One of the most enduring debates in philosophy is the one that pits relativism against objectivism. This debates has been fascinating me for years and it raises a fundamental question: is truth unique and universal (objectivism), or does it vary depending on perspectives and contexts (relativism)? — Cadet John Kervensley
I'm no physicist, or mathematician, but this sounds suspect. If a fact - like the laws of physics - in one universe is not the same as in another universe, wouldn't there have to be some independent reference frame against which the two can be compared to evaluate them relationally?
— ToothyMaw
Not sure what is being asked, especially since there isn't any entity necessarily doing any evaluation. For instance, in another universe, the cosmological constant might be different, which I suppose can be compared to (greater/less than relation) to each other. In yet another universe, there is no meaningful thing that could be considered a cosmological constant.
If there were something similar to Newton's laws in both
Newton's laws are pretty basic and don't so much involve things like constants, other than fundamentals like there being 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. Other universes could have any values for either of these, and dimensions that are neither spatial nor temporal. Newton's laws wouldn't work in any of those. — noAxioms
Given the definition of objective and subjective from here, the truth is objective if it is a set of statements that are true and independent of opinion, biase, conscious experience, and the like.I think this post is getting at exactly that - is the property of being true based on facts that are verifiable independent of our feelings, or is the property of being true based on subjective experiences? Or at least, that's what I would like to think. — ToothyMaw
:up: :100:I think I see where I'm going wrong. A relative truth would be that relative to a society of evangelical Christians, gay marriage is indeed wrong on the basis of their subjective belief that it is wrong. That goes further than just reporting a fact, which is what I did in my post. — ToothyMaw
The OP also posted this in the ethics forum, meaning he's talking about moral objectivism vs moral, well, not-objectivism, where the line between moral relativism and moral subjectivism is almost nonexistent. Most of my posts have been about the more general relational view in general (such as relational ontology), where the distinction between the two metaphysical views (relative vs subjective) is quite significant.It is actually presented as relativism vs. objectivism in the OP. A bunch of people, me included, got it mixed up though, presumably when they tried to refresh themselves on the whole objectivism vs. subjectivism thing. — ToothyMaw
The relational view isn't one that requires evaluations, and a given entity has no empirical access to other universes, so any evaluation is entirely an abstract exercise.So, I think you must use the term "relative" by your own reasoning, and not "relational" - especially if you think that an evaluating entity would have to exist to connect the laws of physics in two different universes, although it is not entirely clear if you do. — ToothyMaw
Relational means that moral, ontology, perhaps even truth, are examples of relations.Maybe I should be more direct: what exactly do you mean when you use the term relational?
You reference the wiki site, which equates objective to not-subjective. It works for morals at least, but not to general relational metaphysics. They give an example of a subjective assessment of the weather, but no example of what they consider objective. Their objective definition seems contradictory, that it is something to be evaluated, and yet true in the absence of a mind which supposedly is needed to do the evaluating. Perhaps I'm being picky. Yes, I can imagine a world absent anything with subjective experience (Wayfarer would disagree), at least enough to discuss it.Given the definition of objective and subjective from here, the truth is objective if it is a set of statements that are true and independent of opinion, biase, conscious experience, and the like. — MoK
I actually agreed with it in general.When I read this post (mine, not yours, MoK) I can't help but feel that what I'm saying is fallacious, but I can't tell where it goes wrong. — ToothyMaw
basis of their belief... Are not all beliefs subjective, pretty much by definition? One can have a belief about some objective thing (yes, 3+5 really is unconditionally 8), but the belief itself is subjective.I think I see where I'm going wrong. A relative truth would be that relative to a society of evangelical Christians, gay marriage is indeed wrong on the basis of their subjective belief that it is wrong. — ToothyMaw
That is begging an objective ontology. Commonly assumed, but not valid thing to do in a metaphysical debate about whether such a premise is correct or not.For me I start with the presupposition that both the object and the subject exist — Benj96
An empirical truth then. The sun is bigger than Earth, and so forth, and then it becomes a relation to that which is observed. Arithmetic truth is more objective precisely due to the lack of an obvious relation.For physical truth, you can observe it. — Tarskian
But all those theorems rely on axioms which have not been proven, so they rest on a foundation that isn't objectively sound, which is why I question if 3+5 equaling 8 being an objective truth.In almost all cases, we make use of arithmetical soundness theorem to ascertain the truth of a statement: The statement is true because it is provable.
Regardless of whether or not relativism is more accurate, or if we feel as though objectivism is too rigid, assuming objectivism in the search for truth (the answer to this question's use case) is generally more useful than assuming relativism.
Most truths worth looking for (except for personal truths) either have one answer, or the assumption that they have one answer leads to more productive debate and higher quality proposed solutions. — Igitur
One of the most enduring debates in philosophy (…) raises a fundamental question: is truth unique and universal (objectivism), or does it vary depending on perspectives and contexts (relativism)? — Cadet John Kervensley
But all those theorems rely on axioms which have not been proven, so they rest on a foundation that isn't objectively sound, which is why I question if 3+5 equaling 8 being an objective truth. — noAxioms
None of the above.Where Do You Stand? — Cadet John Kervensley
The pre-socratics, if I remember correctly, believed there are universal truths. But they believed that not everyone could access the right path to the truths. Because to them, seeing things differently, not commonly, through the right mind, is the way to truth. (I see that I haven't given anything that's concrete here and the reason is because their writings have been only in fragments, not the entirety, and no professors I studied under were good at it either).What is Objectivism?
Objectivism asserts that truth exists independently of human beliefs, emotions, or perceptions. According to this view, there are facts that are true regardless of who examines them or under what circumstances. For example, the laws of physics or mathematical truths are often cited as examples of objectivism in action. For objectivists, truth is fixed and universal.
And Relativism?
In contrast, relativism claims that truth is subjective and dependent on context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives. What is true for one person or culture might not be true for another. For instance, in matters of morality, what is considered right or wrong can vary depending on cultural or historical contexts, reinforcing the idea that truth is relative. — Cadet John Kervensley
The pre-socratics, if I remember correctly, believed there are universal truths. But they believed that not everyone could access the right path to the truths. Because to them, seeing things differently, not commonly, through the right mind, is the way to truth. — L'éléphant
Yes, true. It's the mind.:100: I think that was broadly characteristic of many of the Axial Age philosophies both East and West. — Wayfarer
That is begging an objective ontology — noAxioms
I cannot use arithmetic without first presuming some axiomatic truths. Yes, arithmetic is useful, but only useful relative to worlds in which it works, or at least seems to.You can reject arithmetical truth, until you make use of it, or of a statement that happens to be equi-consistent with it. — Tarskian
That seems to be an assertion of realism.For me I start with the presupposition that both the object and the subject exist. — Benj96
In attempt to find the truth of realism vs some alternate ontology (idealism say were only ideals, and not objects, exist), presuming one of the two conclusions cannot lead to the truth of the matter.How is it begging an objective ontology any more than it is begging a subjective one. — Benj96
Common & intuitive, yes, although not entirely. Several posters on this topic hold alternative views. Knowledge: no. It isn't knowledge if the truth of the premise cannot be demonstrated.I would have thought the assumption that the objective and subjective both exist is common intuitive knowledge.
Disagree. If only subjective exists, then science still yields new ways to have new/better subjective experience, however not nonexistent the science is.Similarly if only the subjective exists then scientific discovery and the tech based on those discoveries is null and void and only subjective imaginings of how things are is valid.
The question is why it is not necessary for both to exist (or either). I never asserted that both don't exist. Anyway, the answer depends heavily on one's definition of 'exist'. Yours seems to be "something that 'acts'.", followed by examples of things that don't exists despite the fact that they very much act.So by all means explain why both don't exist?
I've been absorbing a great deal of information from John Vervaeke's Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. A key idea which is relevant to your question is a term he introduced, 'transjective'. The 'transjective' refers to the dynamic, participatory relationship between the subject and the world, in which meaning arises through interaction rather than being either imposed by the subject ('in the mind') or existing outside ('in the world'). Vervaeke argues that the objective/subjective distinction presents a false dilemma because it overlooks how humans are always embedded in a web of relationships and processes within which meaning arises. The 'transjective' thus highlights the co-emergence of perception and reality, suggesting that meaning is neither purely personal nor purely external but is co-constituted through engagement with the world. And that applies to meaning in all the different senses of that word, from the utilitarian to the aesthetic, which arise along a continuum, from a spider spinning a web to a poet spinning a sonnet. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.