The truth is objective
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2024 6:35 pm
The truth is the set of statements each is true. Therefore, the truth is objective.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
It is because you, your father, mother, relatives, wife, girlfriend said so?
Why do you say and write 'human-based' scientific framework and system of knowledge?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 7:13 amIt is because you, your father, mother, relatives, wife, girlfriend said so?
With more reflective and rigorous thinking,
the Principle is,
whatever is the truth, fact, reality, exists, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
The most credible and objective FSK is that of the human-based scientific FSK.
Yes.
But what is 'H' and what is 'O' and are they/is it true and objective?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 7:13 am Every claim is thus traceable to a human-based FSR-FSK, e.g. scientific, legal, economics, political, of the arts, etc.
That 'water is H20' is true and objective,
Are okay.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 7:13 am is because the human-based science-chemistry-FSK 'said' so!
Yes.
No because what I said is true given the definition of objective and truth.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 7:13 amIt is because you, your father, mother, relatives, wife, girlfriend said so?
I am tired of your FSK. Truth is objective whether there is a human to know it or not.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 7:13 am With more reflective and rigorous thinking,
the Principle is,
whatever is the truth, fact, reality, exists, knowledge and objective is conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
The most credible and objective FSK is that of the human-based scientific FSK. Can you name a better one.
Every claim is thus traceable to a human-based FSR-FSK, e.g. scientific, legal, economics, political, of the arts, etc.
That 'water is H20' is true and objective, is because the human-based science-chemistry-FSK 'said' so!
Do you have an exception to that?
I guess that “objective” in your statement means “absolutely independent from subjectivity”.
No, by subjective I mean that it depends on the person's opinion, desire, perception, emotion, and bias. For example, one person might feel the weather is hot and another might feel it is ok. One might think that abortion is wrong and another thinks that is right. Etc.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:19 pmI guess that “objective” in your statement means “absolutely independent from subjectivity”.
No, your understanding is not correct so your objections, the following, are not valid.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:19 pm If I am correct in this understanding, I see what follows:
- you wrote your message by using your brain, which is your subjectivity
- the idea of truth cannot be thought without using our brain, which means without our subjectivity conditioning it
- the idea that there is a reality, to which truth refers, cannot be thought without using our subjectivity
- the relationship between truth and reality cannot be thought without using our subjectivity
More things that cannot be conceived without using our subjectivity:
- the concept of “objective”
- the logic used to make the reasoning you wrote in your message
- your understanding of what you wrote
- the idea of “therefore”
In other words, I cannot see anything in your message where subjectivity is not involved, anything not conditioned by subjectivity.
Now, if I am correct, as I said, about “objectivity” being “independent from subjectivity”, what is independent from your subjectivity in what you said? You can anticipate that, whatever your will answer, assuming that you cannot answer without using your brain, your subjectivity, I can object that your answer is itself non-objective.
We can even leave aside all of this stuff and concentrate on the concept of “objective”: if we notice that the concept cannot be thought without using our brain, the consequence is that the very concept of “objective” is a contradiction itself. It is similar to say: “in this moment, while I am thinking these things, I am not alive”: it is just a contradiction.
I understand that you wanted to solve the problem of truth by limiting yourself to the field of the definition: this way it doesn’t matter if we are correct or not about something: we can be wrong, but the very abstract idea of “truth” cannot be wrong, because it is just a definition. However, this is exposed to criticism, because you have no way even to be sure that you agree with your own definition. If you want to check if you agree with yourself, with your definition, the only way to do this is again by using your brain, which is subjective, is unreliable. As a consequence, even just a simple definition cannot be considered “objective”, because you cannot give yourself any objective evidence that you agree with yourself. In other words, it is humanly impossible to give evidence that we are not crazy; it is humanly impossible to guarantee to ourselves that our brain is working properly, because we cannot do it without using our brain again.
The essence of the problem of objectivity is that it ignores subjectivity. This is what you did in your message: you ignored your involvement in what you wrote.
Obviously, you can reply that, since we cannot be sure that our brain is working properly, I cannot be sure that my objection demolishes your reasoning.
This is true, but it is exposed to another objection as well: if you want to apply my criticism to me, you cannot, as a consequence, avoid to apply it to yourself as well. In other words, if you want to apply my criticism to me, it means that you are agreeing with my criticism, you consider it valid, you want to adopt it, you want to make use of it.
My definition was that the objectivity is opposite of subjectivity. Of course, we need a subjective experience to understand objective ideas. But that does not mean objective ideas are not true without subjective experience.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:12 pmMy definition of “objective” was “absolutely independent from subjectivity”.
Your definition is “does not depend on the person's opinion”.
What is the difference between my definition and yours?
It seems to me that there is a contradiction in what you said.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:27 pmMy definition was that the objectivity is opposite of subjectivity. Of course, we need a subjective experience to understand objective ideas. But that does not mean objective ideas are not true without subjective experience.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:12 pmMy definition of “objective” was “absolutely independent from subjectivity”.
Your definition is “does not depend on the person's opinion”.
What is the difference between my definition and yours?
No, there is no contradiction.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:43 pmIt seems to me that there is a contradiction in what you said.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:27 pmMy definition was that the objectivity is opposite of subjectivity. Of course, we need a subjective experience to understand objective ideas. But that does not mean objective ideas are not true without subjective experience.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:12 pm
My definition of “objective” was “absolutely independent from subjectivity”.
Your definition is “does not depend on the person's opinion”.
What is the difference between my definition and yours?
The mistake you make is that you equate subjective experience with subjectivity.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:43 pm First we have:
“we need a subjective experience to understand objective ideas”, which means we have no way to understand objective ideas without conditioning them with our subjective experience.
But then you wrote
“does not mean objective ideas are not true without subjective experience”.
How can you know that something is true “without subjective experience”, after you said “we need a subjective experience”?
Subjectivity is: the quality, state, or nature of being subjective.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:49 pmNo, there is no contradiction.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:43 pmIt seems to me that there is a contradiction in what you said.
The mistake you make is that you equate subjective experience with subjectivity.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:43 pm First we have:
“we need a subjective experience to understand objective ideas”, which means we have no way to understand objective ideas without conditioning them with our subjective experience.
But then you wrote
“does not mean objective ideas are not true without subjective experience”.
How can you know that something is true “without subjective experience”, after you said “we need a subjective experience”?
Yes, that is objective [in varying degrees], but it must be qualified [imperatively] to a specific human-based Framework and System of Knowledge which is intersubjective.
It is a mistake to equate subjective experience with subjectivity.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 3:25 amSubjectivity is: the quality, state, or nature of being subjective.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:49 pmNo, there is no contradiction.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:43 pm
It seems to me that there is a contradiction in what you said.
The mistake you make is that you equate subjective experience with subjectivity.Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 4:43 pm First we have:
“we need a subjective experience to understand objective ideas”, which means we have no way to understand objective ideas without conditioning them with our subjective experience.
But then you wrote
“does not mean objective ideas are not true without subjective experience”.
How can you know that something is true “without subjective experience”, after you said “we need a subjective experience”?
and subjective encompasses experience;
Subjective is:
- characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind,
-relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
-modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
-arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
-arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
- peculiar to a particular individual.
There is no mistake in equating 'subjective experience' with 'subjectivity'.
Knowledge per se cannot be from merely the first-person's experience, i.e. a subject.
Rather, knowledge [objective knowledge] is conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework and System [FSK] with the consensus of a collective-of-subjects, thus inter-subjective.
Objectivity is only opposite of subjectivity with reference to a first-person's experiences.
However, objectivity is intersubjectivity and cannot be independent of subjectivity in terms of a collective-of-subjective interactions.