Objective truth.

[smichhertz]

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

Victor,

Come on! This is pointless semantics and you know it. The value of 3 is 3. How we measure it may be subjective, but the underlying value is objective.

With any objective truth, obviously, there are subjective elements. For instance, knowing 3 is 3 doesn’t do me much good if I can’t find a way to measure it and utilize that concept. My application of the concept of 3 can certainly be subjective. For instance, 1 yard = 3 feet. I can change the units, bases, anything I want, but every time I do, the value changes as well.

But you know all this, and I know you understand it. So let’s stop with the pointless semantics and get back to the actual discussion at hand.

 

[Grym]

Victor,

Come on! This is pointless semantics and you know it. The value of 3 is 3. How we measure it may be subjective, but the underlying value is objective.

With any objective truth, obviously, there are subjective elements. For instance, knowing 3 is 3 doesn’t do me much good if I can’t find a way to measure it and utilize that concept. My application of the concept of 3 can certainly be subjective. For instance, 1 yard = 3 feet. I can change the units, bases, anything I want, but every time I do, the value changes as well.

But you know all this, and I know you understand it. So let’s stop with the pointless semantics and get back to the actual discussion at hand.

There is no value 3 unless in the mind of a living being. It is all subjective. That is the discussion. My claim is still unimpeded.

**Truth is in the eye of the beholder. **

The point of this discussion was to arrive at a convincing proof that the above statement is false.

Please go ahead if you can. Consider it a dare.

Cheers
Victor

 

[smichhertz]

There is no value 3 unless in the mind of a living being. It is all subjective. That is the discussion. My claim is still unimpeded.

**Truth is in the eye of the beholder. **

The point of this discussion was to arrive at a convincing proof that the above statement is false.

Please go ahead if you can. Consider it a dare.

Cheers
Victor

Hi Victor,

I’m sorry but I just can’t take the arguments you’re presenting seriously. The mere fact that you are in a debate with me refutes your arguments. How can we have a debate about anything without concepts being external to the mind? How can we enforce the absolute objective concept of subjective truth if there is not objective truth? Saying “truth is in the eye of the beholder” (if true) is an objective truth. Therefore it’s a self defeating proposition.

I’ll let you gnaw on that. I don’t think further discussion is going to be helpful, as I can’t even relate to where you are coming from, so I’m just going to leave the discussion at that.

I’m more of the mind that you are aware of what I’m saying and might just be having fun, but in case the points you are making are actually serious - I’d recommend spending some time researching and studying philosophy.

Regardless, peace to you and God bless!

 

[Grym]

Hi Victor,

I’m sorry but I just can’t take the arguments you’re presenting seriously. The mere fact that you are in a debate with me refutes your arguments. How can we have a debate about anything without concepts being external to the mind? How can we enforce the absolute objective concept of subjective truth if there is not objective truth? Saying “truth is in the eye of the beholder” (if true) is an objective truth. Therefore it’s a self defeating proposition.

I’ll let you gnaw on that. I don’t think further discussion is going to be helpful, as I can’t even relate to where you are coming from, so I’m just going to leave the discussion at that.

I’m more of the mind that you are aware of what I’m saying and might just be having fun, but in case the points you are making are actually serious - I’d recommend spending some time researching and studying philosophy.

Regardless, peace to you and God bless!

We can be in an debate because we Agree on some basic grounds to some extent. Such as language and pragmatic context of a discussion. Agreement between two or more people is what is called objective truth in many cases. But in reality it is just agreement and thus subjective.

But that which is true in one context or agreement does not need to be true in another agreement or context.

On the contrary to your assumption. Debate would not be possible if truth was objective. Then it would be obvious who was right through a simple test.

Do you have a test in mind to prove that truth is not subjective?

I can understand that you do not get my point of view. I do not need to study Philosophy but I think you would benefit from some Buddhist cultivation.

Peace to you too.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

@smichhertz

Bless you too!

/Victor

 

[grannymh]

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.

My apology. It appears that not only are we not on the same page regarding “objective truth”, we are in different books. That is my fault. :blushing:

 

[Grym]

There is no value 3 unless in the mind of a living being. It is all subjective. That is the discussion. My claim is still unimpeded.

**Truth is in the eye of the beholder. **

The point of this discussion was to arrive at a convincing proof that the above statement is false.

Please go ahead if you can. Consider it a dare.

Cheers
Victor

Even to prove that the above claim is invalid the participants would have to Agree to a system in which it can be rejected. Which in turn proves my point.

And to design a proof in such a system without relying on the Axiom that “There is an absolute truth” is pretty difficult. I would say impossible.

Normally you just end up with nonsensical, circular and above all ***subjective ***argumentation like this:

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.

Which again only goes to prove ***my *** point.

I also forgot to answer these questions.

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.

The reason they have nothing to say is because they are dead. And what they said has value only in the minds of *living * beings.

Which is the only thing I am interested in right now.

/Victor

 

[Amandil]

We can be in an debate because we Agree on some basic grounds to some extent. Such as language and pragmatic context of a discussion. Agreement between two or more people is what is called objective truth in many cases. But in reality it is just agreement and thus subjective.

This is circular logic.

But that which is true in one context or agreement does not need to be true in another agreement or context.

This is also circular.

On the contrary to your assumption. Debate would not be possible if truth was objective. Then it would be obvious who was right through a simple test.

Do you have a test in mind to prove that truth is not subjective?

Here’s your “test”:

Tomorrow night while your away from your home a group of men are going to clear your home of all your valuables.

Without appealing to any absolute or objective principles, on what basis or grounds do you posit to get your valuables back?

 

[Amandil]

Even to prove that the above claim is invalid the participants would have to Agree to a system in which it can be rejected. Which in turn proves my point.

Nonsense. I reject your claim. The onus is on you to prove that your claim is how reality actually is.

Yet you can’t do that except by appealing to absolute and objective truth statements that your system (subjectivism) is objectively true and not just true for you.

That is a self-contradiction.

And to design a proof in such a system without relying on the Axiom that “There is an absolute truth” is pretty difficult. I would say impossible.

Again, another objective statement. You’re just contradicting yourself all over the place.

Normally you just end up with nonsensical, circular and above all ***subjective ***argumentation like this:

Which again only goes to prove ***my *** point.

You apparently didn’t read it close enough. Or you don’t understand the issue.

You have to prove that my remarks were subjective, you never did. You simply asserted that they were without any reason or coherent argument to back up your claim.

That’s called begging the question.

I also forgot to answer these questions.

The reason they have nothing to say is because they are dead. And what they said has value only in the minds of *living * beings.

Which is the only thing I am interested in right now.
/Victor

Well Buddha is also dead, so, according to your logic, he has nothing to say to us either.

 

[adf417]

I have never been much into philosophy and probably should not even post here but after reading this thread I am now wondering if my back really did hurt and less importantly should I have spent all that money on the surgery to relieve the pain, or the would be pain, or whatever it was or was not?

 

[Grym]

I have never been much into philosophy and probably should not even post here but after reading this thread I am now wondering if my back really did hurt and less importantly should I have spent all that money on the surgery to relieve the pain, or the would be pain, or whatever it was or was not?

That something is subjectivly true does not mean that it is not true. . That is a misconception.

So you probably did good. Unless you were faking it?

/Victor

 

[Grym]

This is circular logic.

This is also circular.

You just *saying * that something is circular logik does not make it so. You have to present a proper argument.

Obviously you were mistaken before about my reasoning being circular.

Here’s your “test”:

Tomorrow night while your away from your home a group of men are going to clear your home of all your valuables.

Without appealing to any absolute or objective principles, on what basis or grounds do you posit to get your valuables back?

Eeer what was this supposed to prove? using what system ? Obviously if I get robbed I go to the police like anybody else.

Of course that does not mean I get my stuff back.

 

[Grym]

Nonsense. I reject your claim. The onus is on you to prove that your claim is how reality actually is.

Since ***You *** started this thread to show me how my statement is contradictory (remember?) then its all on you. Knock yourself out. Becasue you are never going to make it.

Yet you can’t do that except by appealing to absolute and objective truth statements that your system (subjectivism) is objectively true and not just true for you.

That is a self-contradiction.

Again, another objective statement. You’re just contradicting yourself all over the place.

This is a strawman argument. You are claiming that I use objective statements when I clearly can not.

This is dismissed. You will have to do better. Al my statements are subjective. Figure it out.

You have to prove that my remarks were subjective, you never did. You simply asserted that they were without any reason or coherent argument to back up your claim.

You did not make an argument. That was a statement. It is impossible to reject a statement unless using another statement.

Well here you go. Using your own procedure. It is self-evident that you are wrong.

But again the burden of proof is really on You. I never set out to prove you wrong. You did. If you are not grown to take the task just let me know.

Well Buddha is also dead, so, according to your logic, he has nothing to say to us either.

Yepp he is dead but I live the Dhamma every day. So you finally got that thing. Good.

/Victor

 

[adf417]

That something is subjectivly true does not mean that it is not true. . That is a misconception.

So you probably did good. Unless you were faking it?

/Victor

“probably”? Can I know for sure?

 

[Grym]

“probably”? Can I know for sure?

Nobody knows anything for sure. They might tell themselves they do but they really do not.

One day the sun will not rise. And that the sun will rise again is one of the things we can be most sure about by any criteria. And when the day that the sun will not rise again comes nobody knows.

All we know is that the sun will *most probably * rise tomorrow.

So you better ask yourself if you think you did good. In any case you probably shouldn’t ask me. I am the guy who thinks that everything is subjective. So what would I know. .

/Victor

 

[Amandil]

You just *saying * that something is circular logik does not make it so. You have to present a proper argument.

You’re assuming your conclusion as your premise. That’s called circular logic.

Obviously you were mistaken before about my reasoning being circular.

Are you stating that subjectively(as in only true for you) or objectively?

Eeer what was this supposed to prove? using what system ? Obviously if I get robbed I go to the police like anybody else.

It proves several things.

1. You appeal to an objective entity, the police, because you implicitly follow an objective system of law which applies absolute moral principles.
2. Your action of calling the police proves that you believe and accept in an objective principle called justice.

If you really believed that “truth is in the eye of the beholder,” and you were logically consistent, you’d have no principle of which to demand justice, because what was true for you(that what they stole was in fact yours), is not necessarily what is true for the thieves who stole your stuff. Their truth is that your stuff is now their stuff.

And you have no logical reason to disagree.

That you call the police proves that you know, objectively, that a crime has been committed, and along with that you prove that there are things that ought never to be done.

Subjectivism is easy to theorize about, but impossible to live out.

 

[Amandil]

Since ***You *** started this thread to show me how my statement is contradictory (remember?) then its all on you. Knock yourself out. Becasue you are never going to make it.

Are you stating that subjectively or objectively?

This is a strawman argument. You are claiming that I use objective statements when I clearly can not.

Are you stating that subjectively or objectively?

This is dismissed. You will have to do better. Al my statements are subjective. Figure it out.

Then if they are subjective, then they cannot be true, only true for you.

So what you dismiss subjectively is not necessarily dismissed objectively.

That you are making objective statements that truth is subjective is proof that your claims are false and self-contradictory. You violate your own theory in practice.

All you’ve proven is a penchant for sophistry.

But again the burden of proof is really on You. I never set out to prove you wrong. You did. If you are not grown to take the task just let me know.

Nonsense. If the “burden of proof” is necessarily on the person who believes any idea, then that principle also applies to the person who believes that “truth is in the eye of the beholder”(i.e. you).

Yepp he is dead but I live the Dhamma every day. So you finally got that thing. Good.

/Victor

According to your logic the Dhamma is as dead as the writings of the Aposltes or the Church Fathers.

So exactly on what principle to discriminate against the writings of the Apostles or the Church Fathers?

 

[Amandil]

Nobody knows anything for sure. They might tell themselves they do but they really do not.

Then that must necessarily be true for the person who claims that “truth is in the eye of the beholder.”

 

[Grym]

You’re assuming your conclusion as your premise. That’s called circular logic.

There was nothing circular in my reasoning. Unless you have an argument for it of course?

Again just because you say something is circular does not make it so. You have to present an argument. Which you cannot do.

On the other hand in saying the phrase You’re assuming your conclusion as your premise. you are assuming your conclusion as your premise.

Generally in this debate you are assuming that there is an objective truth in order to prove there is an objective truth. *That * is called circular logic.

Are you stating that subjectively(as in only true for you) or objectively?

That something is subjectively true for me does not mean that it automatically is not true for you. You err in your conclusion. Again you are trying to pin opinions that I do not have to try to refute them because you cannot refute what I really said. Another strawman.

It proves several things.

1. You appeal to an objective entity, the police, because you implicitly follow an objective system of law which applies absolute moral principles.

The body of policemen are people given authority by other people. It is all agreement between people. Agreements may be changed and are subjective. If the police force was an objective entity they would not need the ratification of the people of a country would they?

Again you do not see the world as it is.

1. Your action of calling the police proves that you believe and accept in an objective principle called justice.

Justice is always subjective. That is why we have courts of Law where Laws that people have agreed upon are enforced. Each country has its own Law and Justice. If Law and Justice was objective it would be the same all around the world(universe). Which it isnt.

If you really believed that “truth is in the eye of the beholder,” and you were logically consistent, you’d have no principle of which to demand justice, because what was true for you(that what they stole was in fact yours), is not necessarily what is true for the thieves who stole your stuff. Their truth is that your stuff is now their stuff.

And you have no logical reason to disagree.

I have all the logical reasons to disagree. Since the world is subjective, people need to make laws which are (subjective) agreements. We need to agree that there should be police to tend to crime. Nothing illogical about that.

That you call the police proves that you know, objectively, that a crime has been committed, and along with that you prove that there are things that ought never to be done.

Subjectivism is easy to theorize about, but impossible to live out.

There is no way to know anything objectively. That is why we for instance have police and Law.

Law is an agreement that if anybody can be shown to have committed a crime to the subjective satisfaction of a body elected by the people to pass judgement. Then that person will be punished according to a collectively agreed upon law. And the person will be committed and punished whether he did the crime or not.

If Justice was objective nobody would be committed for a crime he did not commit.

The concept of things that *never ought to be done *as you say wary from individual to individual. Sometimes we agree and make that agreement Law.

For instance I do not like stealing and think it never ought to be done. A thief on the other hand thinks it is al right to steal to feed his kids.

The truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Question: would it not be better to try to present a test that better attempts to show your point rather than mine?

/Victor

 

[Grym]

Are you stating that subjectively or objectively?

Are you stating that subjectively or objectively?

Then if they are subjective, then they cannot be true, only true for you.

That something is subjectively true for me does not mean that is automatically false for you or that it is true only for me. That is the error in your reasoning.

I state everything subjectively. I have said so before several times. Please try to read what I write since I show you that courtesy.

That you are making objective statements that truth is subjective is proof that your claims are false and self-contradictory. You violate your own theory in practice.

You make this strawman often. It is getting tiring. I will not respond to this again.

Nonsense. If the “burden of proof” is necessarily on the person who believes any idea, then that principle also applies to the person who believes that “truth is in the eye of the beholder”(i.e. you).

I did not set out to disapprove anything. You did. That is why you started this thread. Lets stay on subject. Ok? But if you want to back out there is no shame in that.

According to your logic the Dhamma is as dead as the writings of the Aposltes or the Church Fathers.

So exactly on what principle to discriminate against the writings of the Apostles or the Church Fathers?

This is another strawman. I have never claimed that the Dhamma nor the writings of the Apostles are Dead. It says so plainly in the posts above in this thread.
There is no way you could have misunderstood that.

The teaching of Christ is alive in you as the Dhamma is alive in me.

/Victor