There is no such thing as absolute truth. We may perceive it to be the truth that wood is brown, but what about those who are colour-blind to that colour? Would they still see it as ‘brown’? Would they even KNOW what the word means, having never seen it themselves? Or, broaching into a trickier subject, how do you know that the Big Bang, or the Cosmological Argument, or the Teleological Argument or whatever argument you believe in to be the truth? It could easily be refuted by the Argument from Ignorance, that you are saying it is true just because it has not yet been proven false. Different people may have different pieces of information, which in turn would lead them to conclude in different truths: the truth for a garbage cleaner might not necessarily be the truth for President Obama or for a college student in Iran. So I guess what I’m trying to say is this: truth is objective to who you are, what you are, and your position in life.
If it isn't no one could pass a Math class, 2+2 could equal 4 or 16 or any number you wanted. You couldn't prove that murder is wrong and there would be no moral standard whatsoever in the world. Therefore truth is by necessity objective and so if two people disagree, at least one of them must be wrong (they could in fact both be wrong as there could be another option but only one could be right).
Lets suppose it doesn't. Lets suppose absolute truth doesn't exist.
We have then created a scenario where truth both does and does not exist simultaneously.
It would be "absolutely true" that "there is no absolute truth". Which directly violates the law of non-contradiction. A very basic law of logic. We must conclude that true exists and it objective. This is the foundation of epistemology. If truth did not exist, knowledge of it being so would be impossible.
Assuming we're not in a simulation of some sort physical truth is objectively true. But that's the end of it. Mental and spiritual truths are subjective. Even if we see brain scan correlations with subjective states like "happiness" the person is just experiencing a physical feeling which they are then socialized to associate with the word "happiness". They could decide to reconstruct the way they view things on a mental level. A lot of mental pain and suffering is caused by people taking mental concepts too seriously and overanalyzing whether or not they are happy or depressed or what have you.
Truth of a matter is not dependent on a person’s belief. Gravity does not exist or cease to exist based on my belief. That same is true of all other scientifically provable facts.
The confusion with the matter of objectivity is based on those things which are not provable but are a widely held belief.
By the law of excluded middle, truth is either objective or it is not objective. If it is not objective, then the statement, "truth is not objective," is not objectively true. And that would mean it's opposite must be true by the law of excluded middle. So it is necessarily the case that truth is objective.
Truth (or reality) is objective and independent. If it is true that the sky is blue, then it is blue and would continue to be blue even if everybody believed it was red. Almost by definition, truth is that which simply is. Matters that are up to interpretation or perception are opinions. Furthermore, one may not be of the "opinion" that the sky is red if it isn't, though I've heard the word used that way. They are only wrong. An opinion, by nature, cannot be objectively and logically disputed.
Truth is a matter of fact, things that are neither right nor wrong, neither something that can be agreed to or not agreed to. Truth is a matter of indisputable fact. The truth consists of events which have taken place that cannot be argued, or the truth is evidence that cannot be refuted. So on this basis truth is objective.
Truth can be defined as: "That which coincides with reality" if we agree on what is "real" then truth is absolutely objective. Whether or not you can accurately perceive reality is irrelevant. Something that exists in reality will exist (and therefore be True) whether you can perceive it or not. Our 5 senses are how we define reality- they do not limit it and there are certainly true things that are outside of our ability to perceive. If we didn't exist at all, there would still be a physical reality. Truth is not subjective- only our perceptions and are definitions are.
Any fact can be true or false , it cannot be true for someone and false for someone else. Let's look deeper into this argument, truth in its lowest level is a fact, now of course perception of a truth ,is not the truth itself, rather it is 2 or more truths merged together, so in fact truth1 + truth2 can give you truth3, but that does not mean truth1 getting converted to truth3 , but rather it means truth1 ,truth2 and truth3 are all valid and consistent and objective , meaning each of these truths are not tied to an observer.
Truth is not objective. Real truth is something that can be looked at and seen to be correct by anyone of sound mind. It may be that the truth is not always obvious, but with careful consideration and looking at all of the evidence presented, the truth cannot be denied.
No I do not think truth is always objective. It can very often be subjective, similar to right and wrong. It depends on the person's opinion of the truth. Some things are always true, no matter what,like science laws, etc, but other things such as the existence of God are dependent upon the person.
Everything we perceive is just that - perception. There is nothing else, and nothing else can be proven. We cannot compare perceptions because we only have ours, and other people have theirs, we can compare our perceptions of our perceptions, but not the perceptions themselves. We might perceive objective truth, but because it's a perception, it cannot be anything but subjective.
Here it is raw and simple, logic presupposes itself to prove itself and that would be considered circular logic a so-called logical fallacy. See the thing is you cannot prove (in the very strict sense of the word) logic. You cannot prove scientific laws either. You have evidence for the scientific laws, you have evidence for your conclusions. These things can be proven wrong at any time, and in fact quite consistently are. That's how science works, evidence for something and evidence against. This is not the same as proof. Without 100% objective truth, we can only ever be 99% certain. There will always be doubt on the things that take place in this universe. Theres even a word for it... Agnosticism. Sorry to say, but we believe things to be the truth either based on logic, scientific evidence, faith or what have you, we do not KNOW these things to be truth. The matrix is a good movie explaining this principle. The people inside the matrix BELIEVE it to be truth and 99% would agree with them, but this does not make it truth for those outside the matrix. Now who's truth is valid? What if they're inside another matrix? Hopefully you all can understand what I'm trying to convey in this post. Thanks
Most people in this topic choose the side that says smartphones are necessary. Back in the 1800s and the early 1900s, people could only send mail to people through slow methods like the Pony Express that sometimes took over two weeks to deliver a single piece of mail. As the technology gradually modernized and advanced, smartphones took over global communication. People could now relay a piece of information to someone in less than a few seconds (through text, call, FaceTime); and they could do it from almost any location. In some people’s opinions, it made human life easier and less sophisticated. By looking at only this side of the topic, the reader can say that smartphones are very useful so they are necessary.
If you only look at this is side, the conclusion/truth is incomplete, which is why we need to evaluate the other side. The other side of the debate is that smartphones are not really needed in life. Some people argue that smartphones only have the capabilities of a computer and that a PC is enough to satisfy a person’s daily needs. It can surf the web, check emails, etc. Another reason people argue is that smartphones take away the face to face communication. Back in the 1900s, whenever a person wanted to talk to their friend, they would have to meet at a location and talk face-to-face. Nowadays, people can just text each other with their smartphones. For example, I was at a restaurant once and there were two people sitting across from each other. You would expect them to be talking, but instead, they were on their phones texting each other. People these days have used smart phones to the extreme, to even not talking to each other when they are standing side by side. Some people say that the invention of the smartphone has downgraded communication, instead of advancing it, one of the original purposes of the smartphone. By emphasizing the fact that smartphones are not necessary, then the reader can infer that smart phones are useless.
To prove that we need two sides of a story, I’m first only going to examine one side of the topic first; the side about smartphones not being needed. When looking at this side, the opinion is that smartphones are no needed, and therefore, one can make a conclusion or truth that they are useless. This truth is somewhat false because they do have many useful properties such as really fast communication. Otherwise, smartphone companies wouldn’t build them and customers wouldn’t buy them. Because looking at only one side of the topic doesn’t give an accurate truth, we have to consider both sides of the topic. A combination of two sides, the actual truth is that though smartphones are very useful, they are not necessary.