This does not make any sense to me, I have no idea what you are asking?

Sorry, I should have hit quote on that one rather than just hitting "reply."

You had said:

I did answer. — m-theory

To which I responded, "I didn't think you did, did I?"

Let me try again

Presumably there is some reason or argument which demonstrates that "All truths are subjective' is an objective fact.

My position is that we can then take those reasons and arguments and plug x in for the term truth and y in for the term subjective such that they are exactly the same.

And thereby we can also demonstrate that all x are y is also an objective fact by precisely the same methods.

My position is that we can then take those reasons and arguments and plug x in for the term truth and y in for the term subjective such that they are exactly the same. — m-theory

It would only be exactly the same if x were a variable representing "truth" and y were a variable representing "subjective."

No it would be the same in that we could say that all x are y refers to an objective fact.

It depends on what we're referring to.

Prove it.

I'm not forwarding a mathematical or logical argument in the context of a particular species of mathematics or logic. I'm referring to contingent, empirical facts.

So "all truths are subjective" is contingent on empirical facts, that is your position?

Yes, of course.

So if it was not an empirical fact that "all truths are subjective" what consequences would this have on the statement?

Consequences on a statement??? (In other words, I have no idea what you'd be asking)

Yes, if the truth of the statement "all truths are subjective" is contingent on objective facts.
What does that imply about what truth is contingent upon?

Above, I wasn't saying something about truth value of statements first off.

But changing the topic to that if you want: first, truth value hinges on contingent facts when that's how an individual assesses truth value. In other words, when they use correspondence theory and they're judging how propositions match or fail to match states of affairs.

truth value hinges on contingent facts — Terrapin Station

Then we actually agree.

Truth value is contingent on facts.

Haha--I'll be away for a bit, but I can continue later.

Have a good day then.

Back for a minute.

Is that what you're striving for--for us to agree?

I think we do agree on at least the point that truth value is contingent upon the facts.
That is basically what my position is as well.

nI think we do agree on at least the point that truth value is contingent upon the facts. — m-theory

You know there was more to my sentence than that, right?

As long as you are not implying that truth is not contingent upon facts I have no issues.

It depends on the truth theory someone is using.

No it doesn't. There is no "valuing something truthfully." — Terrapin Station

You assume truth is objective. If I perceive something truthfully then that means as close to a true subjective interpretation as possible, nor marred with false interpretation, delusion or prejudice etc.

There are no objective truths, by your definition, so the "truth" part of the statement "All truths are subjective" does not correspond to anything objective.
And by definition the subjective part does not correspond to anything objective.
The statement "All truths are subjective" does not correspond to any objective fact. — m-theory

This is what I was saying to you the other day about all facts being an interpretation but yet you still disagreed with me. You insisted you were 6-foot tall, 6 foot tall where? in your mind? or in my mind?

Shouldn't we be discussing that Pussy IS Really a Source for Meaningful Life and Optimism? Sorry... I meant "relationships"?

I am 6 ft tall though.

In your mind only

When I am measured.

Measured by someone else's mind?