Some truths are indeed objective. Such as fire is hot. That's a physical truth.

However, the experience of life is not entirely physical by any stretch of the imagination.

Physical truths are only one kind of truth. And even physical truths themselves are no always so cut and dried.

For example, does spinach taste good? This is a physical sensation brought about by physical processes. Yet different people will answer this question differently. Is that subjective or objective?

It may very well be objective because, for some people, the way that their taste buds react to spinach may indeed be physically different from other people. In this way there can actually be more than ONE objective truth.

Therefore, even objective truths are not necessarily absolute. Objective truths themselves may be relative to many different things in different situations.

Also, these things quickly lose any hope of being absolute in an objective sense as things become more complex.

Is that woman over there "beautiful"? Hey, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, some men will say yes, others will say no. Is an that objective or subjective response? We can't even be sure of that. Because we can't be sure whether their conclusions about this is based on objectivity or subjectivity. Just like with the taste of spinach.

You can't just lump "truth" into a single box and try to determine whether "all truths" are either objective or subjective. Because what is far more likely the case is that some truths are objective whilst others are indeed subjective. Or possibly even objectively different for different people!

Whack someone on the butt with a paddle. Does it hurt?

Some people will scream bloody murder and proclaim that it hurt like hell!

Other people will say, "You've got to be kidding, I hardly even felt it".

Are these subjective truths of are these objective truths? Because some people truly are far more sensitive to pain than others, etc.

For some it could actually be physical. In other words, their physical body simply produces far greater "pain signals" for that particular stimuli. Or it could be in the mind, perhaps some people just create the illusion of pain in their mind when something is done to them that they expect to hurt.

You could argue that the former is more objective and the latter is more subjective. But in the end these are all equally valid 'truths'. Even when the truth changes from person to person.

I was just thinking about this very thing tonight when I was in bed.

Truth is certainly both. It's both subjective and objective and far more importantly is that both subjective and objective truths are every bit as valid as each other.

There are clearly objective falsehoods. For example, is the sun HOT relative to human standards of what is comfortable? To say that it's not, is a clear objective falsehood. But again this is an obvious physical parameter of the universe.

But other questions have no absolute truth values. Would you feel good about bringing new life into this world? That question will be answered differently by different people and every person will be conveying their truth.

So to take the position that all truths must be objective and absolute, is clearly a flawed notion.

In physics, can we hold things up to that standard? Well, sure. In physics there are very well-defined experiments that things can be tested for. They either pass the test (i.e. register as true), or fail the test (i.e. register as false).

Of course, as we all know even in Modern Physics this kind of objective truth has fallen to the wayside. In Modern Physics truth values become probabilistic. We can still claim that they are "objectively probabilistic", but the strange thing is that we could actually say the same thing about whether people like the taste of spinach or feel pain when struck on the butt. Rather than proclaiming that their response is "subjective" perhaps it's actually "objectively probabilistic", at least in terms of the human population, if not in terms of the individual. Imagine that you can only test each person only ONCE. That would be more akin to the quantum world.

~~~~~

So as far as I can see it's a misguided question to ask:

Is Truth Subjective?

That already takes a very narrow assumption that all truths are either objective or all truths are subjective.

I say that some truths are objective, some are subjective, and probably most are a mixture of the two.

And as I've already pointed out, even objective truths may not always been the same for the same objective situation. Change just a few little things around the object changes, and thus so does the objective truth.

Trying to put all truths into one basket seems truly trivial to me. That's the view of a radical absolutist IMHO.

There's no way that I would entertain such a shallow view of the world.

This is especially true of someone who might also want to take a stance that consciousness itself could arise simply from the complexity of form. To take a stance that complexity could have such power as to actually create a sentient self-conscious mind, yet at the very same time take such a shallow stance that "all truths" must be objective makes no sense at all to me.

On the one hand, that would be like demanding that complexity can be magical yet simultaneously, on the other hand. demanding that truth is so mundane and shallow that it can only be either objective or subjective but not both.

I personally feel that any attempt to put a finger on anything that absolute in this world is truly a futile approach.

The lust for absolutism is indeed a logician's wet dream. Let there be no doubt about it. Like Archimedes once said about the lever, "Give me a place to stand and I can move the world".

In the same, way a logician is desperately seeking a foothold to create a fulcrum for his logic. Trying to create an illusion of objective truths is precisely the fulcrum that a logician needs to move the earth. But it's never gonna happen.

Physics was the best shot we had at that, but the fulcrum that it once thought it had has fallen into a black hole and can never be retrieved.

Did you bother to read the thread before you posted?

I read the Question of the thread title and the OP. I responded to that. I browsed over some of the other comments and I recognize that some of what I stated has already been acknowledge. Non the less I felt the desire to state my own views on the topic just for clarity.

To me that includes addressing how those points have already been rejoined without further valid objection.

This thread has the underwritten but recently exposed element of our treatment of truth... the word... the relationship... the concept... and the engagement.

Well, I read this thread this morning in more detail and it appears to me that everyone had their own subjective ideas of what truth means to them ... the word... the relationship... the concept... and the engagement.

So with that observation it appears to be crystal clear to me that truth is indeed subjective.

Di had asked for a definition of truth that perhaps we could analyze to see whether truth can be subjective.

Wux offered:

"here's one definition: Truth is a thing that is never subjective.

here's another one: Truth is a thing which is always subjective.

I can't think of any other definition that would satisfy your criteria, but these two do the job seamlessly and elegantly, I think. "

It seems to me that Wux is right. In order to create a word that can be so concrete one must create a semantic definition that basically demands a specific result.

As I have already stated, for me there are many different kinds of truths. Some may very well be highly objective, others may be highly subjective. And most are probably a mixture of both.

As a "definition" for truth that would be rather weak since defined semantically as wux had suggested truth would be a thing which is both subjective and objective and can vary in terms of how much it is dependent upon each. That's not a good definition, but then neither are the one's the Wux gave.

Objective truths are easy fairly easy to define. This is the basis of the scientific method. A thing is said to be true if it satisfy the criteria of the scientific method of inquiry. That's about as objective as a truth can be. However, in this modern era we have found that not all observed phenomena can be determined to be absolutely true or false using this definition. Thus the universe herself sticks her tongue out at this definition as being rather meaningless.

In mathematics truth is proclaimed when a given set of premises have been accepted and conclusions do not contradict these premises. However, even in mathematics we have found that all one needs to do is change the accepted underlying premises and the truth of the logical conclusions changes. The contradictory geometries of Euclidean, Spherical and Hyperbolic are a perfect example of how truth in mathematics is merely a reflection of arbitrarily chosen premises. You can change the truth by simply changing your premises. And evidently the universe herself changes her own premises depending on where you are located in spacetime.

So even the physical truths of the universe are relative and not carved in stone in various different ways.

But physical truths only merely one small aspect of a reality in which living conscious beings perceive their existence.

Especially when we are speaking of truths, because as you have pointed out this very concept is a human concept. Thus we create truth by how we perceive it to be - even in concept and definition.

So from that perspective all truths are indeed subjective because they are all ultimately the subjective concepts of human consciousness.

We basically define what truth means to us, and in doing so we have created it as a subjective concept.

In this sense there can't even be any such thing as an objective truth because in order for such a concept to exist there would first need to be an objective concept but would require an omniscient objective mind - And even even many truths would still be relative to local situations and perceptions etc. So even in this extreme case, their still couldn't be any absolute truths that aren't ultimately subject to subjectivity.

In fact, Einstein's shows without a shadow of a doubt that everyone perception of the universe is even relative. Therefore all truths are relative, and necessarily subjective to a person's place and motion though the spacetime fabric of the physical matrix.

In short, what's to discuss? We already know that truth is necessarily subjective ultimately.

It's a bit of an irony but apparently it's true. All truths in the universe are necessarily relative and subjective and cannot be absolutely objective. The universe apparently isn't built in a way to accommodate a concept of absolute objective truths without conflicts.

I agree with Jeanniebean when she said:



You replied to that with:



A concept of a universal mind or "omniscient mind" is indeed a valid concept, whether it actually exists or not is a moot point.

If you refuse to entertain it here, then you are just placing yourself in a limited box where you dismiss concept that you don't care to consider. When you do that, you limit your mind by refusing to consider all possible concepts.

As I have pointed out the universe herself does not allow for absolute objective truths in any concrete way. And from the perspective of "omniscience" a universal mind could easily see that many truths of the universe would indeed be subjective.

The universe mind doesn't need to actually exist to entertain that perspective. We can imagine being that mind ourselves and simply recognize the consequences of that. From a universal perspective many truths must necessarily be subjective. This is because of the very nature of the universe as Einstein and others have revealed to us.

So I'm in agreement with Jeanniebean's view on this. Her view is a valid view whether there actually exists a universal consciousness or not. The actual existence of such a consciousness is irrelevant to the concept of what the universe would necessarily appear to be like from that vantage point. We can imagine what it would necessarily be like just from what we already know about the universe. So the universal vantage point exists as a philosophical concept even if the universal consciousness does not.

Creative, you only want to consider things that "make sense" according to your beliefs. You ask a question "Is truth subjective?" and ......



What do you mean when you say you err on the side of "no?"

Is this your way of expressing a non-opinion?

What is your actual position on this question that you ask? Is "truth" subjective or objective?



err   
[ur, er] Show IPA
–verb (used without object)
1. to go astray in thought or belief; be mistaken; be incorrect.
2. to go astray morally; sin: To err is human.
3. Archaic . to deviate from the true course, aim, or purpose.

You've skipped the engagement, sayong the same thing in differet ways.



Not what I said, nor does it follow from what I've said.

Is the above claim true because you think so, or because that is the way things are? What would it take for the above claim to be true?



Confusing truth with beliefs and definitions, throw in a completely ambiguous concept for more subjective flavoring. You're pissing in the well that your thought/belief necessarily drinks from.



Seeing how truth is engaged in and acted out long before we ever acquire a complex idea of what we think truth is or ought to be, the above cannot possibly be the case. We define things after language acquisition. Language acquisition is contingent upon our being engaged in truth/reality presupposition.



So because we define truth that makes our definitions true, and because our definitions are "subject to subjectivity" that makes truth subjective?

Begging the question. Affirming the consequent. Circular reasoning.

My position is that truth is neither Jb. That has been discussed in part should you care to look. We could continue that aspect of the discussion when you're caught up. Or, if there is something that has already been discussed and your still unsure, you can ask and I'll try to clarify.

So because people have subjective ideas about they way things are, then the way things are matches up to the ideas themselves?

Great.

The invocation of a 'God's eye point of view'...

Christianity anyone?

Junk.

Then I agree with you. Truth is neither.

(Or maybe both?)

If, so, then the whole subject is sort of pointless.

A moot point.

If your position is that truth is neither, its a moot point to discuss with you.

Its junk. Mental junk.

A person is both an individual and God.
One can imagine having God's point of view.
And one can experience an individual point of view.

(Except those who can't imagine.)
Imagination does rule the world.

If you don't have a position on the subject what is the point of discussing it?


Or are you just being a troll?

I've given my position already. Truth is autonomously engaged and enacted. Truth is connective, in an odd sense it is relative. It relates/connects thought/belief to reality. It is neither objective, nor subjective.

Truth is not a man-made concept.

There are things that we can know about truth through careful examination of how people use the term, and how people behave. This will also show us what the different personal ideas amount to.

A mind of limited knowledge cannot imagine anything beyond what it already believes, thinks, and knows. A god's eye point of view is completely unattainable.

Junk.

What would it take for the above claim to be true?

I challenge us all to think about what it would take for any claim to be true. If a listener knows what it would to for a speaker's claim to be true, then the listener knows what the speaker means.

Truth is presupposed in thought/belief, argued for with public methods of justification, and proven by neither.

Further, if one does not know what it would take for thier own claims to be true, then what reason do we have to believe that they know what they are talking about?

Most everything is opinion.

Truth does not apply.

I'm going to try to translate the above claim.

au·ton·o·mous (ô-tn-ms) adj.
1. Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent


en·gaged   [en-geyjd] Show IPA–adjective
1. busy or occupied; involved: deeply engaged in conversation.

en·act   [en-akt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.to make into an act or statute: Congress has enacted a new tax law.

Truth is independently occupied and made into an act.
(Does not really make sense.)

Okay I will reword this claim a few different ways to see if I can make some sense out of it.

Truth operates independently. <------ is that the claim?

"Truth exists or happens independently." <-------is that your claim?




You speak of truth as if it is an independent 'thing.'

Oh that's right, you did claim that truth is an independent thing. Or 'independent' of something.

But yet neither objective or subjective.

I don't think so. (I don't agree.) (Junk)

Not a "man-made" concept? Then whose "concept" is it?