Is Truth Subjective?

[bobzills]

traditionally, the answer is that god only undergoes what’s called a “cambridge” change, which is to say that he undergoes only a nominal change.

it’s like the “change” that the great pyramid undergoes when i walk from my desk to the printer. or, perhaps more to the point, it is like the change god undergoes when i start thinking about him.

in the same way, the incarnation would be said simply to involve a new relation to another human body rather than a change to the divine substance.

and those kinds of changes aren’t precluded by the traditional doctrine of divine immutability.

The Incarnation brings up many questions in this area.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

There is objective truth - His name is Jesus Christ. You have free will to accept or reject that truth. If you reject it, that doesn’t make what you’re doing the truth.

Someone can try to rationalize having an abortion - that doesn’t change the fact that objectively, it’s evil and a sin to kill an unborn baby.

 

[john_doran]

For this point, if knowledge is then a function of something that we do, that would point to the subjective nature of knowledge.

absolutely. knowledge is inherently subjective: it is the grasp of propositions by a knower, a subject. but it is a subjective apprehension of an objective reality.

it is the objectivity of the “truth” that allows us to be subjectively mistaken in our beliefs.

 

[bobzills]

how is the proposition “i collapsed the wave-function of the electron so that it is (generally) there” any less objectively true or false than the proposition “i put the glass in the sink there”?

It is because it will depend on the model that you are using to determine whether the collapse is fundamental or epiphenomenal. So what is the truth concerning the collapse of the wave function? Is it a fundamental physical phenomenon, as indicated by the Copenhagen interpretation or the transactional interpretation or is the collapse of the wave function not fundamental as indicated by the ensemble interpretation, or the Bohm interpretation? Or is the truth subjective in the sense that the collapse of the wave function will be fundamental or not depending on which model you are using to describe the phenomena in question?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

traditionally, the answer is that god only undergoes what’s called a “cambridge” change, which is to say that he undergoes only a nominal change.

it’s like the “change” that the great pyramid undergoes when i walk from my desk to the printer. or, perhaps more to the point, it is like the change god undergoes when i start thinking about him…

Gentlemen, I will politely bow out of this conversation. reason, it is degrading to sheer foolishness. To think that we, creatures could in any way change the essence of the creator who is not subject to his own creation, is the epitome of foolish pride. Y’all have fun.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Mea_Culpa]

It is because it will depend on the model that you are using to determine whether the collapse is fundamental or epiphenomenal. So what is the truth concerning the collapse of the wave function? Is it a fundamental physical phenomenon, as indicated by the Copenhagen interpretation or the transactional interpretation or is the collapse of the wave function not fundamental as indicated by the ensemble interpretation, or the Bohm interpretation? Or is the truth subjective in the sense that the collapse of the wave function will be fundamental or not depending on which model you are using to describe the phenomena in question?

Because we don’t understand how something works and have formed differing hypotheses to explain a certain phenomena, doesn’t mean that there isn’t an objective truth, just that we haven’t understood it yet. You try to sound very intellectual, throwing out terms without explaining them (but only succeed in making yourself sound pompous) - but it would be like if my car were making a funny noise and I thought it could either be a loose fan belt or a broken water pump. Just because I don’t know yet which it is, doesn’t mean that it’s not one or the other - an objective truth.

If the truth were subjective, you could say my fan belt was loose, I could say my water pump was broken, and we’d both be right. But it doesn’t work that way.

 

[john_doran]

It is because it will depend on the model that you are using to determine whether the collapse is fundamental or epiphenomenal. So what is the truth concerning the collapse of the wave function?

i don’t know (though i believe that there is no such thing).

but that’s totally beside the point: whether or not i know the answer, there actually is an answer to know. objectively.

 

[john_doran]

Gentlemen, I will politely bow out of this conversation. reason, it is degrading to sheer foolishness. To think that we, creatures could in any way change the essence of the creator who is not subject to his own creation, is the epitome of foolish pride. Y’all have fun.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

i will politely point out that you totally misunderstood my post: i am saying that we can’t change the ESSENCE of god, and that the only “changes” that can be made to god aren’t really changes at all.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

i will politely point out that you totally misunderstood my post: i am saying that we can’t change the ESSENCE of god, and that the only “changes” that can be made to god aren’t really changes at all.

Slight correction. God is with a capitol "G"
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[bobzills]

i don’t know (though i believe that there is no such thing).

but that’s totally beside the point: whether or not i know the answer, there actually is an answer to know. objectively.

Still, there is a problem. Take for example, the following statement:
Vaccinations are good for you.
Now
I submit that the truth of this statement is somewhat subjective.
For example, if the vaccination prevented you from getting polio, then it was good.
However, if the vaccination caused problems, such as autism or entanglement of DNA with bad consequences, then it was not good.

 

[john_doran]

Still, there is a problem. Take for example, the following statement:
Vaccinations are good for you.
Now
I submit that the truth of this statement is somewhat subjective.

it’s not that the truth of the statement is subjective: it’s that the sentence is ambiguous as to which proposition it is being used to express.

it’s like any other ambiguous sentence, like “visiting relatives can be annoying”: is what is meant here

1. going to visit relatives can be annoying; or
2. relatives who come to visit one’s residence can become annoying.

since only propositions are either true or false, the fact that there are sentences that can be used to express more than one proposition has no bearing on the objectivity of truth.

bobzills:

For example, if the vaccination prevented you from getting polio, then it was good.
However, if the vaccination caused problems, such as autism or entanglement of DNA with bad consequences, then it was not good.

ok. so what proposition is being expressed by this sentence? be precise.

if it is something like “vaccinations never cause harm”, then it is false.

if it is closer to “vaccinations often prevent harm”, then it is true.

 

[bobzills]

it’s not that the truth of the statement is subjective: it’s that the sentence is ambiguous as to which proposition it is being used to express.

it’s like any other ambiguous sentence, like “visiting relatives can be annoying”: is what is meant here

1. going to visit relatives can be annoying; or
2. relatives who come to visit one’s residence can become annoying.

since only propositions are either true or false, the fact that there are sentences that can be used to express more than one proposition has no bearing on the objectivity of truth.

ok. so what proposition is being expressed by this sentence? be precise.

if it is something like “vaccinations never cause harm”, then it is false.

if it is closer to “vaccinations often prevent harm”, then it is true.

Well, the question being brought up is whether our non-mathematical statements can ever be so precise to the degree that they are always (under all conditions and at all times) unambiguous.
It is lack of obvious precision in the statement:
This vaccination will be good for you - that makes it a subjective call - it will depend on the person and we may not know the answer in advance. How precise do our non-mathematical statements have to be in order for them to be irreformable in the future development of our knowledge?

 

[john_doran]

Well, the question being brought up is whether our non-mathematical statements can ever be so precise to the degree that they are always (under all conditions and at all times) unambiguous.
It is lack of obvious precision in the statement:
This vaccination will be good for you - that makes it a subjective call - it will depend on the person and we may not know the answer in advance. How precise do our non-mathematical statements have to be in order for them to be irreformable in the future development of our knowledge?

this is a question of epistemology, not metaphysics: even if we can never attain knowledge (or know that we have attained it), there are still objective truths. the former has absolutely nothing to do with the latter.

just because we may not be able to see some truths doesn’t mean that they’re not there to be seen.

 

[bobzills]

just because we may not be able to see some truths doesn’t mean that they’re not there to be seen.

Would you consider this to be an unprovable axiom?
In any case, our knowledge of the real world is communicated and expressed in terms of statements. To the extent that these statements are not precisely formulated, it may be said that the truth of these statements could have a subjective aspect. For example, is the female perception of the world exactly the same as the male perception of the world?

 

[john_doran]

Would you consider this to be an unprovable axiom?

well, it’s certainly “unprovable” if truth is subjective: proving something is demonstrating the objective features of one or more propositions; and if truth is subjective, there aren’t any objective features to anything.

bobzills:

In any case, our knowledge of the real world is communicated and expressed in terms of statements. To the extent that these statements are not precisely formulated, it may be said that the truth of these statements could have a subjective aspect.

for sure there is a subjective aspect to knowledge acquisition and language-use: i say “it is raining”, and my german friend says “es regnet”, two statements which bear no orthographic relation to one another. but that’s got nothing to do with whether or not it is or is not, in fact, raining.

bobzills:

For example, is the female perception of the world exactly the same as the male perception of the world?

what has this got to do with “truth” understood as the property propositions have when the world is the way that they say it is?

 

[bobzills]

well, it’s certainly “unprovable” if truth is subjective: proving something is demonstrating the objective features of one or more propositions; and if truth is subjective, there aren’t any objective features to anything.

for sure there is a subjective aspect to knowledge acquisition and language-use: i say “it is raining”, and my german friend says “es regnet”, two statements which bear no orthographic relation to one another. but that’s got nothing to do with whether or not it is or is not, in fact, raining.

what has this got to do with “truth” understood as the property propositions have when the world is the way that they say it is?

Statements are sometimes said to be true or false. But if there is a subjective aspect to our knowledge and formulation of statements, then why would it be wrong to say that the truth of such a statement may have a subjective aspect to it. I can give you a simple example from Catholic theology:
Consider the following statements:
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
I could be wrong but,
according to my understanding of the present position of the RCC, these mean the same thing when interpreted correctly.
However, according to the EO Church, these two statements mean two entirely different things. And they point to the fact that this was one of the reasons mentioned for their excommunication in 1054. If these meant the same thing then why were they cited for this in 1054?
Wouldn’t then the truth be subjective in this case, in the sense that the RCC sees the issue one way, but the EO see the issue another way?

 

[fhansen]

Statements are sometimes said to be true or false. But if there is a subjective aspect to our knowledge and formulation of statements, then why would it be wrong to say that the truth of such a statement may have a subjective aspect to it. I can give you a simple example from Catholic theology:
Consider the following statements:
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
I could be wrong but,
according to my understanding of the present position of the RCC, these mean the same thing when interpreted correctly.
However, according to the EO Church, these two statements mean two entirely different things. And they point to the fact that this was one of the reasons mentioned for their excommunication in 1054. If these meant the same thing then why were they cited for this in 1054?
Wouldn’t then the truth be subjective in this case, in the sense that the RCC sees the issue one way, but the EO see the issue another way?

All of this still merely points to the fact that human opinion about truth can be subjective-not that the truth, itself, is subjective.

 

[KingAlfred]

I have heard from several people that Truth is subjective. It is based on the our experiences. When I describe a sin (abortion, stealing, adultery, etc.) they mention exceptions e.g. "Killing is immoral but it can be moral (war in defense of an innocent other- CCC and St. Thomas Aquinas). How can I prove that Truth is objective, always being true?

Personally, I think the best you can do is to say that as a Catholic, you believe in the immutability of the Truth as defined and explained by the Catholic Church. There are many other examples of objective kinds of Truth, such as the commentary reflective of belief in Natural Law, as found in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. But, the bottom line is that in the eyes of the secularist, or follower of a belief system other than Catholic, the notion of objective, that is, changeless, Truth, is subjective in itself. Hear me right. I’m Catholic, so I agree with you, but I’ve been ‘around’ a good bit in my 51 (‘fitty one’) years, and have a prettty decent ‘bead’ on people, in general.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Hear me right. I’m Catholic, so I agree with you, but I’ve been ‘around’ a good bit in my 51 (‘fitty one’) years, and have a prettty decent ‘bead’ on people, in general.

i think you need a few more years.
Prayers & blessings
deacon Ed B

 

[archiecs2007]

We Have Two Ways Of Arriving At Truth: Subjective And Objective.

I Guess I Don’t Need To Discuss The Concept Of Subjective Truth 'cause It Speaks Of Itself But When We Say Objective Truth We Mean That An Object Or A Being Has An Objective Reality Or Truth That Is Independent Of Our Subjective Knowledge Of It. Like A Man Will Always Have An Objective Truth That Its Always A Man And Can Never Be An Animal, That Is, Whether We Se A Man Or Not.

Nevertheless, Our Subjective Truth Should Meet The Objective Truth Or Reality, If Not, We Are Living In Illusion Because There Is No Harmony To Reality Between Our Senses And Our World.