Truth as subjectivity

[ilovekittens]

No, not subjective truth; rather, it is the objective conseqence of somebody subjectively reflecting on what they believe to be objectively true. One can meditate on the concept of Love; but this is only because we have or have seen an objective example of it. If the ideas we develop from meditating on Gods word, contradicts the real world, then there is no truth in those ideas. When God says love thy neighbor, he said it because it is objectively good to love thy neighbor. We then reflect on Gods words subjectively and come to realise the objective truth of those words when it is put into practice. Christians do not believe that good is a product of mind; they believe that good exists objectively, and that we regognise this truth subjectively. If your somebody that is of the subjective belief that there is no such thing as the objective good and that we made up the concept to explain a joyfull subjective experience, then you can say that there is no objective good. But then God is a liar and does not exist. If there is no objective good, then good does not exist, and you are therefore offending no objective good. If you say that it is subjectively true for you; your not really speaking about the truth. Your speaking about your tastes. Its good for you, like the flavor of straberry ice cream; but it is not necessarily good for others. Without an objective measure for good and evil, we are only explaining are likes and dislikes. You could, i suppose, call this a subjective truth, but it would be less confusing if one simply called it my subjective taste.

When one is in a relationship with somebody; it is necessarily subjective; but if there is any truth or meaning in it, then the root of that truth exists in the real world. If somebody said, that by acting in a certain way, one will make a better society, it follows from that statement that there is some objective truths that come from accomplishing that goal; such as, there will be less pain and suffering; and that the human being will be more happier; but whether or not that is a good thing, will be a subjective opinion, which may or may not relate to the objective world. There is only one truth; its confuesing to speak of “subjective thruth”. I’d be suprised if you can prove me wrong.

I still think you’re missing the point. Maybe I’m not being very clear. I think Kierkegaard is very well worth reading, though, if you haven’t done so.

 

[East_and_West]

There is no denial that there is objective propositional truth, which is the realm of historical truth and philosophical truth. Religious truth, on the other hand, belongs purely to the realm of subjectivity.

If religious truth is subjective, then it is not truth at all. How did you come to this objective idea that Religious truth is subjective? Do you have proof of this or is it simply your subjective view point?

 

[ateista]

Truth is an abstract concept, nothing more. A thought, an idea, a hypothesis, a concept etc… is “true” if it accurately reflects reality. Most parts of reality are objective (the physical world and its facts), others are subjective (beauty, love, justice, etc…). It is incorrect not to differentiate between these two realms - and try to speak of “truth” as if it were an object of the real world.

Whether the concepts of religion(s) actually reflect reality is an open question - at best.

Theists assert that they do, but have nothing objective to support it. They assert that “revelations”, ancient books, authorities and their testimonies are sufficient. For them they are, but not for anyone else who does not a-priori accept their premises. There is absolutely nothing that would point to the existence of anything “super”-natural, which would be an objective, undeniable fact or reality. It’s all wishful thinking.

 

[Epistemes]

If religious truth is subjective, then it is not truth at all. How did you come to this objective idea that Religious truth is subjective? Do you have proof of this or is it simply your subjective view point?

It is not my idea at all. ilovekittens has done an excellent job explaining Kierkegaard’s philosophy. I urge you to read those posts if you have not already.

 

[bogeydogg]

But I think this is extremely subjective. That assertion can only be accepted with faith - as a “subjective truth” to an individual with that commitment of faith. Logic, reason, objective fact cannot validate that assertion in any way.

Let me clarify what I mean. When I say ‘truth’ what I mean is, “that which accurately reflects reality.” I.E. “Some birds fly.” This statement is objectively true because it is manifest reality that some birds fly. My opinion about birds (love, hate, tasty) has no bearing what so ever on the manifest truth that some birds fly. Therefore, since the statement “Some birds fly,” accurately reflects reality then the statement is objectively true.

“Jesus is the way, truth and light.” While you are quite correct that I cannot prove this statement to be true, whether or not it actually is true is a thing far apart from my opinion about it. Of course my belief in Jesus is subjective because I do not know for absolute 100% certainty that it is so, but I do have a great many reasons for believing it is so; so while my belief is subjective it is not wholly uninformed. After all, faith which is purely emotional and/or wholly subjective would is not faith at all but rather credulity.

However, the statement itself is either true or it is false and there is nothing subjective about that. Either there is a way truth and light or there is not. Either Jesus is the personal embodiment of that way, truth and light or He is not. My opinion has nothing to do with the statement’s accurately reflecting reality. It is true or it is not.

The best analogy I can give is borrowed but here goes anyway. Two men are walking a path. Both men have the same assumption, feelings and ideas about the path. They share expectations about the journey itself and are cordial even friendly with one another. However, one believes that around the bend ahead is Paradise and the other believes it is oblivion. Neither man can be sure and neither man can absolutely prove his position. One thing is certain though, when they reach the corner, one will be right and one wrong.

 

[fhansen]

One thing is certain though, when they reach the corner, one will be right and one wrong.

Unless there was just a Pizza Hut or something.Otherwise I thought your clarification was quite clear. A thing is true or not true regardless of whether our opinion about it is subjective, because we can’t prove the truthfulness of it, or objective, because we can.