Objective truth.

[Grym]

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

Obviously. Your point being?

That has been my point all along.

/Victor

PS
I need to get to bed now. But hit me with the best shot you got and I will respond tomorrow. Promise!

Peace and gnite!
DS

 

[Amandil]

That something is subjectively true for me does not mean that it automatically is not true for you. You err in your conclusion.

I didn’t make a conclusive statement. I asked you a question. A questions you are now dodging.

You said:

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

&

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

&

Obviously you were mistaken before about my reasoning being circular.

I asked you if these statements you are making are subjective or objective?

Why can’t you answer this very simple question?

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.

I did nothing of the sort.

You said that “truth is in the eye of the beholder”(i.e. subjective). You’ve over and over again made assertions that truth is subjective.

In no way have I distorted your arguments and represented those distortions as yours. I’ve only quoted your words.

The questions I asked you were intended for you to clarify the nature of your statements.

So the strawman claim that you are making seems rather incoherent.

The body of policemen are people given authority by other people. It is all agreement between people. Agreements may be changed and are subjective.

1)That the Aztecs were all in “agreement” that human sacrifice was right does not make human sacrifice morally right. The same is true for the Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany.

Are you seriously going to say that those acts are “moral” because those who committed them were in “agreement”?

2)Agreements about moral principles does not negate objective truth but presupposes it. They are in agreement that these things ought never to be done, which is an absolute and objective statement in regards to morality, not a subjective one.

You seem to not be able to distinguish between subjective statements and objective ones.

If the police force was an objective entity they would not need the ratification of the people of a country would they?

You’re missing the point. That people ratify a police force for the purpose of enforcing justice by the investigation of crimes presupposes objective morality.

Again you do not see the world as it is.

How do you know? Are you stating this objectively, or subjectively?

Justice is always subjective.

Another objective statement.

That is why we have courts of Law where Laws that people have agreed upon are enforced.

“Laws” presuppose objective moral principles, not merely subjective feelings or opinions.

Each country has its own Law and Justice.

Which are based on absolute and objective moral principles.

No country or culture exists now or has ever existed which has taught that murder, theft, lying, rape, cowardice, addiction, despair, and selfishness are all thought to be good.

If Law and Justice was objective it would be the same all around the world(universe). Which it isnt.

Another absurd statement. What is culturally relative and subjective is opinions about what is really right and wrong, not right and wrong themselves. You’re attempting to fudge that distinction.

That the application of justice is not universal does not mean that the principle of justice is not objective.

I have all the logical reasons to disagree. Since the world is subjective, people need to make laws which are (subjective) agreements.

The problem is that there are I fact people who don’t “agree” with “laws” that other people have (subjectively) made without their consent or agreement.

So on what grounds do you base the enforcement of these (subjective) “laws” upon those who don’t agree with them?

We need to agree that there should be police to tend to crime. Nothing illogical about that.

Who is “we”?

What is “crime”? If someone robs you, or even murders a loved one, on what grounds do you base the assertion that it is a criminal?

 

[Amandil]

concluded from above:

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

It is amazing how you apparently don’t possess the insight as to what you’re actually saying here.

I’ll try to restate again: you are saying that is it absolutely and objectively true that “(t)here is no way to know anything objectively.”

If “there is no way to know anything objectively”, then there is no way that your statement(that “there is no way to know anything objectively”) can possible be true.

There is no way that you could know what you claim to know.

Thus it is nonsense. It is self-contradictory. It invalidates itself.

If you try to say that no truth can be known with certainty, the same problem occurs. Is that theory itself certain or only probable? If certain, it contradicts itself. If probable, is that certain or only probable? Et cetera ad infinitum.

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.

Nonsense. This definition is a subjective definition based upon your personal feelings or value-opinions.

If law is “subjective” then on what basis do they impose it on anyone? It can’t. It’s only the “agreement” of those who agreed. Not of those who disagreed. On what grounds do those who “agree” have to impose their subjective “laws” onto to those who disagree?

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.

Reductio as absurdum

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.

This is the moral equivalent of a jailor giving a prisoner the key to his own cell. If law was merely subjective then what is bound by “agreement” can also be unbound by disagreement.

The problem remains, you have no basis or grounds to discriminate against those who either desire to commit crimes or in fact do commit crimes.

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.

Even if this was valid, it doesn’t prove subjectivism(that “truth is in the eye of the beholder”), only situational relativism. It would still be objectively right to lie to the Nazis about hiding Jews, or to kill in self-defense, or to steal a maniac’s weapon.

Yet the argument doesn’t even prove relativism, only that absolute principles must be applied to different situations. The fact of different applications presupposes the truth of the principle. Morality consists of three factors: absolute and objective principles, relative and objective situations, and subjective motives. All three must be right, not just one.

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

/Victor

My test is the process of demonstrating that your claims are fallacious and self-refuting.

Your theory of subjectivism and relativism is refuted by your practice of objectivism.

It’s no different than a multiple choice question; eliminate the contrary possibilities and the remainder is the only true answer.

 

[Amandil]

Obviously. Your point being?

That has been my point all along.

Then there is no way that you can know what you claim to know because you are saying that what you claim to know is unknowable.

So there is no way that you can even claim to know that “truth is in the eye of the beholder”, much less claim that it is “true”.

But you insist that it is true, that you know it to be true absolutely and objectively.

You might as well say that you believe that you can walk through a wall and at the same time not walk through that same wall all at once.

It would make just about as much logical sense.

 

[Amandil]

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.

Yes it does by the fact that your assertion doesn’t exist absolutely and objectively. How I know that it doesn’t exist absolutely and objectively is proven in the fact that I disagree with your claim that “truth is in the eye of the beholder.”

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

If you stated “everything subjectively” you would have prefaced your comments with “in my opinion” or “according to me”.

You’re comments were rather ambiguous in regards to their subjective nature. That’s why I asked.

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

It’s not a “strawman”, a strawman is a distorted misrepresentation of your argument. You haven’t provided and argument, only and assertion.

What I’ve done is demonstrate the false premise underlying your assertion and how it contradicts your conclusion.

I’ve built no strawman.

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.

No, you’re trying to shirk and shift and obfuscate in order to avoid the problems in your own belief system.

You posited the original belief statement “truth is in the eye of the beholder”. Now you’re claiming that not only do you not need to defend it, but that you cannot even know that it is true(see above post).

Which begs the question why do you even bother to continue to post here at all?

This is another strawman. I have never claimed that the Dhamma nor the writings of the Apostles are Dead.

You said:

Old words written down in some half forgotten language means nothing unless given a voice from a live practitioner.

That is where I pointed out your obvious discriminatory bias between the writings of the Apostles compared to the Dhamma.

Where you stated:

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.

Now, if you prefaced that with the phrase “in my opinion”, that would be something else entirely.

But because you didn’t, I can only infer that you meant it absolutely and objectively.

Therefore it’s not a “strawman”. Just a lack of clarity on your part.

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

/Victor

No, the teaching of Christ is alive in Christ because Christ is alive, as are the Saints in that they are alive in Him as it is alive in the Church.

It still doesn’t explain your discriminatory bias against their works. If you were consistent you’d reject the Dhamma on the same grounds that you reject the writings of the Apostles.

Or you’d have to accept their writings on the same grounds and with the same efficacy and authority as you do the Dhamma.

How you reconcile the objective truth claims made by the Apostles about Christ when compared to Buddhism or Buddha and how contradictory they are is a whole other issue entirely.

More than likely you’ll ignore the contradictions as you ignore your own.

 

[Grym]

I didn’t make a conclusive statement. I asked you a question. A questions you are now dodging.

I asked you if these statements you are making are subjective or objective?

Why can’t you answer this very simple question?

This has been answered several times before and you still refuse to read my answer. Please reread what I have written.

This will not be answered again.

I did nothing of the sort.

You said that “truth is in the eye of the beholder”(i.e. subjective). You’ve over and over again made assertions that truth is subjective.

In no way have I distorted your arguments and represented those distortions as yours. I’ve only quoted your words.

The questions I asked you were intended for you to clarify the nature of your statements.

So the strawman claim that you are making seems rather incoherent.

The strawman is that you are, yet again, trying to pin Objective statements on me.

1)That the Aztecs were all in “agreement” that human sacrifice was right does not make human sacrifice morally right. The same is true for the Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany.

Are you seriously going to say that those acts are “moral” because those who committed them were in “agreement”?

Are you serious? Are you pulling my leg? This is a perfect example that morality is subjective. What you feel is morally right now was not considered moral at those times.

Again you are without proof supposing that there is something called “Moral” that is objective in order to dismiss subjective opinon on what is moral. This is circular reasoning.

2)Agreements about moral principles does not negate objective truth but presupposes it. They are in agreement that these things ought never to be done, which is an absolute and objective statement in regards to morality, not a subjective one.

Agreement does not in any way presuppose objective truth.
Again the circular reasoning that Objective truth exsits without proof thereof.
Again the strawman that I make objectrive claims.

You seem to not be able to distinguish between subjective statements and objective ones.

But if the truth was objective no one would have that problem. So you are conceedeing my point then.

You’re missing the point. That people ratify a police force for the purpose of enforcing justice by the investigation of crimes presupposes objective morality.

Agreement does not in any way presuppose objective truth. On the contrary if there was objective truth then there would be no need for agreement.

How do you know? Are you stating this objectively, or subjectively?
Another objective statement.

Answered before. strawman.

“Laws” presuppose objective moral principles, not merely subjective feelings or opinions.

I think you need to review the process of how Laws are made.

I Said Each country has its own Law and Justice.
You answered.

Which are based on absolute and objective moral principles.

This is I think what you call begging the question. You are presupposing absolute and objective moral principles.

But what you are saying is since the laws of all countries are different they all have their own set of absolute and objective moral principles. Seriously?

Do I have to mention that that is a contradiction?

No country or culture exists now or has ever existed which has taught that murder, theft, lying, rape, cowardice, addiction, despair, and selfishness are all thought to be good.

You are contradicting yourself again. You yourself mentioned the Aztec and Nazis for having some of those traits.

Another absurd statement. What is culturally relative and subjective is opinions about what is really right and wrong, not right and wrong themselves. You’re attempting to fudge that distinction.

You are begging the question again. You are presupposing objective truth without proof.

That the application of justice is not universal does not mean that the principle of justice is not objective.

But I was not trying to prove that there is no objective truth. I was saying that truth is in the eye of the beholder. Try to keep on topic please.

The problem is that there are I fact people who don’t “agree” with “laws” that other people have (subjectively) made without their consent or agreement.

Exactly my point. Thanks.

So on what grounds do you base the enforcement of these (subjective) “laws” upon those who don’t agree with them?

The enforcement is in the leagal system. And sometimes with force. That is why we have the police. Obviously.

Who is “we”?

What is “crime”? If someone robs you, or even murders a loved one, on what grounds do you base the assertion that it is a criminal?

We are the collection of people that agree that murder is criminal. I base it on agreement.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

concluded from above:

It is amazing how you apparently don’t possess the insight as to what you’re actually saying here.

I’ll try to restate again: you are saying that is it absolutely and objectively true that “(t)here is no way to know anything objectively.”

If “there is no way to know anything objectively”, then there is no way that your statement(that “there is no way to know anything objectively”) can possible be true.

There is no way that you could know what you claim to know.

Thus it is nonsense. It is self-contradictory. It invalidates itself.

If you try to say that no truth can be known with certainty, the same problem occurs. Is that theory itself certain or only probable? If certain, it contradicts itself. If probable, is that certain or only probable? Et cetera ad infinitum.

Nonsense. This definition is a subjective definition based upon your personal feelings or value-opinions.

The above either uses the strawman agrument that I make objective claimes or you are presupposing an objective truth without proof thereof. Again.

If law is “subjective” then on what basis do they impose it on anyone? It can’t. It’s only the “agreement” of those who agreed. Not of those who disagreed. On what grounds do those who “agree” have to impose their subjective “laws” onto to those who disagree?

Answered in the previous post.

This is the moral equivalent of a jailor giving a prisoner the key to his own cell. If law was merely subjective then what is bound by “agreement” can also be unbound by disagreement.

The problem remains, you have no basis or grounds to discriminate against those who either desire to commit crimes or in fact do commit crimes.

It is called the leagal system. And yes it works be agreement and laws are sometimes unbound by disagreement or rather never bound.

Even if this was valid, it doesn’t prove subjectivism(that “truth is in the eye of the beholder”), only situational relativism. It would still be objectively right to lie to the Nazis about hiding Jews, or to kill in self-defense, or to steal a maniac’s weapon.

Again this thread is about you trying to prove that my claim is invalid not that I am trying to prove that my claim is. You do not seem to understand the difference?

Yet the argument doesn’t even prove relativism, only that absolute principles must be applied to different situations. The fact of different applications presupposes the truth of the principle. Morality consists of three factors: absolute and objective principles, relative and objective situations, and subjective motives. All three must be right, not just one.

My test is the process of demonstrating that your claims are fallacious and self-refuting.

Your theory of subjectivism and relativism is refuted by your practice of objectivism.

It’s no different than a multiple choice question; eliminate the contrary possibilities and the remainder is the only true answer.

The above either uses the strawman agrument that I make objective claimes or or you are presupposing an objective truth without proof thereof. Again.

 

[Grym]

Then there is no way that you can know what you claim to know because you are saying that what you claim to know is unknowable.

Again a strawman. I do not claim to know the unknowable.

So there is no way that you can even claim to know that “truth is in the eye of the beholder”, much less claim that it is “true”.

So how is that relevant to this thread? How about you get down to the business you set before yourself and show me how my claim is contradictory instead of beating about the bush?

But you insist that it is true, that you know it to be true absolutely and objectively.

Strawman claim that I make objective claims.

You might as well say that you believe that you can walk through a wall and at the same time not walk through that same wall all at once.

It would make just about as much logical sense.

So how is that relevant to this thread? How about you get down to the business you set before yourself and show me how my claim is contradictory instead of beating about the bush?

 

[Grym]

Yes it does by the fact that your assertion doesn’t exist absolutely and objectively. How I know that it doesn’t exist absolutely and objectively is proven in the fact that I disagree with your claim that “truth is in the eye of the beholder.”

Er this makes no sense at all. You are again presupposing objective and absolute truth in this argument without proof thereof. The rest of it is totally incoherent.

If you stated “everything subjectively” you would have prefaced your comments with “in my opinion” or “according to me”.

I did. I think it should have been impossible to miss since you quoted me yourself saying “truth is in the eye of the beholder.” And to topp that I think I mentioned it a couple of times at least.

You’re comments were rather ambiguous in regards to their subjective nature. That’s why I asked.

I see. But you can safley assume that nothing I say is objective.

It’s not a “strawman”, a strawman is a distorted misrepresentation of your argument. You haven’t provided and argument, only and assertion.

You claim me to have objective opinions or make objective claims. That is the strawman. I think I mentioned that a dozen or so times by now.

What I’ve done is demonstrate the false premise underlying your assertion and how it contradicts your conclusion.

Read the above. You have only disaproved a set of values you have ascribed to what I say. My own claim is still unimpeded.

No, you’re trying to shirk and shift and obfuscate in order to avoid the problems in your own belief system.

You have from the beginning presupposed objective truth in your arguments or addressed strawmen arguments claiming that I have objective opinions. Or presented examples from real life that really only supports my claim.

I do not need to shift and obfuscate anything to stay on top. You provide me no real challenge at all.

You posited the original belief statement “truth is in the eye of the beholder”. Now you’re claiming that not only do you not need to defend it, but that you cannot even know that it is true(see above post).

Which begs the question why do you even bother to continue to post here at all?

Yes if this is all that you can provide I do begin to wonder myself.

You said:
**Old words written down in some half forgotten language means nothing unless given a voice from a live practitioner. **

That is where I pointed out your obvious discriminatory bias between the writings of the Apostles compared to the Dhamma.

Another strawman. How exactly do you draw the conclusion that I discriminate between the writings of the Apostles compared and the Dhamma from the above statement?

Where you stated:
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.

Now, if you prefaced that with the phrase “in my opinion”, that would be something else entirely.

But because you didn’t, I can only infer that you meant it absolutely and objectively.

Therefore it’s not a “strawman”. Just a lack of clarity on your part.

Eeer you want me to say that they are dead in my opinion?

Seriously? I am beginning to think you are trolling.

No, the teaching of Christ is alive in Christ because Christ is alive, as are the Saints in that they are alive in Him as it is alive in the Church.

It still doesn’t explain your discriminatory bias against their works. If you were consistent you’d reject the Dhamma on the same grounds that you reject the writings of the Apostles.

Antoher strawman. I never rejected any works at all. I said I was interested in subjective opinion about their works.

How you reconcile the objective truth claims made by the Apostles about Christ when compared to Buddhism or Buddha and how contradictory they are is a whole other issue entirely.

More than likely you’ll ignore the contradictions as you ignore your own.

This is ridiculous. What has this got to do with anything relevant to theis thread?

Do you or do you not have a argument to prove what you set out to prove? That the statement “The truth is in the eye of the behlder” is contradictory. Without presupposing objective truth or falsely assigning Objective Truth to my statement?

/Victor

 

[adf417]

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

Victor, you and Amandil seem to be having a highly intelligent discussion/debate well above my pay grade or understanding and I did not even stay in a Holiday-Inn last night but is the above statement true or not? It sounds pretty definitive but based on the statement itself, I’m not sure you can answer and therefor have to ask - what would the purpose of the statement be? How is it helpful? Why try to answer my question if the answer is “I can’t know so therefor know this…”?

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. .

You claim to know much more than you give yourself credit here which is a bit confusing to me. You claim you can’t know what you know and consider this as absolute. Again :hypno: and again I know nothing about philosophy, or at least I think I don’t .

Peace!!!

 

[josh987654321]

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.

I would agree, but I wont be fighting against it because I believe it simply turns into an endless game of back and forth, as the skeptic ‘wants’ to believe the lie. Sometimes I believe it’s better to simply remain silent as Jesus did before Pilate after he denied truth. I believe there is no point arguing with people who don’t care for the truth, who are content with the lie.

“Some truths are so obvious only experts can deny them.” - C.S. Lewis

There are many men and women who are like Pilate, upon having the Truth in front of them, they can only think of saying, ‘What is truth?’ As Pilate, they refuse to see the truth, because they are afraid, because truth makes demands, truth implies obligations, truth implies commitment and because once we acknowledge the truth, living with the status quo (of a lie) becomes harder.

“If you turn devoutly to the wounds and precious stigmata of Christ, you will find great comfort in suffering, you will mind but little the scorn of men, and you will easily bear their slanderous talk.” - Extract from the book ‘Imitation of Christ’ by Thomas A Kempis

Hope I have helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Grym]

Victor, you and Amandil seem to be having a highly intelligent discussion/debate …

Ha ha ha. . We are at least shoveling it at each other from high vantage positions.

…well above my pay grade or understanding and I did not even stay in a Holiday-Inn last night but is the above statement true or not?

It is true! . But what you need to understand is in what manner it is true.

It sounds pretty definitive but based on the statement itself, I’m not sure you can answer and therefor have to ask - what would the purpose of the statement be? How is it helpful?

Why try to answer my question if the answer is “I can’t know so therefor know this…”?

It is helpful in a number of ways. IT explaines how reality work in peoples heads. But I think you are mostly concearned with that it seems to be contradictory? Am I right?

There are several ways to explain it. The first is that it is only contradictory if you think in what is called logical terms. I.e. in binary logic. If you think in multivalued logik then the statement is no longer seamingly contradictory.

Another way to see it is to understand the concept of subjective truth and direct knowleadge. What is true for you might not be true for me. What you have experienced I have not. You might know that you had an illness. But since I do not have your experience I am left with believing your word or reading the papers of your medical examiner. That kind of knowleadge is secondary to experienced knowleade.

So I can only say I think but I know not. Since your experince might be different from what you tell me. To be perfectly fair you too might have misinterpreted your experience. You might think you have a cold but it might be allergy. Get me?

You claim to know much more than you give yourself credit here which is a bit confusing to me. You claim you can’t know what you know and consider this as absolute. Again :hypno: and again I know nothing about philosophy, or at least I think I don’t .

Peace!!!

The mistake you are making here is to think that I think or make claimes in absolutes. Just like Amandil. Which I do not. But since your own mind is not familiar with the concept of subjective truth it categorises my claim as as pertaining the absolute. This in itself is a perfect demonstation of subjective truth. My mind categorises the claim as something other than what your mind does.

Hope I made some sense.

Yepp. Peace!
/Victor

 

[oldcelt]

The mistake you are making here is to think that I think or make claimes in absolutes. Just like Amandil. Which I do not. But since your own mind is not familiar with the concept of subjective truth it categorises my claim as as pertaining the absolute. This in itself is a perfect demonstation of subjective truth. My mind categorises the claim as something other than what your mind does.

Hope I made some sense.

Yepp. Peace!
/Victor

There is also a great deal of confusion in the use of the terms truth and fact. On truth there may be disagreement for any number of reasons. Facts are much less yielding.

 

[adf417]

It is true! . But what you need to understand is in what manner it is true.

Sense it was your statement I will then must concede to this statement.

It is helpful in a number of ways. IT explaines how reality work in peoples heads. But I think you are mostly concearned with that it seems to be contradictory? Am I right?

I don’t know. I’m the simple one. Not being sarcastic, I really am.

There are several ways to explain it. The first is that it is only contradictory if you think in what is called logical terms. I.e. in binary logic. If you think in multivalued logik then the statement is no longer seamingly contradictory.

This kind of logic SEEMS to have a place only in the intelligent community unlike where I live and if you have to explain it, say to a 4 year old, then isn’t it self refuting?

Another way to see it is to understand the concept of subjective truth and direct knowleadge. What is true for you might not be true for me. What you have experienced I have not. You might know that you had an illness. But since I do not have your experience I am left with believing your word or reading the papers of your medical examiner. That kind of knowleadge is secondary to experienced knowleade.

The bolded above pleases me Victor. I think this tells me all I need. Thanks. Would you also agree that what I believe is what I actually believe in the same sense?

So I can only say I think but I know not. Since your experince might be different from what you tell me. To be perfectly fair you too might have misinterpreted your experience. You might think you have a cold but it might be allergy. Get me?

Understood.

The mistake you are making here is to think that I think or make claimes in absolutes. Just like Amandil. Which I do not. But since your own mind is not familiar with the concept of subjective truth it categorises my claim as as pertaining the absolute. This in itself is a perfect demonstation of subjective truth. My mind categorises the claim as something other than what your mind does.

Hope I made some sense.

Only when turn my head sideways and close one ear while jumping up and down on 3 toes. I hope I have not come across as trying to convince you of anything but just trying to better understand other minds.

Thanks for your explanations and as always, Peace!!!

 

[grannymh]

There is also a great deal of confusion in the use of the terms truth and fact. On truth there may be disagreement for any number of reasons. Facts are much less yielding.

As I said in post 24 above.
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:

Since you commented about confusion in the use of the terms truth and fact – for me , objective truth would also be universal truth. The term truth would then refer to the big picture of life itself before I was born and after I died.

 

[Grym]

There is also a great deal of confusion in the use of the terms truth and fact. On truth there may be disagreement for any number of reasons. Facts are much less yielding.

I agree. But even facts change due to subjective beliefs!

Did you know that there was a greek philosofer that made a model of the earth revolving around its own axis and orbiting the sun long before Galileo.

His hypothesis was refuted through an experiment dropping a ball from a high tower.

The test was to see if the ball would drift sideways as it should according to those days physics if the world rotated. Which it of course did not. .

So facts too change (sort of) as our understanding evolves.

/Victor

 

[Grym]

I don’t know. I’m the simple one. Not being sarcastic, I really am.

This kind of logic SEEMS to have a place only in the intelligent community unlike where I live and if you have to explain it, say to a 4 year old, then isn’t it self refuting?

The bolded above pleases me Victor. I think this tells me all I need. Thanks. Would you also agree that what I believe is what I actually believe in the same sense?

Thanks for your explanations and as always, Peace!!!

First of all I think you are the same kind of simple as me. .
Second of all I think you use multivalued logic all the time. A special case of multivalued logic is maths for instance. Very often we run into situations in real life that needs us to compromise.
If you think in binary only, compromise is not possible. Sometimes A can be true and not true at the same time or just something entirely different than true or not true.(true, not true or dont care for instance)

That is real life in my experience.

Nice that you could accept my explanation. But I do not understand your question

Would you also agree that what I believe is what I actually believe in the same sense?

Could you maybe explain?

Peace!
/Victor

 

[grannymh]

I agree. But even facts change due to subjective beliefs!

Obviously, facts can change due to subjective beliefs/reasoning.

However, the title of this thread is objective truth

 

[Grym]

Obviously, facts can change due to subjective beliefs/reasoning.

However, the title of this thread is objective truth

Agreed.

But the purpose of the thread was according to Amandil to refute my claim as stated in the first post of this thread. It is from another thread. Amandil pm:d me this threads name so I could partake in exactly how I was confused.

So I am a bit wondering as to the title of the thread.

/Victor

 

[adf417]

First of all I think you are the same kind of simple as me. .
Second of all I think you use multivalued logic all the time. A special case of multivalued logic is maths for instance. Very often we run into situations in real life that needs us to compromise.
If you think in binary only, compromise is not possible. Sometimes A can be true and not true at the same time or just something entirely different than true or not true.(true, not true or dont care for instance)

That is real life in my experience.

Nice that you could accept my explanation. But I do not understand your question

Would you also agree that what I believe is what I actually believe in the same sense?

Could you maybe explain?

Peace!
/Victor

Sorry Victor but this is where you loose me. Honestly I do not understand. This is where I am like the 4 year old and I look up to my dad and say “daddy what is he talking about” then the dad tries to explain in terms the 4 year old can understand. Or at least in terms the 4 year old thinks he can understand. According to your logic, maybe he can’t or maybe he never really does understand.

Peace be with you Victor!!!