we can't find it without using artificial truth. Sorry for being vague and self-contradicting, but this is my view after a few seconds of contemplation.

 

[omics]

Others have said more-or-less the same, but, here's my take:

Truth is absolute, by definition, no matter how complex and nuanced that truth is. It's like the word, "reality". It either is absolute, or it is not itself, and is therefore meaning-collapsed, if not meaningless.

My, and every other person's, perception of truth, however, is subjective.

The more "angles of perception" you as an individual, or we as a group, can get on the truth, the more chance we have of reaching greater objectivity, perhaps even to such an extent that we might call ourselves "objective" ...or, at least, "most objective". This is not assured, however.

You could have a huge number of such metaphorical angles and not get anywhere near objectivity, due to those particular angles being largely "wrong" ones...poor quality, distorted by other factors, facing the wrong way round... you hopefully get the idea.
Think (most) 16th century science...or all that was "scholastic theology".

Questioning how I determine "wrong" from "right", distorted from tortlike? It's under the spoiler break pocket world thing.

Spoiler

1. More angles... more data, more analysis... just keep chugging along, pretty much.

2. Use the best reasoning we've got to check each bit of thought to make sure it all adds up and plays nicely with all the other bits. Some bits of consideration: assumptions, causal relationships, all other inferences, data, metadata (level of error/trust in your data-sources, etc), and even reasoning itself. What we call logic can and has been improved upon.

3. Really learn how our brains tick and how it sometimes tricks us. You are your #1 instrument of analysis, and I am my own... to get the best results we must keep calibrated and well-understood to ourselves.
If we're talking about ourselves as existing in a group, in a society, and we are talking about that, we also need to do this for any other relevant individual in our analysis, and society/culture as a whole.

4. Diversify information-sources. Keeps things nicely broad, helpfully balanced. Goes along with Step 1.

And that's all I can think of for now. There's probably more to it, especially in that blackbox I left around how to improve on imperfect logic/reasoning systems, but, point is, there is a sensible way to go about assessing information and reasoning, even if it's not immediately going to yield us all the secrets of the universe(s). I, for one, can barely believe I'm tentatively pluralizing a word with "uni" in its prefix, but here we are.