M
- Status
J
johngh
Guest
Truth is basically objective reality. I firmly believe that as humans we can only get glimpses of the truth, but never truly know it. This is due to our minds being inferior to God’s (obviously) and to our inability to be truly objective. Everything we claim to “know” is ultimately the product of subjectivity and a faith of some sort.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Are you saying that we cannot know reality? If so, it means that truth is purely subjective. This appears to conflict with your statement that truth is “objective reality”, a statement, however, that I find rather ambiguous. Perhaps you can explain what you mean.
Also, if what we claim “to know is ultimately the product of subjectivity and a faith”, as you stated, then what becomes of science. Your statement implies that science cannot give of knowledge of reality. What is it then that scientists are doing?
What criteria do you use to determine that knowledge is the product of subjectivity, by which I take it that you mean truth is relative to each individual’s perception?
I
itinerant1
Guest
Am I missing something here? You seem to be agreeing with a statement that is inherently contradictory. “The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth” is a self-refuting statement.
F
frnate
Guest
I
itinerant1
Guest
Absolutely!Are you ultimately sure of this?
Pax,
+N
T
tonyrey
Guest
Truth is a reflection of reality. When we “grasp” the truth we know reality.Truth is ultimately a reflection of Supreme Reality. That is why we can never be satisfied with material things. Truth, goodness, beauty, freedom, justice and love are all aspects of divine perfection. We have an insatiable desire to pursue them because they lead us to God.
J
johngh
Guest
First of all, I think we can know reality to a degree that is useful. I do not however believe we can truly know reality completely. And no it does not mean that truth is subjective. The truth in the ultimate sense is objective, but our perception is subjective and thus clouds our view of the truth.
As for science, science is ultimately taken on faith. All of science is essentially based on the notion that our sensory perception gives us truth, and there is frankly no real reason to believe that is correct. Isn’t it quite possible that are sensory organs are there simply to provide us with utility for survival, and have nothing to do with what is ultimately true?
And once again, I did not say truth is relative. Peoples view of the truth is relative. Obviously this means some people will be closer to the truth than others, but such is life.
And a question I can ask is, what criteria do you use to determine that knowledge is objective? Do you use reason to judge reason? How can use a criteria to judge itself? Doesn’t it ultimately come down to reason seemingly working pretty well for our human purposes? But what does that have to do with real, ultimate, objective truth?
P
PJM
Guest
Of course one can know Objective Truth: 1 +1 always ='s 2, the sun rises and set’s every day, hold out an apple and then let go of ot and it will fall everytime.
Similarly believe what the Catholic Church teaches on Faith and morals and it cannot be wrong! God Himself assures it.
LOve and prayers,
Pat
I
itinerant1
Guest
Your definition of truth does not allow you to make that judgement. You could never be sure that your knowledge is of things as they are, or whether your knowledge is merely sufficiently pragmatical i.e. that it works adequately in regard to survival. I think you need to further analyze the meanings you attach to the terms you are using.
The idea of “knowing reality completely” is ambiguous. For instance, I may assert that we know reality as it truly is, but that our knowledge of it is far from complete. For example, I can know an acorn as it truly is, plus 10, 000 facts about it. Yet, what is potentially knowable about the acorn is infinite. It’s intelligibility is infinite. So, there is a world of difference between not knowing “reality completely”, and knowing a myriad of things about it truly and not just pragmatically.
Here is where you confuse truth with the object of knowledge. Truth is not the things in nature, and so on, that exist independently and externally of our minds. Truth exists in the intellect.
The physical senses give us knowledge of the world. It is a first order level of knowledge. To doubt the reliability of sense knowledge leads to solipsism. So, you are actually implying a relativity, which when followed to its logical conclusion leaves you in a solipsistic world
If the senses are merely adequate for survival, then you would not be able to know that that is the case, or that it is true, because you would not have a reference point from which to make that judgement. On the other hand, things as known, are the reference point, but you have eliminated that possibility at the outset of your statement and by what meaning you attach to “truth”.
Sense knowledge is a given. But it is merely a knowledge of the phenomenal aspects of things. All knowledge begins with sense perception, but it does not end there, as John Locke says, “Percepts without concepts are blind.”
It is true
that you did not explicitly state “that truth is relative”, but your statement leads necessarily to that conclusion.Reason works pretty well as you say, but that is because reason can know things as they are. Things that we know (in the act of knowing) exist in the mind with an intentional and non-physical existence. When there is an adequation between the mind and the thing, we possess truth. Reason also judges. It judges that this or that is true or false. It affirms and it denies. It joins and it separates. Reason judges sense perception as when a stick in the water appears crooked. The mind judges that the stick is actually straight and the eyes are perceiving the water’s distorting effects of the light rays.
- Status