Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[fisherman_carl]

If there is no truth that is objective then that would mean whatever I think about is true. If I think I am Napoleon then it is true that I am Napoleon. Because no one could tell me that it is objectively false that I am Napoleon. And if someone else claims that they are Napoleon then that must also be true since truth is relative. But if I did not believe them to be Napoleon as I am then that would also be true. So something would be true and not true at the same time. Yet it is logically impossible to be Napoleon and not Napoleon at the same time. Thus, not believing in objective truth leads to such absurdities.

 

[Rhubarb]

I’ve never come across any literature that’s given credence where someone claims that ALL truth is relative.

Clearly SOME truth is relative - the truth value of propositions using indexicals can be relative, eg. “I think Spam is delicious.”

 

[DonCampbell]

People need to realize that relativism is only a weigh station on the road to the new dogma. It is a necessary first step. The West is experiencing a seismic shift in its understanding of what is true. In order to get to the point of rejecting (even outlawing) the old dogmas, you must first preach that all dogmas are relative and should be permitted. Only then can you outlaw the old dogma and impose the new one.

 

[Bradski]

You are confusing facts with what can be considered morally right or wrong.

If you kill someone, that is a fact. Did you kill someone? Yes. So it’s true. Did you do something wrong?

The statement ‘killing someone is wrong’ is not objective, it is relative. Relative to the situation. As soon as you add a qualifier, and it is often inherent without necessarily being stated, then you make the statement relative.

‘Torturing puppies is wrong’. Are you saying that causing harm is wrong? No, what you are actually saying is that ‘causing harm to young dogs for no reason other than to gain enjoyment from the act is wrong’. The second statement is just more accurate. And obviously, causing harm is relative to that situation. It’s not objective.

 

[grannymh]

If there is no truth that is objective then that would mean whatever I think about is true. If I think I am Napoleon then it is true that I am Napoleon. Because no one could tell me that it is objectively false that I am Napoleon. And if someone else claims that they are Napoleon then that must also be true since truth is relative. But if I did not believe them to be Napoleon as I am then that would also be true. So something would be true and not true at the same time. Yet it is logically impossible to be Napoleon and not Napoleon at the same time. Thus, not believing in objective truth leads to such absurdities.

First, you need a proper definition of Objective Reasoning and a proper definition of Subjective Reasoning. Try Google or a dictionary.

Once one understands the difference between Objective Reasoning and Subjective Reasoning, then one can proceed to Objective Truth. Relativism is an off-shoot of Subjective Reasoning. This is why objective truth is not relative.

Technically, one has to use Objective Reasoning in order to determine if some proposition is Objective Truth. In other words, subjectively thinking that one is Napoleon could be either right or wrong until the Objective Truth is determined. True truth is universally objective.

Note:
Being able to recite “Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers.” will be helpful.

 

[Convert1]

Unless you think you’re God. Then the truth is evident… you’re not.

 

[godisgood77]

If there is no truth that is objective then that would mean whatever I think about is true. If I think I am Napoleon then it is true that I am Napoleon. Because no one could tell me that it is objectively false that I am Napoleon. And if someone else claims that they are Napoleon then that must also be true since truth is relative. But if I did not believe them to be Napoleon as I am then that would also be true. So something would be true and not true at the same time. Yet it is logically impossible to be Napoleon and not Napoleon at the same time. Thus, not believing in objective truth leads to such absurdities.

There are absolutely objective truths. The issue comes in when people try to apply objective truth to things that are not objectively true. There are very few objective truths…

 

[Rhubarb]

Something else I thought of - what do we mean by objectively true and/or objectively false?

I should think tautologies are objectively true. After all, they’re statements that cannot be false under any interpretation. eg. (A^~A) Likewise, contradictions are also objectively false. At least (A&~A) is always false.

If I’m right that tautologies are ‘objectively true’ and contradictions are ‘objectively false’, then we have certain propositions that are ‘subjectively true/false’ in the case of indexical-using statements, and there are certain propositions that are ‘objectively true/false’.

 

[grannymh]

Something else I thought of - what do we mean by objectively true and/or objectively false?

Objectively true simply means that Objective Reasoning has been applied. Objectively false simply means that Objective Reasoning has been applied.

Both Objective Reasoning and Subjective Reasoning are a rational process of the human mind.

It might be helpful to refer back to post 5.

 

[Rhubarb]

Objectively true simply means that Objective Reasoning has been applied. Objectively false simply means that Objective Reasoning has been applied.

Both Objective Reasoning and Subjective Reasoning are a rational process of the human mind.

It might be helpful to refer back to post 5.

I did poke around, but I can’t find a hard and fast definition of either. Not like you can find when you search for deduction, induction, and abduction.

What I found was less about “reasoning” and more about “making reasons.”

 

[Bradski]

Objectively true simply means that Objective Reasoning has been applied. Objectively false simply means that Objective Reasoning has been applied.

I’m not sure that you have to apply any reasoning to anything that is objectively true or false. That it is one or the other is an a priori fact.

‘This car is red’ is objectively true. It requires no reasoning. It would be true even if there were no-one in existence to make the statement. There are no options, either stated or implied. That the car is red is not dependent on anything. It is not relative to anything.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure that you have to apply any reasoning to anything that is objectively true or false. That it is one or the other is an a priori fact.

‘This car is red’ is objectively true. It requires no reasoning. It would be true even if there were no-one in existence to make the statement. There are no options, either stated or implied. That the car is red is not dependent on anything. It is not relative to anything.

Did you see the car? Where was the car? Was the car something that you remembered from the past. Did you like your first red car? Did someone tell you that the car is red and do you trust that person to tell the truth? What kind of reasoning would take place if you wanted to buy the car?

These kind of questions help in determining if one is using objective reasoning or subjective reasoning or a combination of both.

I am suggesting two of the many, many ways of reasoning to objective truth. Objective truth appears in the title of this thread.

 

[Rhubarb]

I’m not following this at all.

 

[grannymh]

I did poke around, but I can’t find a hard and fast definition of either. Not like you can find when you search for deduction, induction, and abduction.

What I found was less about “reasoning” and more about “making reasons.”

Very interesting.

I can work with “making reasons” if we can be on the same page. I do recognize that I am selecting two means to the truth out of many, many ways to get to the truth. I chose objective reasoning and subjective reasoning because the term “relativism” is in the title of this thread.

 

[Rhubarb]

Very interesting.

I can work with “making reasons” if we can be on the same page. I do recognize that I am selecting two means to the truth out of many, many ways to get to the truth. I chose objective reasoning and subjective reasoning because the term “relativism” is in the title of this thread.

Well, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning mean specific things. What I found about objective/subjective reasoning was mostly about eliminating biases in an argument, like, in a debate. The example I found was “we should care for the elderly because there are lots of elderly people”, as opposed to “we should are for the elderly because someday I’ll be elderly and will want care.” The former is apparently objective, while the latter is subjective. (Which is why I don’t like using ‘objective’, ‘subjective’ and ‘relative’ as they are overused and the meanings get muddled.

Generally naturalistic facts are what people point to as objective - dogs have four legs (within reason) is objectively true. Normative facts are generally what people point to as subjective - we all should order vanilla ice cream can be subjectively true or false.

The rub is that certain normative questions (such as morality) are thought to have an objective truth in Catholic thinking.

 

[Bradski]

Did you see the car? Where was the car? Was the car something that you remembered from the past. Did you like your first red car? Did someone tell you that the car is red and do you trust that person to tell the truth? What kind of reasoning would take place if you wanted to buy the car?

These questions are irrelevant.

It doesn’t matter if I saw the car or not, where the car actually is, whether I remembered it, whether I liked my first red car, whether someone told me or not if it was red, whether that person is truthful or not or what decisions I need to take if I wanted to buy it.

If the car is actually red, if it is a fact that this car reflects light in a particular wavelength, then none of those questions affect that fact in any way whatsoever. It is a blunt, incontrovertible, undeniable, objective truth about the car.

If the car (plus a light source) was the only thing in existence, then your questions would be meaningless. Yet the car would still be red. Objectively so.

That this is in any way controversial is beyond me.

 

[grannymh]

Well, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning mean specific things. What I found about objective/subjective reasoning was mostly about eliminating biases in an argument, like, in a debate. The example I found was “we should care for the elderly because there are lots of elderly people”, as opposed to “we should are for the elderly because someday I’ll be elderly and will want care.” The former is apparently objective, while the latter is subjective. (Which is why I don’t like using ‘objective’, ‘subjective’ and ‘relative’ as they are overused and the meanings get muddled.

Generally naturalistic facts are what people point to as objective - dogs have four legs (within reason) is objectively true. Normative facts are generally what people point to as subjective - we all should order vanilla ice cream can be subjectively true or false.

The rub is that certain normative questions (such as morality) are thought to have an objective truth in Catholic thinking.

Good grief. No wonder we are not on the same page. I am a tad worried about what I will say next. When it comes to morality, an example of objective truth in Catholic thinking is this simple statement. The human person is worthy of profound respect. The operative words are human person.

 

[Rhubarb]

Good grief. No wonder we are not on the same page. I am a tad worried about what I will say next. When it comes to morality, an example of objective truth in Catholic thinking is this simple statement. The human person is worthy of profound respect. The operative words are human person.

No, don’t feel worried! That’s what philosophy is all about - hammering down through it.
But yeah, whenever I hear people “being relativistic” is usually involves normative questions - “that’s all relative”, or, “it depends on your point of view.”

 

[grannymh]

These questions are irrelevant.

It doesn’t matter if I saw the car or not, where the car actually is, whether I remembered it, whether I liked my first red car, whether someone told me or not if it was red, whether that person is truthful or not or what decisions I need to take if I wanted to buy it.

If the car is actually red, if it is a fact that this car reflects light in a particular wavelength, then none of those questions affect that fact in any way whatsoever. It is a blunt, incontrovertible, undeniable, objective truth about the car.

If the car (plus a light source) was the only thing in existence, then your questions would be meaningless. Yet the car would still be red. Objectively so.

That this is in any way controversial is beyond me.

You are absolutely right. My apology, I did not set the stage correctly.

 

[Bradski]

No worries, Granny.

But having said that, if we agree that there are a priori, stand alone objective facts, then any, and I mean any qualification added to that fact renders it relative to that fact.

Take the proposition: ‘People are worthy of respect’. I think that’s less flowery and certainly less emotive than ‘The human person is worthy of profound respect’ yet still means effectively the same.

Would you say that all men and all women deserve respect? I guess that in this context, giving respect means to appreciate the inherent dignity owed to fellow humans. But even then, dignity implies perhaps an innate quality of worth. Do all men (please assume I mean both men and women whenever I use the masculine) have this quality of worth?

To use Australian examples, is Martin Bryant, a mass murderer of men, women, children and babies worthy of respect? With no qualifications added to that question, is it possible to answer yes? In equal measure, is Weary Dunlop, a World War II hero, worthy of respect (you’ll have to look these people up for further info)?

Dunlop deserves the respect of anyone who knows his story. Bryant deserves none. And why? Because we qualify these men. We quantify what they did and that makes them worthy of respect relative to their deeds.

As they stand alone, just as two men, both a tabula rasa with nothing with which we can compare them, we can say, perhaps objectively, that we should grant them a certain degree of dignity.

However, by their deeds we shall know them. And by their deeds shall we evaluate them. And by their deeds shall we determine their worth and the dignity that should be accorded them.

And so, qualifying these men, measuring their actions relative to what we personally deem acceptable or not, we decide if they are worthy of our respect.

So should we respect all men? Do they all deserve respect? I find it difficult to believe that they do. Maybe God does, but that wasn’t the question.