Objective truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter mymamamary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mymamamary

Guest
I saw a meme on Catholicmemes.com

It had the troll face and the captions said something like this:

“Is the fact that there are no objective truths objectivley true?”

I agree. However for all relativists out there, this is bad news. That means that the statement “There are no objective truths” is a lie, and there has to be more Objective truths.

Anyone agree?
 
Reminds me of

Are you absolutely sure there is no such thing as an absolute??
 
mymamamary said:
“Is the fact that there are no objective truths objectivley true?”

I agree. However for all relativists out there, this is bad news. That means that the statement “There are no objective truths” is a lie, and there has to be more Objective truths.
Click to expand...
Dubay said:
Reminds me of

Are you absolutely sure there is no such thing as an absolute??
Click to expand...
I think it’s only a problem for those that take a rather polarized view of truth values; either something is true or its not. I don’t think it is as much of a problem for those that use some of the gradiated model of truth value. Under these views an objective proposition can have have degrees of truth to it.

As a kind of crude example given a car that is painted teal the statement “the car is blue” would be of a higher truth value than “the car is red.” Or given an object that is 53mm thick the statement “the object is 50mm thick” is of higher truth value than “the object is 20mm thick.”
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I think it’s only a problem for those that take a rather polarized view of truth values; either something is true or its not. I don’t think it is as much of a problem for those that use some of the gradiated model of truth value. Under these views an objective proposition can have have degrees of truth to it.

As a kind of crude example given a car that is painted teal the statement “the car is blue” would be of a higher truth value than “the car is red.” Or given an object that is 53mm thick the statement “the object is 50mm thick” is of higher truth value than “the object is 20mm thick.”
Click to expand...
Respectfully you dodged both questions on absolutes and objective.
 
If the fact that there is no objective truth is objectivley true, then this renders the first statement untrue and thus a lie. There would be an objective truth, which rationally would lead to other objective truths. Attempting to take a relative and subjective stand on objective issues never ends well. Precious Morals become comprimised. Then chaos starts to happen. Hitler took a subjective stand.

Truth for e.g

There are no Half truths. Its either a full lie or a full truth.

Killing:

Intentional murder is wrong. Period. Doesnt matter what excuse you make up to try and twist it subjectivley so you can get off, its wrong. Period.
 
Dubay said:
Respectfully you dodged both questions on absolutes and objective.
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t dodge anything. “Absolute” is a polarizing statement. But as I mentioned in my response not every one polarize propositions. I also used two objective statements in my examples. It’s possible we are not talking about the same thing by the word “objective” though. I have seen that not every one uses it to mean the same thing in these forums. To avoid ambiguity here is a definition from a dictionary that comes closest to my interpretation of the word as used in the question.

Merriam Websters said:
3a - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretation
Click to expand...

If the definition I’m using is other than that which is intended please let me know. If there is some other part of your statement to which you would like me to give more attention please highlight it.

Thanks.
 
mymamamary said:
I saw a meme on Catholicmemes.com

It had the troll face and the captions said something like this:

“Is the fact that there are no objective truths objectivley true?”

I agree. However for all relativists out there, this is bad news. That means that the statement “There are no objective truths” is a lie, and there has to be more Objective truths.

Anyone agree?
Click to expand...
From what I observe, most people have no clue what the word “objective” means and/or how it should be applied.:sad_yes:

Note: I just read post 7.

Apparently M. Webster and a few other readers understand the word “objective”. By adding “not all” to my original statement ---- my observation that most, not all, people have no clue what the word “objective” means and/or how it should be applied.:sad_yes: still stands.
 
grannymh said:
From what I observe, most people have no clue what the word “objective” means and/or how it should be applied.
Click to expand...
Well, it means many things. The intended meaning for any given sentence is dependent on the speaker’s intentions. In any case, would you mind enlightening me with what the intended meaning is here if it differs from what I have taken it to mean?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I think it’s only a problem for those that take a rather polarized view of truth values; either something is true or its not. I don’t think it is as much of a problem for those that use some of the gradiated model of truth value. Under these views an objective proposition can have have degrees of truth to it.

As a kind of crude example given a car that is painted teal the statement “the car is blue” would be of a higher truth value than “the car is red.” Or given an object that is 53mm thick the statement “the object is 50mm thick” is of higher truth value than “the object is 20mm thick.”
Click to expand...
TS:

But: that your cat that is lying on the road these past three days, crushed completely by your teal car, is more than likely dead, is not subject to gradient value. 👍

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
But: that your cat that is lying on the road these past three days, crushed completely by your teal car, is more than likely dead, is not subject to gradient value. 👍
Click to expand...
LOL! While a rather morbid scene, you got a smile out of me with that one! Let me take a couple of days (by which time the cat will have been there for 5 days) and I’ll come back with an argument on how the cat isn’t completely dead!

But seriously, gradients don’t prevent a proposition from being able to being very closely aligned with an objective state.

Now pardon me while I step out to make sure that my cat is really okay. 🙂

Edit: I know one might wonder why I said “closely aligned” instead of saying 100%. It has to do with the scenario that Descartes presented about how he would not know whether or not his senses were being manipulated by some other entity or reflective of reality. For those not familiar with that discussion instead think of the movie “The Matrix” and how the people in it may find it difficult to know whether or not they are experiencing reality or their senses are being manipulated by machines. There’s also some brain in a jar example, but I think you get the point.
 
Truth is binary. Either a statement is true or false. Some people think they are clever or sophisticated by claiming shades of grey, but they don’t understand logic. Language can ambiguous, but truth is binary. If fuzzy logic was allowed, almost all of mathematics and philosophy is nonsense.

“Is this blue?” is not a statement. Unless you are discussing the frequency of light, stating that something is blue is not a logical statement. We would need to be more precise since it is not true or false and by definition is not a logical statement. Discrete Math IS useful. 😃
 
ThinkingSapien said:
No, I didn’t dodge anything. “Absolute” is a polarizing statement. But as I mentioned in my response not every one polarize propositions. I also used two objective statements in my examples. It’s possible we are not talking about the same thing by the word “objective” though. I have seen that not every one uses it to mean the same thing in these forums. To avoid ambiguity here is a definition from a dictionary that comes closest to my interpretation of the word as used in the question.

If the definition I’m using is other than that which is intended please let me know. If there is some other part of your statement to which you would like me to give more attention please highlight it.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
TS:

I prefer definitions from the first uses of words, in their native languages. For example, if we track down the meaning of object (ob jectum) back to its Latin origin, object meant that which is thrown against something else, IOW, a kind of obstacle that must be overcome. From this, St. Thomas describes it to mean, that which primarily and essentially confronts any vital power. (Summa Theologica, I, q. 85, a. 8.)

That being said, the word “objective” is derived from the word, “object.” At best, objective means, that which stands outside of us. IOW, that which is on the outside of our eyeballs. So, I’m good with your choice of definition.

God bless,
jd
 
ThinkingSapien said:
LOL! While a rather morbid scene, you got a smile out of me with that one! Let me take a couple of days (by which time the cat will have been there for 5 days) and I’ll come back with an argument on how the cat isn’t completely dead!

But seriously, gradients don’t prevent a proposition from being able to being very closely aligned with an objective state.

Now pardon me while I step out to make sure that my cat is really okay. 🙂

Edit: I know one might wonder why I said “closely aligned” instead of saying 100%. It has to do with the scenario that Descartes presented about how he would not know whether or not his senses were being manipulated by some other entity or reflective of reality. For those not familiar with that discussion instead think of the movie “The Matrix” and how the people in it may find it difficult to know whether or not they are experiencing reality or their senses are being manipulated by machines. There’s also some brain in a jar example, but I think you get the point.
Click to expand...
TS:

You don’t have a teal car do you? :eek:

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
I prefer definitions from the first uses of words, in their native languages.
Click to expand...
I find etymology to be pretty interesting myself! Just recently found out the English word “Black” and the Spanish word “Blanco” (meaning white) come from the same base word. But let me stop before I ramble further into unrelated matters…
JDaniel said:
That being said, the word “objective” is derived from the word, “object.” At best, objective means, that which stands outside of us. IOW, that which is on the outside of our eyeballs. So, I’m good with your choice of definition.
Click to expand...
Glad we’ve reached compatible understandings! 🙂
 
I guess if you are claiming that truth is illogical, shades of grey exist.

“Logical statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false,”
 
JDaniel said:
TS:

I prefer definitions from the first uses of words, in their native languages. For example, if we track down the meaning of object (ob jectum) back to its Latin origin, object meant that which is thrown against something else, IOW, a kind of obstacle that must be overcome. From this, St. Thomas describes it to mean, that which primarily and essentially confronts any vital power. (Summa Theologica, I, q. 85, a. 8.)

That being said, the word “objective” is derived from the word, “object.” At best, objective means, that which stands outside of us. IOW, that which is on the outside of our eyeballs. So, I’m good with your choice of definition.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
And in what ways, are you applying your choice of definition? Re: post 8.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I find etymology to be pretty interesting myself! Just recently found out the English word “Black” and the Spanish word “Blanco” (meaning white) come from the same base word. But let me stop before I ramble further into unrelated matters…

Glad we’ve reached compatible understandings! 🙂
Click to expand...
TS:

Don’t let this go to your head! :ouch:

God bless,
jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top