Post: #1

Do you believe in objective Truth?

Does it exist or are we instead discussing 'truth', a fluid concept, relative and subjective to those trying to interpret it?

Let's take the example of a transsexual male gone female. His 'truth' will be that he is a woman. Modern western society supports this rationale, disregarding the natural fact that he was born a male. If you disagree, you will find that you are not actually debating the fact of his natural sex, but that that you are attempting to force your own personal (nowadays called 'gender-normative') version of truth on his. This is why you're either ignored or labelled a bigot instead of getting into a real debate about the matter.

Now, if we're going to go down this path, where 'truth' is a deeply personal belief that's grounded in an individual's feelings, rather than laws of nature, it makes no sense to argue anything at all. It's a path that leads to calling our very reality into question. If truth is relative, then we can only have opinions.

But, if Truth is not subjective nor relative, then everything is absolutely true or absolutely false.

More to the point, any normative discussion about 'the way things ought to be', can then be attributed the 'Right' or 'Wrong' label...but maybe I digress.

Here, I think, is also the place of Truth insofar as the existence of God. But I can't quite verbalize it, it would seem though that if objective Truth exists, we're not far from agreeing that God does or does not exist....objectively and definitively.

What do you think?

Post: #2

There is no truth. There is only subjective perception and interpretation of reality.

Post: #3

Thought this was "the existence of Tuth" for a moment. Next, "the existence of G-Manifesto".

Post: #4

Subjective interpretation of reality is merely an incomplete or unclear model of reality in a mind. Reality came first, minds second. To aim for objective reality is to seek to attain an accurate model -- AKA "the truth". To utter that reality is only ever subjective is to reveal your inclination not to bother improving your understanding of the world -- to declare your lazyness in an obscured fashion.

Post: #5

People who do not believe in truth are invariably enslaved or killed by the forces of evil.

Post: #6

(02-05-2016 07:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  People who do not believe in truth are invariably enslaved or killed by the forces of evil.

Unfortunately, history has shown that many of those who do believe in truth (or are witness to it) suffer similar consequences.

Post: #7

There are truths. The extent to which we can know all truths is limited by our intelligence.

Is there a God: That is a definitive answer that I am not sure if we will ever know the answer to.

I believe in Truth. The truth found in Tradition is core to our principles.

Post: #8

(02-05-2016 08:13 AM)LukeCato Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 07:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  People who do not believe in truth are invariably enslaved or killed by the forces of evil.

Unfortunately, history has shown that many of those who do believe in truth (or are witness to it) suffer similar consequences.

Many, but never all.

Post: #9

(02-05-2016 04:08 AM)crudeloyalist Wrote:  There is no truth.

Is that true?

Denial of truth only leads in one direction and that is utter absurdity.

Fighting for truth is basically my life purpose.

Post: #10

Truth is nothing more then a label we put on things that are actually experienced or imagined. If you have no labels to describe what is occurring in each moment you also can no longer label it as truth. So you see truth is in fact just a concept, a verbal utterance, a thought that precedes what actually happens or is imagined to happen. When you remove the labels that we superimpose on our everyday experience of the world all you are left with is what is actual, what is simply occurring. This occurrence does not need to be "considered" neither "false" nor "true". Therefore the existence of truth only exists within the imagination of human beings.

If it still doesn't make sense, Imagine you fall into a cold pool of water, you feel how the cold water refreshes you and hydrates your skin, you experience a sudden alertness as your nerves become stimulated by the rush of cold water encapsulating your body, for a brief moment you feel an aliveness that you seldom experience as your eyes look at the droplets of water shimmering with the light rays of the sun. Now assume for a moment that you actually had this experience, and this lovely description I detailed is actually yours, if you remove the words to describe the experience is it truth or fiction? In the end all that remains beyond the words and the description of the experience is in fact the experience, and the experience is what is actual. When you remove the voice in the head that says "This is real" "This is not real" then all you're doing is experiencing the actual without the psychic "interpreter".



Understand this and ones search for the truth ends immediately.

Post: #11

(02-06-2016 06:31 AM)Jackreacher Wrote:  If it still doesn't make sense, Imagine you fall into a cold pool of water, you feel how the cold water refreshes you and hydrates your skin, you experience a sudden alertness as your nerves become stimulated by the rush of cold water encapsulating your body, for a brief moment you feel an aliveness that you seldom experience as your eyes look at the droplets of water shimmering with the light rays of the sun. Now assume for a moment that you actually had this experience, and this lovely description I detailed is actually yours, if you remove the words to describe the experience is it truth or fiction? In the end all that remains beyond the words and the description of the experience is in fact the experience, and the experience is what is actual. When you remove the voice in the head that says "This is real" "This is not real" then all you're doing is experiencing the actual without the psychic "interpreter".

So basically, "I imagined it therefore it's true"?

That seems to be a correspondence theory of truth, where truth is that which corresponds to reality - which is fine, but the next problem for this is "How do you know what is real?".

I remember when I was much younger I had a vivid dream that my family went on a walk through a forest. The next day, I taught it actually happened so I talked to them about how cool it was.

Of course they told me it was not true that we went walking through a forest.

Post: #12

(02-06-2016 03:48 PM)Sooth Wrote:  So basically, "I imagined it therefore it's true"?

That seems to be a correspondence theory of truth, where truth is that which corresponds to reality - which is fine, but the next problem for this is "How do you know what is real?".

I remember when I was much younger I had a vivid dream that my family went on a walk through a forest. The next day, I taught it actually happened so I talked to them about how cool it was.

Of course they told me it was not true that we went walking through a forest.

A lot of people have declared that what they imagine "is" true. Albert Einstien is among them and there are many individuals who have garnered popularity who have declared their imaginings to be true as well. That tells you all you need to know about how useful the label truth is. I'm being sincere when I say truth does not exist. Only what is actual exists. Knock on a wooden table, go outside and listen to birds chirping, that is actual, that is your experience. Even if say you wanted to believe existence to be a hologram you are still experiencing for example the sensation of cold water splashing your face that the hologram projects onto your perception regardless of what you believe the cold water sensation is being experienced. However you wish to label it, it has nothing at all to do with the actual experience you are having. The labels you give them are simply a way for you to describe what's occurring even if it's just to yourself.

Post: #13

Through observtion of a society wherein everyone has their own Truth, it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that individual subjectivism (subjective Truth) leads to bad things like an atomized society.

Though I admit that the arguments for subjective truth (eg: Korzbyski's General Semantics, NLP, Western Interpretations of Zen, and Quantum Physics Theory) are seductive in their theoretical forms. They all essentially boil down to the assertion that "objective" reality actually changes with each individuals subjective observation and experience of it, or is otherwise no more valid according to any one individual's perception because reality exists only in the consciousness of each individual. Thus, there can be no single Truth.

If anyone is interested, Quantum Psychology by Robert Anton Wilson is the single best comprehensive presentation and reasonably accessible (though not 'easy') summary of proofs of the subjective reality perspective that I've read. In fact, it'll probably convince you of its thesis. I highly recommend the book.

With that being said, the essence of this thesis the central pillar of liberal theology.

As I said before, in a practical sense, it's easy to see the flaws in this perspective in terms of its effect on civilization. Thus, I'll move on assuming that we agree that Objective Truth is a healthier type of software for Man. If you aren't convinced, I recommend reading the above recommended book and then observing the world and working out for yourself the causal logic of the reality and the change that you would like to see. If you enjoy the modern gestalt then perhaps you will remain a champion of Subjective Truth, as currently that is our generally shared social reality.

The problem, however, may not be simply the recognition that an Objective Truth is the most beneficial perspective for society, but in our process toward perceiving that Objective Truth. To wit, I don't believe that we were intentionally led here, philosophically speaking, by men who were champions of subjective truth. We may have arrived here, instead, due to a long-held misunderstanding of how to describe and preserve that Truth; and the result seems to be the rough opposite of what may have been intended.

To illustrate, Science can be roughly stated to be the modern religion or 'software' that underpins the modern mind and its processes. That is, the nature of our commonly perceived reality is discovered by the application of the Scientific Method or, in other words, individual observation. On its face, it seems as if we are rejecting subjectivity because our reality is no longer determined by non-logical myths (mythos), but by a deductive process and a method that, at its core, is based on seemingly objective measurement (logos).

The problem is that through Scientific thinking and observation-measurement based reality-modeling, we have actually arrived at the counter-intuitive conclusion that reality is indeed subjective. This is the dominant scientific view held, though science generally proceeds as if it is not. It ignores this consensus, while acknowledging it as Truth, and proceeds as if its studies are definitive measures of reality. Where the belief in subjectivism raises its head is when things happen like the discounting of scientific data that does not meet social agenda reality. Though, this accepted subjectivism is often evoked in the realms of sociology, politics, and liberal theology / ecumenism.

What if the pre-Logical era, pre-Scientfic Era mythological interpretation (mythos) of the Object (reality), which on its face seems subjective, is actually the best way to preserve a very real Objective Truth?

Theoretically, it may accomplish this by assuming the representation-measurement (myth) to be incomplete, flawed, or otherwise a subjective shadow of the Objective Truth.

Thus, it isn't the Truth that changes with the measurement that is otherwise real and valid in Science / Secular Philosophy, but instead that the measurement is always assumed to be a flawed or incomplete reflection of an unchanging Objective Truth; and thus that truth is preserved despite variations in individual representation-observation-measurement?

Now please take my recommendation and go smoke one, and think on this for a few hours

Post: #14

If what I said is valid, then that may imply that discrete numbers cannot accurately reflect reality.

Thus, a counter-intuitive proposition:

The existence of only Subjective Truth means that numbers can reflect the whole of reality because individual measurements / observations are accurate and Truth changes with the Observer.

The existence of an Objective Truth means that numbers cannot be said to reflect reality because measurements / observations / representations of reality by individuals are always incomplete or flawed while Objective Truth remains unchanging.

I suppose that this also means that Truth can be considered either fully knowable as anything that you perceive with your fully unencumbered senses is more or less valid as Subjective Truth

or

That Truth is essentially unknowable, at least completely, but nevertheless that our senses are useful for interpreting a flawed approximation of an eternal, unchanging and Objective Truth. (This approximation was likely thought to be best communicated through myth).

A caveat:

How can we ever assume that are senses, upon which we are dependent for observation, are ever unencumbered if not completely corrupt?

Thus, the logic of Subjective Truth (or perhaps absence of Objective Truth) may not indicate that this Subjective Truth is truly valid, but only that any conception of Truth is invalid.

If I'm on a hallucinogen, and perceive a teapot as a cat, that does not make the teapot a cat as a matter of Subjective Truth. Unencumbered senses are a de facto requirement if we are to assume that all Truth is Subjective and yet still Truth, because Subjective Truth is dependent on accurate individual observation actually changing the nature of the thing being observed as it exists outside of the mind Observer Effect (Physics), it doesn't mean that Truth is whatever we want it or perceive it to be in all circumstances.

If it does mean that, that is if we are to accept that ALL perceived Truth is True merely as a matter of our perceiving it, then that more or less puts each individual on par with what the West generally considers to be God.

So, we likely either have:

"knowable" Chaotic illusion (absence of a Subjective or Objective Truth: an assumption that all observations are false/flawed, because senses [and measuring instruments that collect data] are at best encumbered if not corrupt, and no belief in an Objective Truth).

or

God like powers (creation) of turning anything into Truth (Observer Effect) merely by perceiving it as such (Subjective Truth: an assumption that [essentially mathematical] observations are a fully accurate reflection of reality, even when those numbers change with the individual due to the Observer Effect)

or

unknowable Objective Truth (that we historically attempt to approximate and communicate with myth: all observations are a flawed shadow of an eternal and objective truth.

Question:

1. If the Truth can never be known, does it matter if it exists? I would suppose that consideration the other options is important in answering this question.

I'm not sure which model is an accurate reflection of the human condition, but I think that I'm sure of which one is less mind bendingly depressing and less improbable.

Post: #15

(02-06-2016 05:14 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Through observtion of a society wherein everyone has their own Truth, it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that individual subjectivism (subjective Truth) leads to bad things like an atomized society.

Though I admit that the arguments for subjective truth (eg: Korzbyski's General Semantics, NLP, Western Interpretations of Zen, and Quantum Physics Theory) are seductive in their theoretical forms. They all essentially boil down to the assertion that "objective" reality actually changes with each individuals subjective observation and experience of it, or is otherwise no more valid according to any one individual's perception because reality exists only in the consciousness of each individual. Thus, there can be no single Truth.

There is actually a way out of this paradox and it lies with Kantian Quantum Mechanics. Kant's distinction between the noumena and phenomena worlds allows us to understand why nothing exists until it is measured vis a vis quantum mechanics.

http://www.friesian.com/space-2.htm#kant

Quote:Now, the original philosophical theory which advocated something of the sort, that observation (the synthesis of objects in consciousness) imposes certain forms and rules before things can appear as phenomenal objects, was indeed that of Kant. Einstein and all his contemporaries must have been aware that there was something familiar about the emerging quantum world. The outright anti-realism of Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation, although the focus of conflict, was only one historical possibility. Kant's empirical realism and transcendental idealism was another. But I have not noticed Kant receiving any kind of notice or credit for a theory that would address some of the paradoxes produced by quantum mechanics, denying the independence of physical reality from the presence of human consciousness. While recognizing the ontological dualism, Freeman Dyson now says (above) that "the way they fit together is not yet completely understood...," without acknowledging that just such a dualism, conformable to quantum mechanics, already exists in Kant's phenomenalism. Since nothing is so characteristic of Kantian philosophy than that dualistic principle, perhaps it is only a matter of time before philosophers pull their heads out of the "post-modernist" hole in the ground and pay attention. Physicists, of course, don't have to care, unless they hear the call of metaphysics as well as physics.

Thus, contrary to what many think, Quantum Mechanics does not disprove the notion of objective truth.

Quote:That Bohr, or even Einstein and Gödel, knew his Kant does not mean that he (or Einstein and Gödel) agreed with him. Indeed, even apart from Kant, Bohr's dictum is profoundly paradoxical, since, if nothing exists before we measure it, we would not be able to find anything to measure. This is like the Logical Positivists asserting that nothing has meaning unless it can be verified, even though we would need to understand that meaning before we could know whether it could be verified or not. (And since the Positivists supposedly accepted Hume's critique of Induction, they should have known that science cannot actually verify much of anything, leaving all of it meaningless -- no less than the conclusion of the Deconstructionists.)

Post: #16

(02-04-2016 10:51 AM)LukeCato Wrote:  Do you believe in objective Truth?

Now, if we're going to go down this path, where 'truth' is a deeply personal belief that's grounded in an individual's feelings, rather than laws of nature, it makes no sense to argue anything at all. It's a path that leads to calling our very reality into question. If truth is relative, then we can only have opinions.

But, if Truth is not subjective nor relative, then everything is absolutely true or absolutely false.

What do you think?

There is a universal truth. The desire for believing there is not is an effort to avoid seeing it.

If instead we say, "You have your truth and I have mine", then it relieves us of the task, the responsibility really, for figuring out what the truth is. It also means no one can be wrong.

Transsexuality is a perversion of the truth. What is that truth? That everyone, and the world, is made up of two parts. The Masculine and the Feminine, and we spend our entire lives trying to reconcile, and unite the two.

The normal, symbolic way of doing this on a sexual level is heterosexuality. It's legitimate because each gender must contend with the real aspects of the other's metaphysical predilection. For the purpose of both having it, and converting it. It requires struggle, and sacrifice. Both of which the transgender is in flight from.

The transexual seeks to avoid all the negativity and sacrifice involved in this in it's attempt to be androgynous. To be both masculine/feminine within itself. They are trying to have "something for nothing" which is why it's illegitimate and a perversion.