Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Very well. Please give me an example of one that is NOT the other.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Objective, Subjective, Confusion, Reconciliation
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
Very well. Please give me an example of one that is NOT the other.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Cold clear night time gas is one not the other.
The other is burning gas. Once. One.
Then a human theist argues. Cold clear gas is burning gas once.
Oh so you cant burn it again then?
Reasoned. If clear gas is now burning as once. Then what's not burning as clear gas supports it burning. So you don't change it.
One or once advice.
The other is burning gas. Once. One.
Then a human theist argues. Cold clear gas is burning gas once.
Oh so you cant burn it again then?
Reasoned. If clear gas is now burning as once. Then what's not burning as clear gas supports it burning. So you don't change it.
One or once advice.
firedragon
Veteran Member
An opinion could be subjective truth. Subjective truth is not necessarily an opinion.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Please give me an example of a subjective truth that is NOT an opinion.
firedragon
Veteran Member
For me, my wife is prettier than Salma Hayek. I Enjoy coffee by the river. There are different people in the world who associate different things to a colour. For a lot of people Blue is an unpleasant colour when it comes to food. It spoils their want for food. A daughter will love her father's smell while the neighbour might hate it.
These are not options alone. they are actually human subjective truths.
I would actually say all of those are, indeed, opinions. But then, I see opinions and 'subjective human truths' as being the same thing. You seem to suggest the second is more than the first.
firedragon
Veteran Member
People say things.
Last edited:
Yes, they do. And whether what they say is true or not often depends on the definitions used. For me, subjective human truths are all opinions *because* they are subjective.
Since you have not given *your* definitions and since we seem to differ in our definitions, I cannot say what *you* think.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Bizarre things you say do not matter. They are just bizarre.
Please do read a little bit on philosophy prior to making such bizarre statements. Especially after claiming you are a God in the studies of it.
I am not God in the study of anything. But that does not mean I am without knowledge and discernment.
Philosophers get things wrong (just ask other philosophers). And they do not uniformly agree upon definitions, a fact that you often seem to ignore.
You tell me to 'do some reading'. I have done extensive reading. But I certainly have not read everything.
But, when I ask what you think I should read, you give no response. When I ask why you think I am wrong, you give no response. When I ask for your definitions, you give no response. So it comes across to me that you only want to deny what others say and give no support for the views you state. When called on that, you say something like 'go do some reading'.
I am more than willing to 'do some reading'. I have asked for references you think I should read. If you have some you would recommend, please give them. I will read them.
There's a theory that you can always adjust and add to thing or twist and argue, no matter what, stance you take, and you can "believe" it's true, if you consider only to look for evidence one way and add explanations to any "counter evidence" and explain them away with unlikely explanations and unprovable assertions.
That every stance (almost) is defensible. You can add explanations to an explanation and words always can be decontextualized.
This is why in court, they don't say "truth beyond doubt" but always explain "reasonable doubt" to not be that they are absolutely sure with absolute certainty.
Lawyers know how to adjust "the reasonability" of the the doubt, by words, and some are willing to sell their souls to even convict an innocent unfortunately.
This is why Quran argues not only to listen to proof but bring proof for what you say and attribute in religion.
It's not good enough to say "prove me wrong", you have to "prove your right".
Anyone can make a theory, imagine it, and then say prove me wrong. Scientific method is that actually, since hypothesis can be disproven.
Then there is a minority who argue that it has been disproven, but majority of "experts" argue with them.
Is it due to the truth or structure of discourse in society and hidden powers, that "majority of peer reviews" go one way or another?
God knows best.
That every stance (almost) is defensible. You can add explanations to an explanation and words always can be decontextualized.
This is why in court, they don't say "truth beyond doubt" but always explain "reasonable doubt" to not be that they are absolutely sure with absolute certainty.
Lawyers know how to adjust "the reasonability" of the the doubt, by words, and some are willing to sell their souls to even convict an innocent unfortunately.
This is why Quran argues not only to listen to proof but bring proof for what you say and attribute in religion.
It's not good enough to say "prove me wrong", you have to "prove your right".
Anyone can make a theory, imagine it, and then say prove me wrong. Scientific method is that actually, since hypothesis can be disproven.
Then there is a minority who argue that it has been disproven, but majority of "experts" argue with them.
Is it due to the truth or structure of discourse in society and hidden powers, that "majority of peer reviews" go one way or another?
God knows best.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No, I said that *subjective* truth is an opinion. Why? Because it is subjective, not objective.
But I would go further and say that 'subjective truth' is an oxymoron. Truth is the same for everyone. There are truths that are known through introspection, but those truths are still the same for everyone and hence are objective.
For example, I dislike tomatoes.
The statement 'tomatoes are vile' is an opinion. It happens to be *my* opinion. But it is not a truth. In particular, it is not a subjective truth.
The statement 'polymath thinks tomatoes are vile' is a truth. For me, it is known subjectively. For you, it is known because I tell you. But it is either true or false for everyone. I would NOT call it a 'subjective truth'. I would call it a truth. No qualifiers are required.
Now, it is easier for me to verify the truth 'polymath thinks tomatoes are vile' because I can verify it by introspection. Others don't have that pathway to verification. Others have to either believe me when I tell them or rely on brain scans to verify that statement.
As another example, you find your wife to be more beautiful than any other woman (or so you say).
The statement 'firedragon's wife is more beautiful than any other woman' is an opinion. You happen to have that opinion. That does not make it a subjective truth. It remains an opinion.
On the other hand, the statement 'firedragon thinks his wife is more beautiful than any other woman' is a truth. It is either true or false for everyone. If you have the opinion in the last paragraph, this new statement becomes true.
And, once again, you can verify this new statement via introspection. I can only verify it by your telling me or via a brain scan or some such. But it is a truth.
Do you see the difference? One of the characteristics of truths is that they are true for everyone. In other words, they are objective.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No. Its a composition fallacy.
Bizarre statements. I think you should go back to the OP and address it.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
They are indeed your OPINIONS.
I'm not saying they aren't valid, of course. I completely accept that you find your wife to be prettier than Salma Hayek. But since that is a position you hold to be true despite there being no objective evidence to support it. There is, after all, no way to objectively measure beauty. That's an opinion, just as it is my opinion that Star Trek is better than Star Wars.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
There's no need for rude comments like that, dismissing people's viewpoints as "bizarre" just because they don't agree with you.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Read the OP.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Yeah. That was to someone who claims to be a Guru in philosophy, a Phd, and makes rude comments to others. And it's not "Just because someone disagrees", it's because it's bizarre.
If you have predispositions about people because they are theists or because they oppose your group, that's a problem.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I think you may need to read over it again.
I was saying that your post was rude.
Regardless of what the other person has posted, there's no excuse for rudeness.