The truth is objective

[bahman]

The truth is the set of statements each is true. Therefore, the truth is objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The truth is the set of statements each is true. Therefore, the truth is objective.

It 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. 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?

[Age]

The truth is the set of statements each is true. Therefore, the truth is objective.

It 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.

Why do you say and write 'human-based' scientific framework and system of knowledge?

In what other way could it be based if not 'human-based'?

Can you name a better one.

Yes.

But, then again, it would all depend on what the one word here is referring to, exactly.

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,

But what is 'H' and what is 'O' and are they/is it true and objective?

Also, what do you even mean by 'objective'?

Is saying or claiming that water is liquid ice and/or liquid steam true, and objective, as will?

If yes, then why?

But if no, then why not?

is because the human-based science-chemistry-FSK 'said' so!

Are okay.

So, what some human beings 'say so', makes what is said so true and objective.

But what happens when some human beings say things that you do not agree with, is what is 'said so' then true and/or objective?

If no, then why not?

Do you have an exception to that?

Yes.

[bahman]

The truth is the set of statements each is true. Therefore, the truth is objective.

It is because you, your father, mother, relatives, wife, girlfriend said so?

No because what I said is true given the definition of objective and truth.

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 am tired of your FSK. Truth is objective whether there is a human to know it or not.

[Angelo Cannata]

The truth is the set of statements each is true. Therefore, the truth is objective.

I guess that “objective” in your statement means “absolutely independent from subjectivity”.
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.

[bahman]

The truth is the set of statements each is true. Therefore, the truth is objective.

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.

Objective is the opposite of subject which means that it does not depend on the person's opinion, and the like. Like one cannot make a perfect theory from imperfect measurement. Like all a priori statements. Etc.

If I am correct in this understanding, I see what follows:

No, your understanding is not correct so your objections, the following, are not valid.

- 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.

[Angelo Cannata]

your understanding is not correct

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?

[bahman]

your understanding is not correct

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?

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]

your understanding is not correct

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?

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.

It seems to me that there is a contradiction in what you said.
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”?

[bahman]

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?

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.

It seems to me that there is a contradiction in what you said.

No, there is no contradiction.

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”?

The mistake you make is that you equate subjective experience with subjectivity.

[LuckyR]

It is statistically true that the most popular ice cream flavor (over a certain time period, in a certain location) is vanilla.

Objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

It seems to me that there is a contradiction in what you said.

No, there is no contradiction.

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”?

The mistake you make is that you equate subjective experience with subjectivity.

Subjectivity is: the quality, state, or nature of being subjective.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is statistically true that the most popular ice cream flavor (over a certain time period, in a certain location) is vanilla.

Objective?

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.

Depending on context, the FSK-ed objectivity could be qualified within the following FSKs;

• Broadest:
  Statistics: The statement relies on statistical analysis of data to draw conclusions about popularity.
  
  Specific:
  Consumer behavior: Understanding how people make choices related to food and consumption.
  Food science/Food studies: Analyzing the cultural and commercial aspects of food, including ice cream.
  Market research: Investigating consumer preferences and market trends in specific industries like ice cream.

or even,

• Social psychology: If the analysis involves understanding the psychological factors influencing ice cream flavor preferences.
  Anthropology: If the focus is on studying ice cream popularity within a specific cultural context.

The statement above is objective as long as it is qualified [imperatively] to any of the above human-based FSK which is intersubjective.
The objectivity is in varying degrees depending on the credibility and objectivity of the specific FSK against the scientific FSK as the standard.

[bahman]

It is statistically true that the most popular ice cream flavor (over a certain time period, in a certain location) is vanilla.

Objective?

That is a tricky question. That is a fact. All facts are objective.

[bahman]

It seems to me that there is a contradiction in what you said.

No, there is no contradiction.

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”?

The mistake you make is that you equate subjective experience with subjectivity.

Subjectivity is: the quality, state, or nature of being subjective.

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.

It is a mistake to equate subjective experience with subjectivity.