A
Areopagite
Guest
I would disagree with these statements.
You see, I think there are objective truths (e.g. there is a God), as well as subjective truths (e.g. chocolate tastes good). Chocolate is not objectively tasty, believe it or not. It depends on the subject perceiving it.
What you mean to say is that subjectivism is the belief that all truth is determined by one’s own perceptions/feelings/opinions, etc. Subjectivism is a kind of philosophy, whereas subjective truth is a kind of legitimate truth, though of course not as superior a one to objective truth.
I would also say the same for absolute and relative truths. They are both legitimate. Relativism, that is the belief that there are no universal truths, is a heresy. There are relative truths though. Brotherhood, for example, operates on a concept of relativity. I think an example to illustrate this is the statement, “I have been to California.” That statement is true relative to what year we are talking about. In the 1980’s, that statement would be false, whereas if it were in the 2000’s, then it would be true. There is an element of relativity there. It is true that we could easily turn it into an absolute truth by saying, “In the 2000, I had been to California.” But the previous statement was a relative truth. Thus, both relative and absolute truths exist. To deny one or the other would be an error.
