Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Subjective truth can't be valid

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:23:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's why:

According to the theory that truth is subjective, a person could claim that subjective truth is invalid, and they would be right and wrong at the same time. Objective reality does not have this kind of paradox.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:28:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's why:

According to the theory that truth is subjective, a person could claim that subjective truth is invalid, and they would be right and wrong at the same time. Objective reality does not have this kind of paradox.

That's just gamesmanship, though, innit? Since the argument could be reformulated as:

"The objective truth is that all truths but this one are subjective" and get out of your paradox.

Doesn't mean I'm a fan of subjective truth systems, though.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:29:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:28:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 2:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's why:

According to the theory that truth is subjective, a person could claim that subjective truth is invalid, and they would be right and wrong at the same time. Objective reality does not have this kind of paradox.

That's just gamesmanship, though, innit? Since the argument could be reformulated as:

"The objective truth is that all truths but this one are subjective" and get out of your paradox.

Doesn't mean I'm a fan of subjective truth systems, though.

That reasoning would be subjective, and a person could just as easily deny that reasoning and still be correct according to subjective truth.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:31:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's why:

According to the theory that truth is subjective, a person could claim that subjective truth is invalid, and they would be right and wrong at the same time. Objective reality does not have this kind of paradox.

If there were subjective truths, they would be truths that depend on the subject making the claim.

The truth of "Ice cream tastes good" depends on the subject making the claim.

Therefore, there are subjective truths.

If a statement can be true for one person but not for another, then it's a subjective truth.

The claim, "Ice cream tastes good" can be true for me but not for you.

Therefore, "Ice cream tastes good" is a subjective truth.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:41:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:31:43 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/27/2013 2:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's why:

According to the theory that truth is subjective, a person could claim that subjective truth is invalid, and they would be right and wrong at the same time. Objective reality does not have this kind of paradox.

If there were subjective truths, they would be truths that depend on the subject making the claim.

The truth of "Ice cream tastes good" depends on the subject making the claim.

Therefore, there are subjective truths.

If a statement can be true for one person but not for another, then it's a subjective truth.

The claim, "Ice cream tastes good" can be true for me but not for you.

Therefore, "Ice cream tastes good" is a subjective truth.

No, you are being misleading. Saying "ice cream tastes good" does not entail that the person saying that thinks ice cream tastes good for everyone, what they really mean is that "ice cream tastes good to me," because it's implied (which is objective). Essentially, you are getting caught up in the inherent subjectivity of 'taste.'
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 2:44:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"If a statement can be true for one person but not for another, then it's a subjective truth."

No, its objectively good to some people and objectively bad to some people. Taste has to do with the individual.
jambone
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 3:14:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's why:

According to the theory that truth is subjective, a person could claim that subjective truth is invalid, and they would be right and wrong at the same time. Objective reality does not have this kind of paradox.

dylancatlow,

All meaning belongs only to the subject. In the absence of a subjective consciousness the world as object is without meaning, meaning is bestowed upon the world as object by the subject. Subjective truth is not infallible, it is arrived at as the AFFECT of object evoking effects from our biology. If subjective truth is found to be false, of necessity, it well be found to be false either by that same said biology, or that of another biological consciousness, probably of the same said species or human pattern. Meaning never belongs to the object but only the subject, yet it is through this relation of subject and object that meaning arises in a biological subject. Subject and object stand or fall together, in other words they are entirely inseparable.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 3:44:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:46:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Essentially what I am saying:

Taste has to do with the connection between food and taster, not the food tself.

sure, just like right and wrong.

just to clarify ;)

Further, even if your analysis were accepted.. doesn't mean there's any such thing as Truth, or that we can understand it as it is, Rather than from our limited, subject-based, perspective..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 3:46:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 3:44:00 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/27/2013 2:46:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Essentially what I am saying:

Taste has to do with the connection between food and taster, not the food tself.

sure, just like right and wrong.

just to clarify ;)

Further, even if your analysis were accepted.. doesn't mean there's any such thing as Truth, or that we can understand it as it is, Rather than from our limited, subject-based, perspective..

Pretty sure most Subjectivists don't much like the word "truth" anyhow :P
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 5:33:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's why:

According to the theory that truth is subjective, a person could claim that subjective truth is invalid, and they would be right and wrong at the same time. Objective reality does not have this kind of paradox.

If our experience is subjective, and my "subjective truth" by some chance matches up with objective truth, then it's valid.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 5:36:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 5:33:13 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 2:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's why:

According to the theory that truth is subjective, a person could claim that subjective truth is invalid, and they would be right and wrong at the same time. Objective reality does not have this kind of paradox.

If our experience is subjective, and my "subjective truth" by some chance matches up with objective truth, then it's valid.

The reasoning would still be invalid.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 5:37:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 5:36:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 5:33:13 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 2:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's why:

According to the theory that truth is subjective, a person could claim that subjective truth is invalid, and they would be right and wrong at the same time. Objective reality does not have this kind of paradox.

If our experience is subjective, and my "subjective truth" by some chance matches up with objective truth, then it's valid.

The reasoning would still be invalid.

I get your point, but it's not an issue because it's not dealing with reason, but merely coincidences out of one's control.
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 6:18:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 5:37:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 5:36:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/27/2013 5:33:13 PM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 2:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's why:

According to the theory that truth is subjective, a person could claim that subjective truth is invalid, and they would be right and wrong at the same time. Objective reality does not have this kind of paradox.

If our experience is subjective, and my "subjective truth" by some chance matches up with objective truth, then it's valid.

The reasoning would still be invalid.

I get your point, but it's not an issue because it's not dealing with reason, but merely coincidences out of one's control.

Just saying that subjective truth can be valid. Doesn't mean we would know it.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 7:04:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 2:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Here's why:

According to the theory that truth is subjective,

What theory would that be? Are you talking about Kierkegaard?

a person could claim that subjective truth is invalid, and they would be right and wrong at the same time.

What? OK, this isn't Kierkegaard, what?

Objective reality does not have this kind of paradox.

Objective reality has planty of paradoxes, what are you talking about?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater