Is truth relative? objective or subjective?
- Thread starter In Between Man
- Start date
Yeah, ummmm, even after smoking a bomb, straight to my head, I don't quite understand your statement.
I'm saying that since no one who has been oppressed has said "Its just how you look at it.", then this proves there is an outside, absolute moral law. I'm also saying that statements such as "Truth is relative, it a matter of opinion." is in fact a self defeating statement. Mainly because it implies it is the only absolute truth. It contradicts itself.
I don't understand what love has to do with it. :smile:
Neither do I. I don't see that love necessarily has anything to do with truth. Some romantic poet--Keats I think, but my memory could be fooling me--once write that "Beauty is truth, truth beauty." I don't see that connection either, it just strikes me as a romantic poet heading for his slobbering worst, which is the one about lying in the meadow with his lover "with both our hearts a-beating." There's a gagger if I ever heard one.
I digress, but the poet does have a point: many people would claim there are categories of truth. Many people have claimed to know religious and/or spiritual truths, for instance, which is more or less where Keats was heading, and there's a uniquely dogmatic one here trying without much success to argue that they're scientific truths as well. The examples you offered are in the ethical or moral truths category. I'd immediately agree, people like Hitler and Stalin were wicked, and that seems to me absolutely true by any conceivable standard for decent human behaviour. In the broader sense I'd also agree that there are no degrees of truth, something's either true or it's not, but it's often somewhat problematic.
I don't think there can be any doubt that there's an objective reality out there that exists regardless of our perceptions of it, and about which certain absolutely true statements can be made, at least in principle. But can we really be sure we know what they are? We have two spectacularly successful and accurate models of certain aspects of physical reality, for example, quantum theory and general relativity, but they're not "true" in any objective sense. Science wouldn't claim they are, they're merely useful and predictive descriptions of how nature's been observed to behave. Unfortunately they're fundamentally inconsistent with each other, so not only are they not true, they're not even right in some sense. The best we can say about them is that they're closer to whatever the truth is than the theories they supplanted, but it seems worth pointing out that the theories they supplanted are still in widespread common use every day.
Those are the kind of considerations I was thinking of when I said the answer to your original question can not be just a simple yes or no. Truth is not relative or subjective, but our knowledge of it certainly is, and failing to recognize that usually leads to a dangerous arrogance. When people believe they know an absolute truth, they usually do horrible things to people who disagree with them. Religious persecutions are only the most obvious example of that, there are plenty more.
Last edited:
Hey darkbeaver,
Thanx for the reply. It's hard for anyone to be truly objective, all of the time. :smile:
Wow. I am in your awe. I can only hope that when I am a little longer in the tooth, I will be as wise and articulate as you, great teacher!!! I look forward to learning many things!!!
Here's what I want to know: How can I convince others that although life may have a lot of grey in it, that doesn't mean that some things are black and white. Logic and reason pull us towards some conclusions, but even after explaining the following, some individuals don't seem to allow a chip in their armour. They seem to fight the obvious:
1. An objective moral law exists, we know it by our reactions.
2. It defines a real difference between moral positions. i.e. mother theresa vs. hitler
3. Moral law is the grounds for political and social dissent. (our reactions)
4. If we know what absolutely wrong, then there must be an absolute right, or a standard of right.
5. If there was no moral law, we wouldn't make excuses for breaking it.
How do I break down the walls from those that won't listen? :smile::smile::smile::?::?::?:
My experience is that it usually can't be done, except with people who are already right on the edge and just need a little nudge. People who think they have some absolute knowledge, which is invariably religiously based, won't listen to anything that contradicts it. The sorry fact is that most people don't think very well. As somebody once said (wish I could find the source of this; I can't claim it's original with me), most people think they're thinking when all they're really doing is rearranging their prejudices. Thinking clearly and critically is hard, and it's a learned skill, it's not something we're born knowing how to do. It takes study and practice, and we've known how to do it only for a few centuries, it's a fairly recent discovery in human history.
As I've said in other posts here, much of the history of the last 400 years in the Western World can be understood in terms of religion (i.e. absolute knowledge) retreating from making empirical claims about the nature of reality in the face of the scientific revolution. Science, if it's about anything that can be simply expressed in a few words, is about how to think clearly, how to test the truth content of ideas. And it works, spectacularly. It has given us the knowledge and the means to end much human misery in ways millennia of religious and mystical thinking never did, or could. We can prevent polio, smallpox, measles, cholera, pertussis, diptheria, and many more diseases that used to kill off large numbers of us, and the treatments work whether you believe in them or not. That's a truth: critical thinking produces real, measurable results. Unfortunately it's been unevenly applied around the world, so there is still much avoidable human misery, but the fact remains: we have the knowledge and the means to save ourselves and our planet, in our hands, right now. What we don't have is the will, because most of us don't think very well.
new age book ...? is 'what is' of book , of time ?What new age book taught you this?
Absolute Truth is true regardless of what you believe and think .An Absolute Truth stands on its own. Absolute truth is absolutely true no matter what evidence there is for it .Truth is what corresponds to the facts .Truth doesn't change just because you learn something about it . How more absolute can one be ?
Last edited:
They love haveing thier professionalism challenged. They specialize in the bold and brash, big musky brainey guys with beards are reduced to wondering the city streets scooping dog turds and passing out religious pamphlets. "Pride goeth before dog poop". That's not a direct quote of Jeb: chp 4 :20
No, I don't think you can, actually, our thought processes are too different. I understand things alright, I just don't find your methods a useful or meaningful way to think about anything. Understanding does not imply acceptance or agreement.
Morality is subjective. What is right or correct for one group of people can be entirely wrong for another. It is impossible to impose morality on groups of people without causing great harm. History has demonstrated this well IMO. There is no rhyme or reason for one morality vs. another except cultural bias. Sometimes there are practical elements but mostly it is arbitrary and subjective. So too ethics, which seeks to be the arbiter of human relations, cannot escape the pitfalls of cultural biases. It might be right to approach one group one way but worth your life to do it that way somewhere else.
In regard to the argument about peoples sense of justice. I might point you to an example called the Monty Hall Game where the intuitive answer is the wrong one. Intuition and emotion are not practical guides to morality they are only a practical guide to what you like and dislike. There needs to be a definition of "good" and "bad" in practical terms something our culture is sorely lacking. Post modernism and humanism have both made attempts but are hugely lacking IMO.
I would also point out the history of "good" and "bad." The Sumerians had no such terms. They had only beautiful and ugly. You could say "that is a beautiful cow, I'll buy it" or "that is an ugly cow, I don't want it." It was the Zoroastrians who travelled the Middle East teaching people the concept of good and bad. Today we have just substituted “good” for beautiful and “bad” for ugly. "It's a bad cow, I don't want to buy it," or "it is a good cow, I will buy it." It is no coincidence that heroes are good looking and villains ugly in popular culture. Even worse is that being ugly in real life has consequences in terms of job prospects, income and finding a mate. So to say a cow can be good and that such an assessment is objective is as ridiculous as saying that the cow can be beautiful and that that is objective. As a culture we have not yet separated the terms. For all practical purposes saying something is good or bad only indicates whether it is pleasing or not - that is in no way objective.
We might say "giving insulin to diabetics is good," but we forget that having a species of diabetics isn't so good. We might think getting rid of wolves is good for deer but not realize that all the deer suffer more without predators. We have what we want completely mixed into what we desire. That is not objective. Something that is good for you might be bad to me and no one except us is going to be able to explain our choice. There is no objective test you could administer that would tell you what I thought without asking me (or searching me for clues).
The idea of evil and good has its roots in sun worship. When the sun is up we can see and knowledge is gained. The Sumerians said that Shamash (the sun) would shed knowledge so that you could see the merchants thumb on the scale. It was also known that the sun made things grow. Darkness obscured knowledge (made it hard to see the merchants thumb), things didn't grow in the dark, plants would die etc. Do you see how "good" and "evil" came about? Why we equate life with good and death with evil? Cold is evil (night time) good is warm (daytime). White is good, dark is evil.
The reality is that there is no "good" or "evil." There is only what we like and what we don't like. The Masonic age brought people arrogant enough to claim what they liked and didn't like was "good" or "evil." They claimed this because they personally knew god or were related to him. The reality is that their choices were arbitrary and subjective (as is obvious from their teachings). Is it good to turn the other cheek? Maybe, it depends on the circumstance. It is ridiculous to claim that is a blanket truth, that it is always better. It simply isn't true. It depends on what is happening and what you want to have happen.
Now a scientist will tell you that there is absolute truth because that is the very thing they are seeking. They seek it because they have been trained to be materialists, that is, to accept only what they can see and prove. I think this is an excellent perspective and it has proved itself very well indeed over time, however, it does make assumptions in its assertions of its own rhetoric which are not proved; specifically that everything can be rendered down to an objectivity. (Exploration of the quantum world has demonstrated this may very well be an impossible task). If this were true then science will have made Aristotle very happy in proving there is a god! The original argument for aether stands in that, if there is a god there must be a medium on which everything subsists. This would be the proof of god. It is a strong argument and equally as strong is that if there is a god there must be objective truth; since it would be the aether. Science has run headlong into this dilemma IMO and is now seeking the ever elusive “unification theory” as a result.
I’ll give another example: You would be quite right to say the earth’s gravity under your feet is 1g, however, it is an arbitrary statement and a generalization because, in fact, gravity is not uniformly strong around the planet. The differences are miniscule but still, claiming the earth has a gravity of 1g is still subjective depending on your need for accuracy and the fact you don’t “feel” heavier or lighter (so really who cares). It is both a truth and a falsehood; it is subjective depending on your need. What I am saying is that no matter how accurate we might try and be we are a subjective animal, that is to say, regardless of how the universe around us (the parts we can see anyway) might actually be how we see them will forever be subjective. It is an inescapable human failing. Even if we knew everything we could only retain enough for a subjective opinion. There is an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1.
As a realist I don't discount the invisible world of memes and the "collective consciousness," emotions etc as nonmaterial and therefore a figment. As a result I see that as our memes evolve so do the truths we come to accept. In this way, no matter what we may think of as an objective truth today will look like the gravest errors tomorrow. It is the nature of our social systems because they are so subjective there will never be any absolute truth.
Sorry for the long post.
Last edited:
Quoting John von Neumann" "The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work." And Victor Stenger's comment on that: "These models are not simple snapshots of the observations, but they utilize elements and processes or mechanisms that attempt to be universal and general so that not only one set of observations is described but also all the observations that fit into as wide a class as possible. They need not always be mathematical, as asserted by John von Neumann..." The models are deemed successful when they agree with all the observations, especially observations that, if they'd turned out otherwise, would have falsified them. Truth doesn't enter into it, it's about accuracy, completeness, and utility. Both quotes can be found in the preface to Stenger's book, God: The Failed Hypothesis.
Science does of course make assumptions, it has to in order to proceed at all. It assumes first that reality is consistent and, at least in principle, comprehensible. That's an absolutely necessary assumption; if you assume reality is inconsistent and incomprehensible you're beaten before you start, there's no point in trying to figure anything out because it might all be different in a minute. It also assumes what the philosophers of science call methodological naturalism, that is, investigation is limited to objective observations and seeks naturalistic accounts of what is seen. That's not to be confused with metaphysical naturalism, which assumes reality is made entirely of material objects. As Stenger further points out, most scientists probably think it is, but it's not really a scientific question. If it were, it wouldn't be metaphysics.
I completely agree that morality is subjective, as are good and bad, beautiful and ugly, and so forth. They're human constructions that need not necessarily have anything to do with what's true. Truth is a pretty difficult word to define to everyone's satisfaction, and it'll ultimately be a tautology, like all definitions: the truth is what's true. But if the assumption of consistency and comprehensibility is correct, and it certainly seems to be from all our experience so far, then there must be things that are objectively and absolutely true about reality. Whether we can discover them or not is quite another matter.
And a word of fraternal advice: don't apologize just because a post is long. If it's thoughtful, articulate, and intelligent, as that one is, it's fully justified.
My asserting a realist perspective and claiming reality is inconsistent isn't the same as accepting or proclaiming a metaphysical reality. The world of emotion and thought can be said to be metaphysical I suppose but it is a reality none the less. I am not claiming dragons and faeries are real but only that emotion and thought are. I understand there are mechanical explanations for them but it does not make them less real. I know there are mechanical explanations behind the earth's existence too but that doesn't make the earth any less real. If anything the mechanical explanation propels the human realms into reality, that is to say, they are a fully functioning object.
I know for example that the moon has a very real orbit and I understand the mechanics behind it, however, I cannot grasp a piece of orbit in my hand and say "this is orbit it is why the moon goes around the earth," any more than I could say "here is thought, this is why I am sentient," or for that matter "here is aether it is why there is fundamental truth."
I am quite certain that the LHC is going to finally demonstrate in no uncertain terms that we live in more than 3 dimensions, though it may be a very long time until that is an accepted fact. I don't quite understand what the holdup has been since Einstein already demonstrated time and space as having properties applicable to another dimension in which we are fully entrenched. We can no more see the fourth dimension than observe our thoughts. We can sit back and observe the effects of space-time just like we can sit back and observe the effects of our thoughts, but we can’t “see” either as itself an object, we see the affect. For that is all I am really saying here is that objects are relative just like truth. Neither can be said to be consistent except in relation to each other. If truth were consistent there would be a god.
The problem currently assailing physics IMO is in the materialist’s definition of "object;" the idea that an object must have certain characteristics to be real, that is, physicality relative to our own. If it does not have this then it isn't real yet the assumption of an underlining truth to things necessarily rules out other truths that may be just as likely. The claim of an underlining truth to all things is in itself metaphysical.
Now I do agree with you that reality needs to be modeled as a method of exploration, however, we are part of and confined in a certain aesthetic. That aesthetic is partly due to our mental capacities but it also has a reality beyond us. We see that in formulae where dimensions are created for lapses in our comprehension of mathematics and made up for in a phenomenological way. So I am saying that mathematics itself is true only relative to ourselves, that is, mathematics and numbers as objects are relative to us as objects. Now if we hold that only ourselves as objects is real then we are limiting our models too much.
Due to these limitations we end up with fanciful explanations of spin particles and 25 dimensional objects. Such imaginings are no less likely to be real than any other metaphysical explanation of things.
I need to point out that there is nothing "real" except by way of its relation to itself and the things around it. Fundamentally we do not exist as objects except that there are objects around us. We can see, move, and think etc, because the universe is expanding. That isn’t to say the expansion is giving us room to move and think (that would be silly) but that the action itself is.
I know for example that the moon has a very real orbit and I understand the mechanics behind it, however, I cannot grasp a piece of orbit in my hand and say "this is orbit it is why the moon goes around the earth," any more than I could say "here is thought, this is why I am sentient," or for that matter "here is aether it is why there is fundamental truth."
I am quite certain that the LHC is going to finally demonstrate in no uncertain terms that we live in more than 3 dimensions, though it may be a very long time until that is an accepted fact. I don't quite understand what the holdup has been since Einstein already demonstrated time and space as having properties applicable to another dimension in which we are fully entrenched. We can no more see the fourth dimension than observe our thoughts. We can sit back and observe the effects of space-time just like we can sit back and observe the effects of our thoughts, but we can’t “see” either as itself an object, we see the affect. For that is all I am really saying here is that objects are relative just like truth. Neither can be said to be consistent except in relation to each other. If truth were consistent there would be a god.
The problem currently assailing physics IMO is in the materialist’s definition of "object;" the idea that an object must have certain characteristics to be real, that is, physicality relative to our own. If it does not have this then it isn't real yet the assumption of an underlining truth to things necessarily rules out other truths that may be just as likely. The claim of an underlining truth to all things is in itself metaphysical.
Now I do agree with you that reality needs to be modeled as a method of exploration, however, we are part of and confined in a certain aesthetic. That aesthetic is partly due to our mental capacities but it also has a reality beyond us. We see that in formulae where dimensions are created for lapses in our comprehension of mathematics and made up for in a phenomenological way. So I am saying that mathematics itself is true only relative to ourselves, that is, mathematics and numbers as objects are relative to us as objects. Now if we hold that only ourselves as objects is real then we are limiting our models too much.
Due to these limitations we end up with fanciful explanations of spin particles and 25 dimensional objects. Such imaginings are no less likely to be real than any other metaphysical explanation of things.
I need to point out that there is nothing "real" except by way of its relation to itself and the things around it. Fundamentally we do not exist as objects except that there are objects around us. We can see, move, and think etc, because the universe is expanding. That isn’t to say the expansion is giving us room to move and think (that would be silly) but that the action itself is.
Last edited:
.
Perhaps
Nope ,my "method' implies an observation of one's self ,an investigation of one 's self within one self ,knowing ones self without which all your so called understanding Dexter, is just an illusion .
I think you can understand the above , just using you own "thought process .
You miss the point. To make it more explicit: I understand things alright, and I think you're completely wrong.
Hey Dex,
I understand everything your saying, but in regards to the above quote, I must point something out. Science is a slave to philosophy, and even the smartest scientists have assumptions and predjudices. Therefore philosophical assumptions can dramatically effect scientific conclusions. If the scientist doing the experiment assumes that only natural causes are possible, than no amount of evidence can make him believe in anything other natural causes.
Science is absolutely amazing, and our best mechanism for observation and understanding of the universe. However, there are some examples of rational belief that cannot be proven by science. 1. Mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them). 2. metaphysical truths ( such as, there are minds that exist other than my own). 3. ethical judgements (you can't prove by science that Hitler was evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method). 4. aesthetic judgements ( the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven) and ironically 5. science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself).
Your right, most people don't think very well. Some of those people are supposed to be the smartest. :smile: