A common term for "the same for everyone" is "universal." "Uniform" would be another option.
"Varied" is a common term for the opposite of "universal." — Terrapin Station
Cool. So if something were universal, would that make it true? — Harry Hindu
So would you say that it is objectively true, or subjectively true, that we disagree? — Harry Hindu
What is that "something else" other that some state-of-affairs that exists, which could be what is going on in your mind right now?That relational property is a matter of making a judgment about the connection between a proposition and something else. — Terrapin Station
Which is just another state-of-affairs that we can talk about and would either be true or false based on the relationship of accuracy between the claim and the actual state-of-affairs.We can just go with how the person in question thinks about it. — Terrapin Station
Which is just another state-of-affairs that we can talk about and would either be true or false based on the relationship of accuracy between the claim and the actual state-of-affairs. — Harry Hindu
Isn't this why science has something called experimentation and peer review - to eliminate the subjective skewing of what just one individual claims to be the "truth"."the relationship of accuracy"-- which can only obtain as a judgment that an individual makes about it. — Terrapin Station
Exactly. Truth, as a property of propositions, is a property of coherence and consistency, and lacking any logical fallacies. For some proposition to be true, it must be consistent, meaning other people will arrive at the same conclusion given all the possible evidence.Truth is a property of propositions. Namely, a relational property. That relational property is a matter of making a judgment about the connection between a proposition and something else. — Terrapin Station
Isn't this why science has something called experimentation and peer review - to eliminate the subjective skewing of what just one individual claims to be the truth. — Harry Hindu
Exactly. Truth, as a property of propositions, is a property of coherence and consistency — Harry Hindu
Any time someone makes a claim about some state-of-affairs that is the same for everyone - like the claim that there is no objective truth - then that is an objective truth claim. The claim defeats itself. — Harry Hindu
.the claim that absolute truth is impossible is itself a contestable claim rather than unchallengeable — curiousnewbie
That's strange that you interpreted my post in that way, when I never implied that.You could have lots of someones making judgments, but that doesn't give any more weight to anything. Believing that it does is called the argumentum ad populum fallacy. — Terrapin Station
How would you know that that is the only truth? It seems to me that in order to make that claim, there would be other true knowledge that you could point to that helped you arrive at the conclusion you are making now.Would adding the caveat of 'there is no objective truth, except for this statement' be non-contradictory? — curiousnewbie
I can accept this because I consider "subjective truth" a contradiction (subjectivity is an incomplete or skewed notion of the truth), and "objective truth" a redundancy.This thread, at least so far, is in English.
Someone who thinks otherwise is, as we say in the trade, wrong. That is, they have a false belief.
"This thread is in English" is true.
There, a plain use of true without the need for absolute, subjective or objective. — Banno
That's strange that you interpreted my post in that way, when I never implied that — Harry Hindu
Was not your explanation of these theories true, or are you giving us the wrong explanation of these theories? Is it true that these theories exist and that Schrodinger and Penrose really existed and had these ideas in their heads?In the quantum world the observer determines the state of the cat ( shrodinger) or in the penrose diosi view gravity determines the collapse of the wave function not any observer...in historical theory postmodernists cannot disentangle the subject from the object either linguistically or in epistemological terms or as an individual actor incapable of indpendent access to the "past" it is far from clear on what foundations any truth might stand... — Edmund
When one uses the term, "truth" they mean the way things are, or some state-of-affairs, for everyone. — Harry Hindu
When one uses the term, "truth" they mean the way things are, or some state-of-affairs, for everyone. — Harry Hindu
Are you saying that this property isnt the same for everyone. If I commit a logical fallacy as part of some claim that I make, how is that property not the same for everyone? If you call me out on "my" fallacy, then do you expect me to agree with you? Why or why not?First, when I use the term "truth," I'm referring to a property of propositions, and that's a standard thing to refer to in analytic philosophy. My analysis of it (which isn't standard) is that the property in question is the result of an individual judgment. — Terrapin Station
Which states of affairs are you talking about - the apple, or your perception of the apple? The apple is some state of affairs at any moment independent of any observer. An observer can have a different perspective because of their different location in space-time and different sensory organs, but the fact that there is something there for any observer to respond to must mean something.Aside from that, though, sticking strictly to states of affairs, I'm a relativist (or more precisely a perspectivalist for this issue), and I wouldn't say that states of affairs are the same for every reference point. — Terrapin Station
And how do they go about discovering this then? If, in order to declare something is "true", one must first check if it is that way for everyone, that's going to severely curcumscribe it's use in day-to-day conversation. — Isaac
Somebody that didn't believe in objective truth would not believe that, and hence would be liberated from a potential contradiction.
Of course they would also need to say "I don't believe in objective truth" rather than the "There is no objective truth" that you suggested, as the latter sounds like a statement that is intended to be taken as objective truth. But provided their position is the former and not the latter, there is no apparent contradiction. — andrewk
Are you saying that this property isnt the same for everyone. — Harry Hindu
If I commit a logical fallacy as part of some claim that I make, how is that property not the same for everyone? — Harry Hindu
Which states of affairs are you talking about - the apple, or your perception of the apple? The apple is some state of affairs at any moment independent of any observer. An observer can have a different perspective because of their different location in space-time and different sensory organs, but the fact that there is something there for any observer to respond to must mean something. — Harry Hindu
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.