concluded:
The reality is that objective truth is so fundamental that no one can get away from it. Any statement that we even make about ourselves, even though we are subjects, is essentially an objective statement that we know objectively about ourselves. What is “known”(your opinion) is the product of you(your mind) conforming to an object(your opinion) based upon other objects(facts) independent of your conciousness.
The only reason why those objects that we have conformed our minds (call them opinions) change is because of ignorance, either willful or innocent, or acceptance of those things-in-themselves outside of our consciousness(objective facts).
Value-opinions are based upon what we choose to follow, what we choose to conform, or not conform, our minds to. Value-opinions change based upon the facts we are confronted with(or choose to ignore). But the facts themselves do not change.
That murder is morally wrong and ought never to be done is an objective truth. The reason why people “agree” with this is not because they have “decided”(subjectively) that it is true and “ratified” it by a social contract but because they’re minds have conformed to the objective fact that already existed in the abstract but that they have
discovered(not decided) to be true and have concretized into a social system. The “agreement” stems from the majority who have conformed their minds to objective morality as opposed to those who either know it and have violated it(criminals).
If morality was subjective those who “agree” that murder is wrong and ought never be done could never have any foundation to impose their “agreement” onto others who “agree”(for instance) that murder is a natural part of the world, or that genocide is just as natural, that race-based slavery is essential to any economy, etc.
The only way such “disagreements” could be solved in your subjective world would be by force.
At this point you’ll probably argue “all these problems have been solved by force therefore you’ve proven my point.”
That would be a post hoc fallacy because those conflicts weren’t the result of the truth of subjectivism but the ignorance of objective morality. As Shakespeare wrote, “The truth(objectively) will out.”
Objective morality is utterly transcendent and is in no way dependent upon subjective “agreement”. It’s the transcendent nature of morality that not only makes it objective(independent of the knower and his consciousness), but also timeless and thus NOT subjective and relative.
Antoher strawman. I never rejected any works at all. I said I was interested in subjective opinion about their works.
Another clear misappropriation of the “strawman” fallacy.
This is ridiculous. What has this got to do with anything relevant to theis thread?
It was a hypothetical question based upon your acceptance of what you call “multi-valued” logic which is entirely relative to this discussion.
And if you actually
read what I wrote you’d see that I said that it was an issue for another 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
I have time and again. As I said, you are making an objective statement, not merely a personal value-opinion statement, that “‘truth’(for everyone) is in the eye of the beholder”.
By going beyond your mere personal belief and proclaiming it as an absolute you are making an objective truth statement that your opinion is
really(and thus objectively)how the world is independent of your opinion.
Thus it is self-contradictory.
As I said previously, that you can’t intuit the fundamental problem of your epistemological approach is not my problem, but yours.
