Objective, Subjective, Confusion, Reconciliation

[firedragon]

I have very rarely heard anyone claim that all truth is subjective, simply that moral truths are subjective. Of the tiny percentage that do take the stance that all true is subjective, I'd say they are just as likely to be theists as they are to be atheists.

So far, no theist has ever told me that truth is subjective. Anyway I have explained that in the OP. But in this very thread, you will find several people who say that all truths are subjective.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So far, no theist has ever told me that truth is subjective. Anyway I have explained that in the OP. But in this very thread, you will find several people who say that all truths are subjective.

You haven't spoken to enough theists then.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Could you give me an example of "pure reason" uninformed by "external reality"?

A man has had his head in a bucket since birth. He attempts to solve the great questions that have plagued philosophers through the ages.

I thought not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"vaccinations can markedly reduce adverse outcomes of COVID-19" is an objective truth. It's a statement. It being objectively true is not scientific, it's analytical. It's analytical based on an inductive truth.

OK

 

[Nimos]

Lets say we have no answer for something. "Why is the sky blue"? Assume we don't know the answer. That does not mean the truth of it falls into a category, like relative or absolute.

That is correct. But I think one has to be careful here.

Because even though we didn't know why the sky is blue, it is still an objective truth that it is. In the same way, we could say we have no clue why Everest is the highest mountain, it wouldn't change the fact that it is. That is not the same when you have conflicting "truth", meaning you think it's wrong to kill animals and I don't. Neither of us would be able to present proof of why the other is wrong, the only way we could do that is if we had something to measure it against.

And given the number of things people disagree about in regards to moral issues, I think it is safe to say that no such measuring "device" exist, or at least it would be fair to demand proof of such a thing's existence.

This obviously results in the exact same discussion that humans have had for 1000s of years regarding God.

Not at all. That's absolutely wrong to understand it that way. No philosopher in history that I know of have ever made that kind of argument. Please go back to my post and read it once more. And of course you can ask me later if I have not written it clearly.

My point was, that it doesn't matter whether we are talking about the suffering of a child or that of killing an animal. The important part here is the moral differences between people's positions towards it.

There is absolutely nothing gained by giving a horrible description of something in great detail or using that of killing an animal or simply using the trolley example. They are all moral questions and the fact that not everyone agrees on what is right or wrong is the important thing. Everything else is simply to draw attention away from that and is not needed.

If the right answer to the trolley problem is to always save the most amount of people, then that ought to be the objective moral thing to do for everyone. But the fact is, that not all would do that because there is a moral conflict with actively participating in the murder of an innocent person, even if you end up saving more lives.

And if I misunderstood what you meant, then please elaborate.

They have explained it. I have said how in the post you are replying to.

Maybe I misunderstood it, but I understood what you said them saying that it came from within, due to some biological thing?

Let me again cut and paste an atheist philosophers quote, directly, verbatim so that you could understand the atheist perspective better.

"What is true is true for all of us, full stop, whether or not we are aware of it"

Fair enough, I would disagree with that if we are talking about moral issues. Again I can only refer to the trolley problem above and ask you/him/her to demonstrate why one option is morally right over the other option?

(If this were what you meant with the above, you can obviously just ignore the above clarification)

 

[firedragon]

You haven't spoken to enough theists then.

OK.

 

[firedragon]

Because even though we didn't know why the sky is blue, it is still an objective truth that it is

That's a whole different ball game. It's irrelevant.

My point was, that it doesn't matter whether we are talking about the suffering of a child or that of killing an animal. The important part here is the moral differences between people's positions towards it.

You have misunderstood it completely. It's a thought experiment to explain what objective morality means. Not an accusation.

Maybe I misunderstood it, but I understood what you said them saying that it came from within, due to some biological thing?

There are many thesis's. Evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, determinism as a composition, and also "we don't know" as an antirealist.

Fair enough, I would disagree with that if we are talking about moral issues.

It is to do with moral issues. It's an atheist explanation. I never used theistic a priori arguments in the OP. None.

Again I can only refer to the trolley problem above and ask you/him/her to demonstrate why one option is morally right over the other option?

It's a he. Michael Ruse. And I can't ask him questions.

Anyway, I guess he would answer that humans have an inbuilt morality which are objective, but we also have subjective moral standpoints.

 

[firedragon]

I thought not.

How do you quote a post within a quoted post?

 

[Augustus]

Please read the OP. This is not relevant.

If you don't see it as relevant, it's probably why you get confused between objective/subjective, and think that some atheists here deny there are objective truths.

If you can't appreciate the difference between things that are true independently of human existence, and things that are only ever experienced via the subjective perceptions of humans, it is hard to understand the different ways in which the term is used.

I previously pointed out some examples of you dong this in the OP.

Err. OK.

Your statement was false regardless of the quantity in question.

 

[firedragon]

If you don't see it as relevant, it's probably why you get confused between objective/subjective,

Please explain specifically what the confusion is.

If you can't appreciate the difference between things that are true independently of human existence, and things that are only ever experienced via the subjective perceptions of humans, it is hard to understand the different ways in which the term is used.

Is that an "If/then" situation or are you saying that I don't appreciate the difference?

Your statement was false regardless of the quantity in question.

What statement was false, and why?

 

[Augustus]

Please explain specifically what the confusion is.

See my first post in this thread. Little point in repeating myself, if you wanted to address it you would have done so by now.

s that an "If/then" situation or are you saying that I don't appreciate the difference?

Seems to be the latter.

See my first post in the thread.

What statement was false, and why?

See pretty much all my posts in this thread.

 

[sun rise]

When you quote a post it puts the directive QUOTE with a lead { and a trailing } In the rest of this post I first show the the result then how it's done adding a space before the leading QUOTE so make it visible.

How do you quote a post within a quoted post?

[ QUOTE="firedragon, post: 7800468, member: 45358"]How do you quote a post within a quoted post?[/QUOTE]

If you hit the + sign, you'll see the quote option which adds a quote directive in a highlighted area.

and the result is like this

How do you quote a post within a quoted post?

[ QUOTE]and the result is like this[ QUOTE="firedragon, post: 7800468, member: 45358"]How do you quote a post within a quoted post?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Nimos]

You have misunderstood it completely. It's a thought experiment to explain what objective morality means. Not an accusation.

Ok fair enough, have to admit that I have no clue what this thought experiment is about. Do you have a video or link to where they are discussing it, would like to know what its actually about?

 

[gnostic]

An American some time ago would have thought a mountain close by was the tallest mountain in the world. Maybe, an American who traveled the whole land at that time and explored every inch would have thought that's the whole world, and what ever the tallest mountain he found was the tallest mountain in the world. That's his truth. Subjective. Because the subjective truth of a Sherpa in the Himalaya's was his subjective truth. Today we know, the Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, and that's an objective fact. Where ever you travel in the universe, and even if you find a million taller mountains around the universe, the Everest will always be the tallest mountain on earth, and that's objectively true. It's an objective fact. The Sherpa were not necessarily "right" in finding an absolute truth about the Everest, but it's just that they have not met the Americans and both have not measured the other's mountain to exchange notes and decide which one is taller. Thus, in studies of sociological background, you don't call it an absolute truth because it's an inductive finding. That does not mean the Everest is not the tallest mountain on earth once you map it out.

I don’t think we need a definition as to what a mountain is.

But there needs to be definition as to what you mean by “the tallest” mountain.

There are two objective ways to physically measure the heights of each mountain.

Since you have brought up Everest as example in your OP, so I will use this too.

Of all the mountains on Earth, Everest is indeed has the highest “elevation”, which is 8849 metres (rounded; more precisely 8848.86m).

To understand what I mean by “elevation”. That means a measurement from the peak or summit to the sea level.

Another way to measure a mountain is from top of Everest to the base or foot of the mountain only measure at the most 5200 metres from the Tibetan plateau side. And if you measure from base at the southern side of Everest, it’s height is even shorter, at 4200 metres. So the heights varied if you measure the base from the southern side or base from the Tibetan Plateau’s side.

In Hawaii, Mauna Kea only measured at 4205 metres above sea level (elevation measurement), but Mauna Kea is much taller when measured from the base of mountain, with total height of 10,200 metres. Mauna Kea’s base is underwater, being measure from mid-ocean floor.

The elevation measurement (above sea level) and the summit-to-base measurement can differ greatly.

So if you are only basing the height of the mountain from sea level to the summit, then Everest is indeed tallest of all mountains.

But if you measure the mountain from its base to its summit, then Mauna Kea is the tallest.

So there are really two types of measurements. Both are objective, but claiming which is the tallest, really depends on you comparing heights by elevation or base measurement.

In total height (base-to-summit), Mauna Kea is about 5000 metres taller than Everest.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Truth is subjective say some. I hear this from atheists mostly, in this forum. Not "most atheists" but "mostly atheists". It's not true. It's nuanced.

In studies of sociology or sociology of religion, one outcome taught as fact is that religious truths are subjective. For example, an Ethiopian Jesus is black. An American Jesus is white. Sometimes even God is white for an American, and vice versa. This is subjective truth. But that does not mean there are no objective truths. An American some time ago would have thought a mountain close by was the tallest mountain in the world. Maybe, an American who traveled the whole land at that time and explored every inch would have thought that's the whole world, and what ever the tallest mountain he found was the tallest mountain in the world. That's his truth. Subjective. Because the subjective truth of a Sherpa in the Himalaya's was his subjective truth. Today we know, the Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, and that's an objective fact. Where ever you travel in the universe, and even if you find a million taller mountains around the universe, the Everest will always be the tallest mountain on earth, and that's objectively true. It's an objective fact. The Sherpa were not necessarily "right" in finding an absolute truth about the Everest, but it's just that they have not met the Americans and both have not measured the other's mountain to exchange notes and decide which one is taller. Thus, in studies of sociological background, you don't call it an absolute truth because it's an inductive finding. That does not mean the Everest is not the tallest mountain on earth once you map it out.

Philosophers predominantly have favoured objective truth's although there were philosophers who proposed relative truths like Protagoras. Yet, generally philosophers believe that "What is true is true for all of us, full stop, whether or not we are aware of it". Even atheists.

A child may not know who the mother is, but there is a mother somewhere, and that's objectively true. It's an objective fact. If it's proven via DNA analysis that lady A is the mother, it's an objective fact, not relative. But from a child's perspective she may not be the mother. That's only perspective, but not an objective truth. This is a problem with those who claim that IF there is a God, his perspective is subjective as much as human perspective is subjective. It's not correct. It's false reasoning. When a child is born, and comes out of the mothers womb, she knows the child is hers but from a child's perspective it maybe completely different. That does not mean the mother's knowledge is also subjective. It's absurd, unless there is a problem in epistemology or epistemic biases.

Einstein said that no one would have been taken seriously who failed to acknowledge the quest for objective truth and knowledge as man's highest and eternal aim.

Qualia does not mean there is no objective truths which is a usual thought experiment or example taken to explain this in philosophy. An orange, when cut up and you make a juice out of it, several different people will have subjective experiences. One might think it's too sweet, the other that it's sour etc. But that does not mean the orange is not round or that it's an orange, or that it's a fruit or that it's orange in colour. Though you may have subjective experiences, there is an objective truth. It's an axiom that analytical truths are true in any world or any universe. One cannot escape that fact, just because we may have some inductive truths that changed in time or because we have relative truths.

I put this in the science and religion section because science seem like something atheists value a lot. Science does not necessarily work with objective truths but will endeavour within inductive truths, though the ultimate aim is the find objective truths as an epistemic stance of the person. Like Einstein says above. Just because science is an inductive method, that does not mean there is no objective truths in this world. By observation people detected that the sun revolves around the earth, and other people detected that the earth revolves around the sun. This does not mean there is no objective fact. Either this or that is an objective truth. Or, there maybe another third option one would find one day which maybe an objective truth. The fact is, either this or that is true. Objectively.

In this discussion, I would like to hear how people think and make philosophical arguments about the topic.

Cheers.

I don't see truth as subjective. I simply think it's an overused term, and commonly jammed on top of opinion as a means of silencing dissent.

 

[ppp]

Truth is subjective say some. I hear this from atheists mostly, in this forum. Not "most atheists" but "mostly atheists". It's not true. It's nuanced.

I hear this mostly from people who consider themselves to be spiritual, both theists and atheists. And from people who think that the fact that they have a given worldview justifies that worldview.

 

[Polymath257]

The clarification is in the next sentence. Not "most atheists" but "mostly atheists".

Which is why I quoted it.

That's irrelevant. This is a need. Like an illness. And that's why sometimes people lose their brains and become highly tribalistic etc.

How is it irrelevant? Your OP made a claim about what mostly atheists believe. it doesn't correlate with what I have found that most (mostly?_) atheists actually believe. In particular, the designation of 'objective truth' to religious beliefs is one of the things most(ly) atheists disagree with.

You mean scientific evidence or some other kind of "empiricism"? What is it that works with objective truths?

There is no difference between scientific and empirical evidence. Yes, it is the empirical nature that makes it evidence for objective truths.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think confirmation bias if of big issue since one can always research for arguments which go against proposed thesis.
Also one who is really devoted into constructing strong arguments will make sure to account for arguments which could be used against his thesis and then there is not much you can do to undermine proposition.

A grater issue with atheists than confirmation bias and debating religion is their stubborn belief that science is the holly grail to knowledge, but we know for certain (and even scientists confirm that) that science neither seeks nor can have an answer to everything, yet atheists regardless of that fact hold science as the only method.

Most atheists are perfectly happy acknowledging that science has little to no ability to answer aesthetic questions or questions of ethics. It can occasionally *inform* such questions, but not resolve them.

What most atheists would deny is that there is *knowledge* about the answers to such questions.

Imagine expecting a car mechanic to do all the work with just one tool ex. a hammer, while in fact car mechanic has many tools on it's shelf, depending on task he will use appropriate tool.

Likewise it doesn't make any sense to use science for everything but rather we should use the right tool depending on problem that is to be solved.

I agree. You cannot use science to determine beauty or justice. You cannot use science to determine goals (as opposed to informing them). But none of those are questions concerning *knowledge* as opposed to *opinion* as far as I can see.

 

[Polymath257]

Could you give an example of objective truth being known through pure reason? It seems to me that, outside math and pure logic, everything is provisional until it is tested by examining external reality. This applies to science just as much as philosophy. Science does indeed extrapolate from known facts. The orbit of Mercury was seen not to agree with the calculations of Newtonian gravitation theory, so a planet they called Vulcan was proposed to make the equations balance. No such planet exists. It took Einstein's theory of Relativity to more accurately describe Mercury's orbit. That doesn't mean the idea of Vulcan was a bad thing, it worked as an explanation. The point is that needed to be objectively tested.

I would remove the caveat of logic and math to that. There is always an empirical question of whether any part of math or logic applies to any given real world situation.

 

[Polymath257]

I would rather not separate reason with math and logic. It's strange to even hear that really.

Logic and math are developed using reason, even as a realist. And you reason using reason with logic and math. They are hand in hand.

Anyway to give an answer to your question about an example of objective truth being known through pure reason, let me give you two.

1. Analytical truths.
2. Mathematical truths.

Cheers.

1. Give an example?

2. Only to the extent that mathematical truths are deductions from given axioms. Whether those axioms are true is irrelevant to math.