Aren't their truths about individuals? I can say I'm angry, you can say that I don't look angry. I can reply that I'm holding it in. Surely there is a truth about whether I feel angry.

How would you define a subjective truth?

Something that is true for me, like I am at my countryside home in Finland and it's raining outside and that's not true to the place you are, isn't same thing as a subjective truth. The property of being in accord with fact or reality is objective.

Let's remember that objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination.

You can't overstate how slippery the word 'truth' is. There are at least half a dozen philosophical theories about truth.

The prerequisites for objective truth are subjective, you've just made your case. Where does that leave us when it comes to the truth about the truth?

Where does that leave us when it comes to the truth about the truth? — Judaka

It is subjective... as someone has already pointed out there are many theories of truth.. take your pick... or create your own.

think truth must be objective, this is what is true for everybody. If something is true for you and not everybody else it wouldn’t be a fact and the truth of it would literally just be in a few people’s heads maybe. The world is bigger than your head we reason, so the truth of the world must be objective. — Maya

The short answer is both. We live in a subject-object world.

Consider the differences between the common phenomenon of love ( a truth) and an objective mathematical truth. Love appears to be both a subjective and objective truth because it's universally true that everyone wants love (most human's) yet there are subjective elements relative to cognition and psychology. Similarly, mathematical truths are universal and objective, yet still depend on subjective analysis during its application.

Taking it a step further, perhaps the more intriguing questions about love and mathematics, relate to their true nature of existence or their experience. Are they both a variant of some sort of metaphysical language? They both speak to a universal truth that describes how the universe works and are abstract... .

Aren't their truths about individuals? I can say I'm angry, you can say that I don't look angry. I can reply that I'm holding it in. Surely there is a truth about whether I feel angry — Marchesk

Sure, you and your feelings are part of the "objective truth of the world", so to speak, just as me and my feelings are. We can talk about each other's mental states in objective ways, as our mental states play a causal role in the world, and are a part of the world like boulders and waterfalls are.

Subjective, as defined in the OP, is like the logical fallacy - an appeal to emotion, with objective meaning the opposite - the lack of an appeal to emotion.

You can't overstate how slippery the word 'truth' is. There are at least half a dozen philosophical theories about truth. — Wheatley

It's not truth that is slippery - it's the theories.

It's statements that are true or false.

So the hypothesis proposed in the OP is that All true statements are objective.

This hypothesis would be falsified by a true subjective statement.

Taking subjective to mean "influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings", it's a simple matter to find such statements:

• Banno likes vanilla ice cream.
• Trump is a poor excuse for a president
• Being cold is unpleasant

Each of these is based on personal beliefs or feelings. Each is true.

Hence, there are subjective statements which are true.

Hence, not all true statements are objective.

‘Objective’ means: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings.
‘Subjective’ means: influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts. — Maya

There's much ambiguity in these definitions.

If it is based on real facts, are there facts that are not real? Of course not. If I believe some real fact, then is my belief is presumably influenced by personal beliefs... and hence not objective? If your beliefs are subjective, are none of them true? Is it clear from this definition that subjective and objective are contradictory, or are they just contrary?

And so on.

All this not by way of wanting better definitions so much as by way of showing that the subject/object distinction has little to do with truth.

I feel that most, like 95%, of the truth is objective. But it can also be subjective I think; Because the truth can depend on knowledge factors.

I feel that most, like 95%, of the truth is objective. — Gmak

You feel. Hence, that statement is subjective, and itself unlikely to be true - by your own account.

It's not truth that is slippery - it's the theories. — Banno

The fact that philosophers can come up with so many different and conflicting theories about a single word is convincing to me that the word 'truth' is slippery.

philosophers can come up with so many different and conflicting theories — Wheatley

The philosophical theories of truth have one thing in common; they are none of them true. How could they be? If they were they would be self-servingly circular.

Truth is about as fundamental a notion as can be had. You already know what it is, and can recognise it, and so do not need theories of truth to tell you more.Here's all there is to say: "p" is true if and only if p.

The philosophical theories of truth have one thing in common; they are none of them true. How could they be? If they were they would be self-servingly circular. — Banno

You tell me. And I don't know what "self-servingly circular" means.

Maybe my truth is subjective, but I can argue I’m being more objective than anyone else? What does everyone else think?

"self-servingly circular" — Wheatley

Just the simple logic that a theory of truth could only be true if it satisfied itself.

Yes. That sounds good. Tell me more?

Just the simple logic that a theory of truth could only be true if it satisfied itself. — Banno

Theories of truth can be correct or incorrect. Just use the word 'correct' to describe a philosophical approach (or so-called 'theory') to addressing 'truth,' and the problem is solved.

Theories of truth can be correct or incorrect. Just use the word 'correct' to describe a philosophical approach (or so-called 'theory') to addressing 'truth,' and the problem is solved. — Wheatley

All you will have done is used "correct" to mean "true". Not an improvement.

All you will have done is used "correct" to mean "true." Not an improvement. — Banno

Fair enough. I can use the words 'useful' or 'good' describing theories of truth. This way, we get over your logic requirement of non-circularity.

Theories of truth can be correct or incorrect. Just use the word 'correct' to describe a philosophical approach (or so-called 'theory') to addressing 'truth,' and the problem is solved. — Wheatley

What is the difference? If your post is correct, is it not true? It's as if a guilty man becomes innocent if he changes his name. ( and likewise good and useful)

'Subjective' is these days pretty much a term of abuse used by those who think they have the patent on logic and science.

Thus we see it being argued that there can be no subjective truth. In which case it follows that there can be no subjective meaning. But then there is no meaning to 'objective truth' or 'objective meaning' either; there is simply 'meaning' and 'truth'. Distinctions are only meaningful and useful if they distinguish this from that.

So here is the descent into madness: The only truth is objective truth, and there is no subjective truth. Therefore subjects cannot know things, only objects can. Therefore I am an object.

If something is true for me and I’m happy with it, because we’re in the world and you can discover lots of falsifications of a theory. And I’m happy with it because I’ve explored the world to my own satisfaction. But if I were ever to come up with a falsification, happily could you change your theory, because the one you did have has become false. And you hope this one is true. Basically become a scientist? Isn’t that a good method of finding truth?

I think there exists objective truths, and the more objective you are, the closer you are to it. Truth could not be subjective because it would not be true for everybody, but you’re claim to it is, cos you can’t verify it with the whole world, practically!

It doesn't really matter now because it really didn't matter then. I mean. It did. The entirety of humanity, society, and civilization is captained by public opinion. Then and now. But it never made the world less round or more flat. It never made the Sun revolve around the Earth or vice versa.

Pragmatism is the term we need to familiarize ourselves with. That some people arrogantly call "reality". Of course. It's simply the pragmatic thing to do.

What is the difference? If your post is correct, is it not true? It's as if a guilty man becomes innocent if he changes his name. — unenlightened

@Banno raised that objection.

'Subjective' is these days pretty much a term of abuse used by those who think they have the patent on logic and science. — unenlightened

I got my patent on logic a while ago, and I'm currently working on a science patent. You won't be able to use the word 'subjective' without the risk of a lawsuit. I would be careful.

Thus we see it being argued that there can be no subjective truth. In which case it follows that there can be no subjective meaning. But then there is no meaning to 'objective truth' or 'objective meaning' either; there is simply 'meaning' and 'truth'. Distinctions are only meaningful and useful if they distinguish this from that. — unenlightened

Who invented the word 'subjectivity' anyhow? Let's murder them!.

So here is the descent into madness: The only truth is objective truth, and there is no subjective truth. Therefore subjects cannot know things, only objects can. Therefore I am an object. — unenlightened

Because knowledge = justified true belief?

Pragmatism- If it works do it?


Can we really know anything???

Can we really know anything??? — Maya

Do I know anything?

I always thought people don’t really know anything, because their ideas about the world could always be proven wrong, unless you’ve met every idea in the Universe that could ever possibly be created. So impossible to prove something to be objectively true/ true because possible ideas are infinite.

Take science for an example, have you ever noticed that quite often it will change it’s mind, sometimes to the complete opposite of what it said. At school I was told to bounce on a stretch to stretch the muscles more, then later in life I went to athletics club and was told I should NEVER do that in a stretch because it could damage the muscle or something (I can’t quite remember). It made me feel like an idiot for listening to teachers in the first place!

There is one thing you can say about religion and that’s, at least it doesn’t ever change it’s mind. You could have a belief and ignore all evidence to the contrary, wouldn’t that be fun!

I would say, you got to work out what’s true for you, come up with your own beliefs, (above) and screw everyone else, including teachers and parents. I would listen to other people’s ideas in search of a contradiction, but can I do this forever? I don’t want to philosophise about life for the rest of my life! I want to live life! At some point maybe you’ve got to say, this is what I believe, and screw all evidence to the contrary. What else can you do??

I figure that since “true” and “false” are adjectives and descriptive terms, there is really no need to imagine them as nouns and go off in search of them. There is a curious process here: turn an adjective into a noun with some suffix or other, and in so doing alter a description of things into a thing. Modifying the pseudo-thing with more adjectives, it is no wonder that they and other “qualities” become exceedingly difficult to think about. I’m not sure what the linguistic purpose of such a process might be, but it is interesting.

I think truth must be objective, this is what is true for everybody. — Maya

The problem there is, how do you know what is true for All? Of course, Science strives for Objectivity, by eliminating impossible or contradictory opinions. But most scientists will admit that the body of knowledge we call "science" is essentially a collective opinion, and is constantly adapting to new information. So Truth, with a capital "T", remains an elusive goal of human endeavor. Hence, for all practical purposes, we rely on small "t" subjective truth. And that includes scientists & experts, whose opinions should be closer to Truth, but still not technically Objective. God only knows the ultimate absolute Truth, everybody else is just guessing. Rules of Reason have been invented to guide us on the long & winding road to the pinnacle of Truth. :smile: