True statements: Philosophy Forums

True statements

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 137
Total Posts: 7490

Posted 07/21/09 - 11:48 PM:	#551
I am looking for the reason Oag thinks we are committed to facts being either objective or subjective. He says: oag wrote: I have given you reason, many, many times...most recently in post #546. Really? well, let's take a look at #546: oag wrote: I am making the distinction from the allegation that some truth is objective. In discussing the nature of truth there are only those two possibilities to consider. Since to know THE absolute truth would require absolute knowledge of the universe we can never have that. This leaves only subjective truth. Having established that then one can properly dissect why and how we see truth, how we present it, what it all means, etc. As long as someone is locked into the false impression that the term truth can be used to represent objective facts/states of affairs then one is operating in fantasy mode and their POV is of no use. No, I can't see it here. Can anyone else? My point of course is that if "is true" is redundant then perhaps there need be no worries about sorting out subjective and objective truths. Which I like, since it seems to me to be a waste of time.
Stan Cross: For gorsake, stop laughing: this is serious

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 137
Total Posts: 7490

Posted 07/21/09 - 11:54 PM:	#552
Just noticed that this thread has beaten the private language thread and is now the longest thread I have started on this forum.
Stan Cross: For gorsake, stop laughing: this is serious

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2316

Posted 07/22/09 - 12:39 PM:	#553
Banno wrote Just noticed that this thread has beaten the private language thread and is now the longest thread I have started on this forum. Isn't it satisfying to kill at least two birds with one stone!

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 744

Posted 07/22/09 - 10:20 PM:	#554
oag wrote: I am making the distinction from the allegation that some truth is objective. In discussing the nature of truth there are only those two possibilities to consider. Since to know THE absolute truth would require absolute knowledge of the universe we can never have that. This leaves only subjective truth. Having established that then one can properly dissect why and how we see truth, how we present it, what it all means, etc. As long as someone is locked into the false impression that the term truth can be used to represent objective facts/states of affairs then one is operating in fantasy mode and their POV is of no use. (My reinterpretation without using the terms subjective or objective) The argument... There are two types of truth. One of them is perfect. Humans can not posses perfect truth, deduction leaves only imperfect truth. Edited by Cheshire on 07/24/09 - 04:50 PM
Or not.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/24/09 - 10:24 AM:	#555
unenlightened wrote: That may well be your point of view, but it is of no use. It isn't really. It works for me though and that is all that is important. You have to find a view of reality that works for you since your reality differs from mine. If talking about the world is a fantasy, then what, pray, is not a fantasy? Talking about our observations of the world. Those we can test, and repeat and verify. Your absolutism simply deprives the words of any meaning. In other words, I'm afraid you are talking nonsense. Really? In saying that everything we say is merely a statement of our perception of reality am I not merely making a statement of my perception of reality? Where is the nonsense? If I were to deny that we can state absolute truth and then declare that this was absolute truth I would be speaking the nonsense which you obviously misunderstand my position to represent. When I say that we cannot speak the absolute truth but only opinion then I am obviously just stating my own opinion about that in support of my position. I'm sorry that this went over your head.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/24/09 - 10:26 AM:	#556
Cheshire wrote: Oag, Is the statement "All truths are subjective" an objective truth about truth? Obviously not. If all truths are subjective then the existence of an objective truth is precluded. Are you new?

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/24/09 - 10:38 AM:	#557
Cheshire wrote: oag wrote: The argument... There are two types of truth. One of them is perfect. Humans can not posses perfect truth, deduction leaves only imperfect truth. Did I say perfect? While I don't disagree with the argument YOU have proposed, I find it disingenuous of you to attempt to make it the argument I have proposed. I don't think it is accurate to conflate the words perfect and objective in this case. The argument stems from people insisting that the 'state of affairs' or objective reality contains truth. It sets up the equation that truth is that which is objectively true, the way things really are, the 'state of affairs'. This creates the delusion that an expression of a perception of reality is representational of this objective truth, a true statement, if it matches objective reality. Humans do not possess the template for determining this match. We do not have the yardstick for determining how close of a match it is. Thus the measure for determining the truth of a statement in this manner is bogus. It is a misperception of what the word truth actually represents. It does not represent objective reality. A true statement always represents a someone's personal, subjective perception.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 3908

Posted 07/24/09 - 10:49 AM:	#558
oag wrote: It works for me though and that is all that is important. Until you want to communicate. oag wrote: I'm sorry that this went over your head. I'm very uninterested in your sorry perceptions.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/24/09 - 11:04 AM:	#559
unenlightened wrote: Until you want to communicate. Why does it become important then? I'm very uninterested in your sorry perceptions. No doubt. However, I see that you perceive that I and others should be interested in yours and continue to share them. Such is online life. Get over it little fella.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 744

Posted 07/24/09 - 04:52 PM:	#560
oag wrote: Did I say perfect? While I don't disagree with the argument YOU have proposed, I find it disingenuous of you to attempt to make it the argument I have proposed. My mistake; I corrected the post in question.
Or not.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.