Objective truth.

[Amandil]

Of course truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Of course this is a distortion of the Platonic quote,“beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.”

As both truth and beauty have their objective source in God they, along with goodness are all objective(i.e. they are independent of the knowing subject) and self-evident.

What is good and true is necessarily beautiful; what is true and beautiful is necessarily good; and what beautiful and good is necessarily true.

Without the beholder there is no truth that means anything.

The problem is that you are making an objective statement that truth needs a “beholder”.

The statement itself is self-contradictory.

The answer to your other questions stem from the mentioned truth about the truth. Old words written down in some half forgotten language means nothing unless given a voice from a live practitioner. I.e I value your opinion more than theirs.

Those “old words written down in some half forgotten language” necessarily came from a person who was a “live practitioner”.

It is rather puzzling also that you’d demonstrate an apparent prejudice and/or bias against such people as if they don’t have anything to say.

 

[TimothyH]

This should be in the philosophy forum where it can be enjoyed by those who appreciate such things.

-Tim-

 

[grannymh]

This should be in the philosophy forum where it can be enjoyed by those who appreciate such things.

-Tim-

Going by observation, knowing how to progress from both subjective *and *objective reasoning to objective truth is a good appropriate tool for various areas of apologetics.

 

[GratefulFred]

On certain issues, there is only ONE objective Truth.

2+2 = 4 and no other answer. Individuals may accept this Truth or not. If they do not, then the “true” answer they develop is still not true no matter how strongly they think their answer is true.

On other issues, a healthy Rose is beautiful for example, most would say that is true. Still, some would say not. Perhaps they are dealing with their expectations and perceptions. Perhaps they are just being ornery. We might try for a while to convince them the Rose is indeed beautiful, but they have free will enough to accept it or not. In the grand scheme of things, their resistance to the popular conclusion is of no real consequence.

On major issues, such as the purpose of life, we know there is much debate throughout all recorded History. Most of us on this site accept The Truth that Jesus Christ is the Living Son of God and that the Catholic Church is the Church He established to help us cooperate with God’s Holy Will and, in return, eventually pass on to Heaven forever.

Some reject this and walked away from Christ and still do. Some have not been carefully taught or reject the teachings they received.

We are to do our best to follow Christ and to encourage others - by example, teaching, and prayer - but the final determining factor is God’s Gift of Faith. Whether one will accept His Gift and The Truth that goes with it or persist in being ornery, is a matter of Free Will. Rejecting The Truth does not create a new truth just as good as The Truth.

 

[grannymh]

On certain issues, there is only ONE objective Truth.

2+2 = 4 and no other answer. Individuals may accept this Truth or not. If they do not, then the “true” answer they develop is still not true no matter how strongly they think their answer is true.

 

[grannymh]

On certain issues, there is only ONE objective Truth.

2+2 = 4 and no other answer. Individuals may accept this Truth or not. If they do not, then the “true” answer they develop is still not true no matter how strongly they think their answer is true.

The reasons that 2+2=4 is an objective truth is that it exists independently from ourselves. In addition, it is an objective truth because it existed before we were born and will continue to exist after we die.

 

[Amandil]

The problem is the confusion between truth and values or “value-opinions”.

People, in this country especially(because of the influence of “enlightenment” thinking of the Founding Fathers of the United States), but because of other “enlightenment” influences from European history also, have come to believe that because we are subjects and because we form value-opinions that those “values” have replaced objective truth and thus truth is subjective. That truth is “in us”.

From there modernist philosophers have found rather sophisticated ways to say the same thing, the difference only being that they claim that truth doesn’t exist without a subject to receive it which is of course self-contradictory. They are claiming that that “truth” must necessarily be true for all(i.e. objective).

And secondly if no one existed(which is a real possibility) then there is no way that “truth” could be true at all since there would be no way for any “subject” to receive it.

Its all just epistemological sophism.

 

[Grym]

@Amandil

Hi.

I can see where and how you misunderstood me.

You mistakenly thought that I made an objective statement regarding truth value.

I am afraid that since I am not an Arahant that is impossible.

Cheers.
/Victor

 

[Grym]

2 + 2 does not at all always equal 4.

Sometimes it equals 0 or 10 or 100.

Cheers
Victor

 

[Bulbasaur05]

2 + 2 does not at all always equal 4.

Sometimes it equals 0 or 10 or 100.

Cheers
Victor

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Without the beholder there is no truth that means anything.

The problem is that you are making an objective statement that truth needs a “beholder”.

The statement itself is self-contradictory.

Aquinas defines truth as agreement between intellect and thing.

He further points out that created reality stands between two intellects and truth is involved in both relationships: created reality conforms to the creative idea in the divine intellect, and, when we apprehend things as they are, truth obtains in the human intellect.

I see no contradiction in maintaining that w/o a beholder there is no truth. Truth is by definition a relationship between an intellect and reality. Of course, being would still be without a human beholder. However, it needs a divine intellect.

 

[Amandil]

Aquinas defines truth as agreement between intellect and thing.

He further points out that created reality stands between two intellects and truth is involved in both relationships: created reality conforms to the creative idea in the divine intellect, and, when we apprehend things as they are, truth obtains in the human intellect.

I see no contradiction in maintaining that w/o a beholder there is no truth. Truth is by definition a relationship between an intellect and reality. Of course, being would still be without a human beholder. However, it needs a divine intellect.

That’s the interesting corollary in the argument about the mind’s ability to objectify the body. That there is a real possibility that there is “something” that must exist as pure subject which knows all other subjects as object completely (i.e. “I Am He Who Is”).

 

[Grym]

Bulbasaur05:
Cant sneak anything past you can I? You are correct. 2+2 can equal 0, 4, 10, 11 or a 100. Depending on how you count.

Cheery cherios.
Victor.

 

[Amandil]

Cant sneak anything past you can I? You are correct. 2+2 can equal 0, 4, 10, 11 or a 100. Depending on how you count.

Cheery cherios.
Victor.

Well, then I should have aced every single math test I ever took. For every wrong answer marked by the teacher I should’ve just said, “No Mr. Takahashi, its absolutely correct, it just depends on how you count.”

 

[grannymh]

Well, then I should have aced every single math test I ever took. For every wrong answer marked by the teacher I should’ve just said, “No Mr. Takahashi, its absolutely correct, it just depends on how you count.”

Sounds like solid subjective reasoning.

 

[Amandil]

Sounds like solid subjective reasoning.

And Mr. Takahashi would have rolled his eyes at me and told me to go sit down.

That’s the whole arrogance behind subjectivism. Where skepticism says that no one can know the truth, subjectivism says that everyone knows it.

Where skepticism denies the truth, subjectivism denies falsehood.

That’s why I truly believe that subjectivism is the philosophy of the devils. It makes the individual an absolute. It needs to be fought and exposed for the lie that it is.

 

[Grym]

Well, then I should have aced every single math test I ever took. For every wrong answer marked by the teacher I should’ve just said, “No Mr. Takahashi, its absolutely correct, it just depends on how you count.”

No I do not think that you would have aced any math test. But if you and your teacher would have agreed on counting in ring 4 then you both would have agreed that

2 + 2 = 0

If you would agree to count in Base 10 which is the normal then

2 + 2 = 4

If you would agree to count in Base 4 then

2 + 2 = 10

If you would agree to count in Base 3 then

2 + 2 = 11 and

finally if you would agree to count in Base 2 which is called binary then

2 + 2 = 100



Thus *Agreement *is necessary to know the result. Truth is defined by subjective agreement.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

@Amandil

Hi.

I can see where and how you misunderstood me.

You mistakenly thought that I made an objective statement regarding truth value.

I am afraid that since I am not an Arahant that is impossible.

Cheers.
/Victor

@Amandil

Since you have not responded to my rejection of your original argument, that my quoted statement was contradictory, I suppose you concede to the error in your judgment?

/Victor

 

[smichhertz]

No I do not think that you would have aced any math test. But if you and your teacher would have agreed on counting in ring 4 then you both would have agreed that

2 + 2 = 0

If you would agree to count in Base 10 which is the normal then

2 + 2 = 4

If you would agree to count in Base 4 then

2 + 2 = 10

If you would agree to count in Base 3 then

2 + 2 = 11 and

finally if you would agree to count in Base 2 which is called binary then

2 + 2 = 100



Thus *Agreement *is necessary to know the result. Truth is defined by subjective agreement.

/Victor

No, 2+2 = 4 regardless of base. We’re comparing values, not the digits.

1+1=10 in Base 2, but that’s the same as saying 1+1 = 2 in Base 10. The values are logically equivalent.

 

[Grym]

No, 2+2 = 4 regardless of base. We’re comparing values, not the digits.

1+1=10 in Base 2, but that’s the same as saying 1+1 = 2 in Base 10. The values are logically equivalent.

Incorrect. *We * weren’t comparing anything. Me and Amandil were discussing math tests at school.

Try telling the teacher that 2+2 = 4 when he asked for the answer in Base 3.

*Values * are also man made objects. Subjectively agreed upon concepts.
Have you ever tried telling the cat just to take 3 fish out of he bowl?

Drop me a note when you succeed. And I *might *be conveyed.

/Victor