It is natural to have words for phenomena that are clearly noticeable since then it’s possible to talk about what we see. We notice there is a general difference between how people look and like any other difference it’s convenient to place them in approximate categories. That’s not the same as claiming there’s a fundamental difference.

Suppose you were witness to a crime and the police asked you to describe the people involved. If one of them were, well black, negro, African American, whatever, it would be a lot easier for you to convey that idea by using one word that would be directly understood. If you said the person had a dark complexion and dark curly hair, that could also be a description of a person normally referred to as white or Caucasian. Why then make it so difficult? Would you try to invoke racial stereotypes, like broad nose, to slowly give the police the idea of what you were talking about? What you saw was a man who looked as if his ancestors came from sub-Saharan Africa and it’s just convenient to have a word for that.

Whether such a thing as race exists, is not an interesting question in this context. Something exists, and we need a word for it.

You don’t call that racism, so I suppose you don’t find it necessary to fight against it.
— Congau

These responses are a bit rabid. You keep labelling people in simplistic terms. If someone questions a definition they’re regarded as accessories to racism. This is really making me question the real intent of many posts. — Brett

That was a rhetorical question. I’m sure is against private individuals who dislike people because of their skin color, and I’m sure he would want to change their attitude. That’s why wonder why he insists on that narrow definition. For him only systemic racism is racism.

Of course you can define any word the way you want, but when you choose a definition that goes against the common understanding of the word, you must have a particular purpose. Most people would call it an act of racism if someone spat a person in the face or burned down that person’s house because of resentment of skin color, even if the incidents were individual and not connected to any social system.

Words that are in common use only mean what people take them to mean. So what is the purpose of giving this particular word a more narrow definition contrary to the common perception. Certainly it can’t be to condone certain hideous racially motivated acts by not calling it racism, so why then?

I suspect some feel that since the problem is highly complex the term signifying it can’t be simple. A fancy definition somehow seems to be needed. But no, racism is a very complicated phenomenon, but the definition can still be simple.

I'm interested in clarifying concepts and not in normalizing confused usages of terms. — 180 Proof

How can your narrow definition “manifest systemic discrimination” be a clarification of what racism is? A lonely white man sitting isolated in his home just hating all black people and having a secret desire to see them killed, wouldn’t be called a racist according to your definition. It wouldn’t be manifest – it’s happening in secret, it wouldn’t be systemic – the man is alone, and it’s not a matter of discrimination – he isn’t doing anything.

You are effectively denying that racism can be an attitude of hatred existing in individuals. What do you gain by such a narrow definition? It would mean that if all overt instances of discrimination disappeared from the system, racism would be eradicated. But don’t you agree that something ugly would still exist? In the minds of people there would still be racial prejudice and even if it didn’t appear in the system of society, individual resentment would still be bad enough. You don’t call that racism, so I suppose you don’t find it necessary to fight against it. If it’s not visible in the system, it’s not a problem, is that so?

No, all kinds of racial resentment should be fought, so why not call it all racism so the enemy can be recognized?

There are two ways we can ‘do away with the idea of “a view”’: we can reduce the available information by ignoring, isolating or excluding anything that suggests the possibility of an alternative view; OR we can strive to include all possible alternative views. As Pantagruel suggests, objectivity is inclusive of intersubjective process and critical consensus. What you’re referring to is the reductive process that inevitably accompanies critical consensus in order to maximise certainty. My argument is that this critical consensus and accompanying reduction of information, while necessarily practical, also detracts from its claim to objectivity. — Possibility

We must distinguish between the method of reaching an idea of what the objective truth might be and objective truth itself. Sure, critical consensus is one important way to reach a semblance of certainty, but whatever it is we are investigating would have been there even if no one had bothered to look at it. Proper objectivity is not related to any subject; no observer at all. Of course, then we can’t really even talk about it, so the moment we start investigating we are in effect giving up the knowledge of total objectivity.

Shifting one’s point of view, imagining other people’s view, engaging in a critical exchange of meaning, getting an understanding potentials and possibilities, all of that constitutes the way to gain insight into all aspects of our world, but it is not the world. The world as it really truly objectively is, is inaccessible to us, and we have to settle for the best possible substitute, which is a critical approach to it through all the multiple tools at our disposal.

But there is a world beyond all the fog of subjective limitations and that’s what we are ultimately trying to catch a glimpse of. We can’t give up that goal even though it is unattainable.

I understand racism as shorthand for manifest systemic discrimination — 180 Proof

It is not a good idea to give a restricted definition of a word that intuitively has a broader definition. What would you call personal racism if “racism” already means “systemic racism”? A lone individual who spits another person in the face because that person has a different skin color, couldn’t be called a racist if the word is reserved for another meaning.

You may of course argue that only racism that is connected to the dominant power structure has a social impact and is worth caring about, but a word is still needed to cover the general belief that one race is somehow superior to another. What would you call someone who thinks blacks are superior to whites? If you insist that the word “racist” should be reserved for something else, you would have to come up with another word for this phenomenon, but since language is not a private thing it doesn’t make much sense to use a word no one else uses.

What you are actually doing is trying to shut out a part of a potential discussion, maybe because you think it would derail the most important debate or bring forth unhealthy viewpoints. You may be right about that, but in a free society no speech should be suppressed. It must for example be allowed to ask if black animosity against whites is acceptable.

Why is the title referring to systemic racism in particular and not just racism in general? The Floyd murder (which I assume is the background for this topic) was probably not just an instant of systemic racism but also plain old fashioned individual racism.

If there is racism in the American police force (and I think it’s quite obvious that there is) that doesn’t automatically qualify as systemic racism. If a black person in police custody is more likely to be beaten than a white person, that would only reflect the attitude of individual officers and not be systemic. If blacks are more likely to be suspected by the police because of their skin color, that would also be plain racism. But if blacks are more likely to get into situations where they could be potential suspects, that would have a more systemic character.

When something is systemic it reflects a deeper set of causes. Blacks are disadvantaged all the way through the system. They are on average poorer and receive less education and that again makes it more likely that they turn up as criminals. If you called the Floyd murder an instance of systemic racism only, that would make the four officers less individually guilty and that’s hardly the case.

Rights are not given by God, nor are they self-evident and eternal in the way moral precepts may be. One may argue that the ten commandments are given by God since most of them correspond to universal moral concepts. Murder is a violation against nature, but from that it doesn’t follow that humans have a natural right to life. We were given life for free, but that doesn’t mean we have a right to it. If someone gives you a present, you don’t automatically have a right to it.

A thing is objective if it is arrived at through the intersubjective process of critical consensus (Popper) — Pantagruel

That is probably referring to the scientific method.

A thing is objective if it forms a part of the essential shared social milieu (Mead). — Pantagruel

That would be the practical meaning of objectivity. A common reference point is sufficient in our daily understanding of reality. We don’t have to go all the way back to a philosophical thing in itself every time we identify a common object. “This is a computer” we say in our social milieu. “This is a typewriter with a tv screen” one might say in another. Both are objectively true, although there is one underlying objectivity.

I’m not disregarding logic, only acknowledging its limited position. — Possibility

Sorry, I should have said downplaying logic.
But again, I don’t understand how you can do that. Anything that is true must be logical. The law of non-contradiction just can’t be violated. How can you call that a mere "subjective constraint"?

The problem as I see it, though, is that for ‘reality’ to have any meaning for you, it must be viewed from a position. So at this point, you will continue to argue that objective truth is a position, and we will go around in circles again. You’re unable (or unwilling) to break free of logic, actuality or time enough to consider the possible existence of an undifferentiated relation. It’s meaningless, yes - it exists and doesn’t exist. I recognise that this makes no sense to you, but this is where we need to be in order to understand the pure possibility of objectivity. It’s essentially a koan. — Possibility

It is certainly not a position. It is not even a view. Your “objectivity” is one of ever-changing perspectives, is it? It’s a mixture of meaning from all possible and impossible standpoints, but there’s always some standpoint, so for you objectivity seems to be based on subjectivity. You disregard logic since all subjective observers are not logical, and their view must also be taken into account. You mix all possible positions and conclude that reality is not viewed from a position.

“The view from nowhere” is quite non-sensical because it tries to include two contradictory ideas. To make something objective we have to do away with any idea of “a view”; there is no position. Logic is not a position, it is eternal reality; it exists without anyone looking at anything from anywhere.

If you admit that it is meaningless, how can you insist on its objective existence? Objectivity is exactly the idea of something being pulled away from all messy relations and existing alone and in itself. The moment something depends on something else to be conceptualized as existing, it is not objective. “It is soft” – depending on something being hard and a person judging. “Soft” is meaningless in itself – not objective.

The etymology of the word ‘true’ suggests a gradual broadening of its definition to expand the concept in relation to meaning. Initially it meant ‘loyal and steadfast’, ‘honest’, or ‘faithful’. Later, the concept expanded, and the definition broadened to ‘accurate or exact’ in terms of relative positioning or direction. — Possibility

Looking at the etymology of this word can only lead us astray. Why a certain sound has come to represent a certain concept is philologically interesting and in a few cases, but far from all, it may tell us something about human psychology (most of the time it’s a result of a rather arbitrary development). In philosophy, however, it is desirable to strive for pure concepts that are untainted by cultural connotations of words. That is often not possible, lamentably, but in the case of this concept “true” I’d say it is. Any language would have a concept of it even if there may not be an exact one to one translation of the English “true” in all languages. The philosophically reductive concept refers to what is correct and really existent as opposed to what is incorrect, a lie and a phantasy.

If, however, you believe that an objective truth exists, then its objectivity would need to be free of all subjective constraints including logic, actuality and time. In this sense, the meaning of objective truth is an undifferentiated relation to objective reality. Truth is reality. — Possibility

How can you call logic a subjective constraint? Two plus two equals four whatever anyone thinks or whether there is anyone there to think at all.
Actuality is reality and real reality is as objective as anything can get. (In reality France doesn’t have a king although potentially it has.)
As for time, that is the reality of the human condition and a thing in itself beyond time in the Kantian sense, cannot be given a meaningful truth value at all. I think you are still operating within the categories of the world as we know it, though, so your inclusion of all mutually contradictory possibilities as truth would still be subjective if you think objectivity can only be found beyond time and space.

The only truth in a question of possibility is what can happen and that is determined by nature. A nasturtium seed cannot become an apple tree, but John Smith can become the king of France. In social science pretty much anything is potentially true as long as it doesn’t contradict the possibilities of nature and formal logic.

All sciences deal with truth and if a social scientist takes it upon himself to investigate John Smith’s royal potential, he aims at producing a truth statement. His conclusion, for example one in a billion, is a truth statement. It claims to have investigated all normal paths to royalty and have found them blocked. The procedure is the same as for natural science, only that there’s an infinity of contingencies that can never be exhausted, therefore one is left with an expression of probability.

But how are we ever to distinguish the truth in a statement of probability. What’s the difference between one in a billion and fifty/fifty? Whatever happens in either case doesn’t prove anything. It may rain tomorrow and John Smith may become the king of France, and those statements are equally true. Only when looking at the state of things as they now are (the actuality) does the probability express a truth. In the potential as directing towards the future, there is no truth.

Why can’t truth be manifold? The way I see it, the future is objectively existent, but as one of countless possibilities — Possibility

It defies basic logic to think of truth as manifold. Either A is true, or A is not true and switching to future tense makes no difference: Either A will happen, or A will not happen; both can’t be true.

Sure, expressed as a possibility they are not mutually exclusive. A may happen, and A may not happen.
But “may” and “may not” don’t constitute separate truths. In fact they are both included in the exact same truth condition. Saying “A may happen” not only does not exclude “A may not happen”, it implies it. If it is true that A may happen, it follows logically that A may not happen.

Possibility must be understood as one, covering one area of possible events. Imagine a circle: inside the circle there are an infinite number of points representing possible events distinguished from each other by tiny details, but the mathematical point is non-existent as such, only the area exists, and it is one. Outside the circle is the rest of the universe: it represents everything that cannot possibly happen; it is what is not true.
For the future there is only one truth, what is possible, and that one truth is existent as one in the present.

that’s where I think the relativity of spacetime would disagree with you. At a certain distance, here or there does make a difference for objectivity. — Possibility

Please explain. Distance between here and there only refers to the relationship between subject and object. When something is objective, there is no subject and no distance, right? The relativity of time and space also excludes an intrinsic meaning of distance, doesn’t it?

So when we say ‘I’m 90% sure it really happened’, this is not really probability, is it? It’s an expression of subjective uncertainty towards an event occurring in relation to a limited perception of potentiality. Still, as such it remains an expression of truth from that limited position. There is no objective reason why this can’t be the same for future events. — Possibility

Right. That’s not about probability only about individual uncertainty, and as such it is a piece of psychology and therefore it has objective truth to it. If that’s what you’re saying, I agree. The state of someone’s mind is an objective truth (although not available for anyone else). “I’m 90% sure it happened yesterday” and “I’m 90% sure it will happen tomorrow” are equivalent as a statement about objective truth. The truth condition is referring to the mind of this “I” and not to the event in question.

I can say ‘I’m 90% sure it will happen tomorrow’ based not just on what I have observed/measured, but also informed by familiar patterns of relative probability among countless possibilities. That is an expression of subjective uncertainty towards an event occurring in relation to my limited perception of potentiality. It is an expression of potential truth from my limited position, and exists in the potential future relative to that position. This complex relation, leaving nothing out, is what is objectively true. — Possibility

The accuracy of that 90% estimate is not dependent on anything outside of you. You may have had a dream or you may be intoxicated, you have that level of certainty whatever caused it. Of course, I would trust you prediction more if I knew you were basing it on observation and knowledge of familiar patterns and the more exhaustive the more trustworthy, but the probability as such cannot reach an accurate estimate when the potential information is infinite. The chance of rolling a six is 1/6 and that is a true and accurate estimate when occurring in clinical isolation (just assuming that necessary preconditions, like intention to roll, are already met) but the kind of potentiality you are talking about aims at incorporating as much information as possible, and of course the amount of information can never be exhaustive so the accuracy of the prediction can never be definite, that is to say objective. It depends on how much information you, the subject, have been able to collect. “This complex relation, leaving nothing out, is what is objectively true”, you say, but that can’t exist even in theory since the complexity of the relation is literally infinite.

Probability in quantum mechanics isn’t a numerical value such as a percentage. It’s an irreducible equation, which in a non-mathematical sense is an expression of a relationship. It is the relationship that is true, regardless of what value we attribute to each variable. — Possibility

Can’t any probability in principle be expressed as a numerical value? We do it very inaccurately, of course. We say a great chance or a small chance, but that suggests that it could conceivably be translated into a percentage. 90% = very probable, 99% = almost certain. It doesn’t make it more meaningful and the numbers suggest an accuracy that we don’t possess, but it can be done in principle. If the probability for x to happen is greater than for y to happen, that already indicates the same principle as a percentage.

You define ‘truth’ as what exists ‘right now’, but your perspective of ‘right now’ or the ‘present’ is necessarily subjective, so your understanding of truth is relative to your temporal location. Objective truth is what exists, full stop - there is no objective sense of ‘now’ or ‘here’ as distinct from ‘then’ or ‘there’. — Possibility

It’s not so much that “now” is more objective, and “here” or “there” certainly makes no difference for objectivity. Anything in the past, no matter how distant, is as objective as anything presently existing.
A believer in determinism can logically claim that the future is objectively existent. For him it wouldn’t really make sense to talk about probability; everything is 100% or 0%, even the chance of rolling a six. He may give it a percentage estimate to express his ignorance, though (there’s a 17% chance of rolling a six) just like we may give a percentage estimate to express our uncertainty about something in the past. (I’m quite sure it really happened, 90% sure) but that is not to be confused with an expression of probability.
Probability as future occurrence cannot be an expression of truth since that would suggest that truth can be manifold, but probability as rooted in the present is one (one state of affairs)

“When rolling a die” assumes the existence (and uniformity) of a die to be rolled, a means of rolling it and a surface to roll on, even the value or significance of rolling a six, but all of this is potential information. The die is not currently rolling - we are describing a potential event. Because of this, we can isolate a measure of probability, or even a description of the die, as if it constituted the ‘whole truth’. But in relation to objective truth, there is more potential information we have excluded here, or assumed to be uniform. Granted, very little of it may change the probability of rolling a six (unless the die is weighted), but it can change the potential of what this roll of the die means in terms of truth. — Possibility

So all this is relevant information contributing to the possibility that eventually a six will be rolled. The potential information is all objectively there whether we have it or understand it, sure, I have no problem with that.

But when you add all this additional relevant information to the example you are just complicating the equation; it’s like doing math with big numbers, you don’t change anything about the principle. It’s just easier to use pure physics as an example instead of adding all kinds of “soft” information that contribute in a lot more undecisive way.

We can easily come up with a numerical value of the purely physical chance of rolling a six, the die already being in someone’s hand ready to roll: it is 1/6. But all those other elements that you mention could in theory be given a numerical value also. What is the chance that the person will throw the die at all? What is the chance the game will be played tomorrow?

We sometimes say things like “there’s a 90 percent chance I will come”, and although we know we are dealing with a probability that doesn’t really lend itself to an accurate numerical estimation the principle is the same. There is something existing in the current state of affairs that makes it quite probable that something will happen (that I will come). I am looking at the world as it is now, including my position in it, that is the actual truth that I use in my estimation. I notice it has a potential in it (my coming) that can be expressed numerically, but not as truth.

The chance of coming into being is one in six, or ninety percent or whatever, but that doesn’t express a truth about what will happen. The truth is what is, what is actual. If “90 percent chance” expresses a truth, it’s about how the world is now (actual) not about what might happen (potential).

The possibilities of what to write in the next sentence are unlimited. The potential for what I can write is limited only by time, effort and attention; but the potential of what I can write in the next sentence is limited as much by the words I currently have in my vocabulary as what matters to me. Nevertheless, this potential appears to me unlimited, because I can’t perceive what I can’t perceive. — Possibility

You can bang your keyboard randomly and happen to write a line from an 17th century poem in the Farsi language. It’s highly unlikely, but it’s a possibility.
Of course, we must take into account everything we deem relevant in the current condition, including the subjective state of our mind, to make an estimate of what is reasonably probable, but all we can achieve is an expression of probability. How does probability relate to truth? There’s a one in six chance of rolling a six. That means, if I role the die six hundred times I may collect a hundred sixes, or maybe 99, or 101. It’s likely to be around 100 but the result may be anywhere from 0 to 600. There is no truth to be found when estimating what might happen, but the expression of probability (1/6) is a truth since it’s an expression of the shape of the die as it exists right now.

Likewise, the much more complicated probability concerning your next sentence, if it is to be objectively true, it must reflect all present relevant elements. (The ones you mentioned seem relevant and yes, you must also understand how they are connected to a likely outcome.) An estimate of the probability of a future event, as far as it is objectively true, is a correct assessment of the current state of affairs.

The purpose of the state is to benefit the individuals who make up the state. If the individuals have rights that make it difficult or impossible for the state to benefit them, then those “rights” are not really for the individuals.

During this virus crisis the state restricts the movements of individuals in order to protect those same individuals. The state does it for the individuals only, so the individuals still come first. No one imagines that they are in lockdown to protect the state.

Now, of course it’s legitimate to ask if the state is going to far. Maybe the measures that are taken cause more damage to the individuals than they benefit them. In that case, it is bad policy, but not because it violates some preconceived principle. Individuals are given rights by the state, not because these rights constitute sacred eternal truths but because it’s the best practical guarantee that in normal circumstances the state will not injure the individuals it is there to protect.

These are not normal circumstances and it would be bad if the rights that normally exist to protect individuals from injury are now used to injure those individuals. The individual always comes first.

When the potential is infinite, our investigation is not aimed at objective truth, which is absolute, but probability. You have the potential to become the king of France, but it’s extremely improbable; a chance of one in a trillion or whatever. A measure of probability is the only scientific goal when attempting to predict the future or looking to understand the meaning of the potentials we observe. When rolling a die there’s a sixth of a chance to get a six, but what does that mean in terms of truth? It means that the die is cubed, and one side has six dots. Since it’s completely symmetrical, none of the sides is physically favored. That’s the whole truth.
The oil prices have been low this year. That fact in isolation favors low prices next year. That’s the actuality that has a truth value.

It is possible that you could write anything in your next sentence, but your potential to write anything is limited by... — Possibility

When we say that a potential is limited, we mean that something has inside itself the possibility to reach this far but not farther.
“His potential as a footballer is limited.” He may get to play for a decent team, but he’ll never play in the premier league; the probability for that to happen is considered to be zero.
The potential for what I can write in the next sentence is unlimited, although a certain content is definitely favored.
Potentiality is only relevant to truth when referring to actuality.

Possible combinations of interacting facts are potentially uncountable, but that doesn’t make them literally infinite. They’re also potentially unknowable, but neither does this render them non-existent as objective possibilities. — Possibility

If you don’t limit the idea of potentiality to what is actually present inside an object (like the grown plant is present inside the seed) anything has the potential for anything and it makes no sense to talk about an objective potential truth. You may one day become the king of France, there is objectively speaking nothing that excludes that possibility. It’s not very likely since France doesn’t have a king now and you don’t have royal blood, but strange things have happened before in history.

Potentiality as sheer possibility is literally infinite. There are an infinite number of facts and they can be combined in an infinite number of ways. I have an infinite number of possibilities for what I can do the next hour or even the next minute. The number of possible sentences is infinite, and I could potentially write anything in my next sentence.

Where is the objective truth in this? “Potential truth” is infinite and what is infinite cannot be existent as a fact of the world. Your truth slips away into nothing.

Determinism could save the argument claiming that all potential is limited and present as an actual truth, but an infinite potential is meaningless.

I admit that there is another sense in which everything is predetermined and thereby theoretically predictable. If everything is reduced to quantum mechanics, the quantity of moving molecules is finite and constitutes an extremely complicated version of rolling billiard balls. In that case, there would be no difference between what is potential and what will be actual; there would be no potentiality that wouldn’t eventually turn into actuality. The nasturtium seed wouldn’t have the potential of becoming a nasturtium if it was destined to be destroyed before it reached that stage. That would eliminate the distinction between actual and potential, and between past and future in a truth condition.
(If we assumed some sort of religious determinism, that would also do the same trick.)

However, within our physical world of objects with shape and form and a diversity of kinds of events all truths can be theoretically known (although in practice we can’t know anything). If it’s possible to know that I’m now typing (which it isn’t) it is also possible to know the content of any hidden seed. If it exists as a category of our perception (in our physical world), it exists independently of the mind but can theoretically be brought into the mind.

What we can not have knowledge about even theoretically, can not be the truth. It may be true that this is a seed, true that it is a nasturtium seed, true that it is a potential nasturtium, but neither true nor false that it will become a nasturtium.
— Congau

Do you recognise the subjective expression of these statements? You are limiting truth to what we can theoretically have knowledge of as human beings, rather than what exists objectively, independent of the mind. — Possibility

No, I’m not talking about what is just not practically possible to know about because of our human limitations. A superman or an extremely powerful computer couldn’t know it either. It’s not practically possible to know everything within an enormous pool of facts, but as long as the pool is finite, it’s theoretically possible. It’s not theoretically possible to know the future because the possible combinations of interacting facts are literally infinite. (Because they are infinite they are not objectively existent.)

A potential that exists inside a thing is objective and knowable, but for that potential to develop into a future existence, combinations of factors must be realized, and those possible combinations are not present anywhere now. A can connect to B, but it can also connect to C. The seed (A) can connect to optimal conditions (B) or to my destroying it (C). B or C are not present in the seed, or anywhere in the world for that matter.

There is nothing existing materially inside the object now whereby anyone simply observing it (without knowledge) would see the nasturtium it can become. — Possibility

Who says anyone needs to observe it? The potential is inside the seed whether a scientist studies it or not, just like the unobserved falling tree makes a noise.

It is our conceptual (predictive) systems that enable the brain to construct a perception of truth from the fuzzy and incomplete potential information gained from the senses in relation to ALL our experiences so far. — Possibility

Yes, in other words we only we only register a tiny fraction of the potential information we casually encounter. We see it, but we don’t notice it or don’t make sense of it. We see the seed, but not all the data it could convey.

This seed is a potential nasturtium. It refers to something that exists inside the object now and is not really a prediction about the future. I am about to destroy this seed, so I know for sure that it will never become a nasturtium, but still, it is a potential nasturtium.

By “perception” I meant simple sense-perception or “what the body senses”. (I should have said that instead.) Our bodily senses inform us about the past only and provided we can trust our them, they give us the truth. We are still likely to be mistaken, though, since we make faulty judgments, drawing conclusions from a combination of sensual inputs.

In theory we can have knowledge about what actually exists. If our bodily senses don’t deceive us and we follow a valid deductive procedure we will grasp the truth (without really knowing that we know, of course). But about the future it is not even possible to have knowledge even in theory because our bodily senses can never register all signals that might be relevant. What we can not have knowledge about even theoretically, can not be the truth. It may be true that this is a seed, true that it is a nasturtium seed, true that it is a potential nasturtium, but neither true nor false that it will become a nasturtium.

If we argue that our perception - and therefore our actions and words - are based purely on actual information as ‘objective truth’, then we’re being dishonest (or at least ignorant). Because the truth of our experience, objectively speaking, is that we always act on uncertain future predictions of what is true. So we cannot even be certain that the ‘logical’, ‘emotional’ or ‘moral’ reasoning we give for our actions or statements is the truth independent of our limited conscious experience of it. — Possibility

Our perception is based purely on actual information, what is there at the moment of perception. I see a rock and think it is an elephant, but still my visual perception is based on information that is actually there, that greyish thing.

Our action and words are a different matter. They are in addition based on our judgment and implications of our judgment of what we perceive. We start putting meaning into the object of perception the moment we have perceived it. (It may happen at the same time, but conceptually it’s a sequence). You see someone catching a ball, conclude that your team has won the game and then rejoice realizing what is in it for you (potential). Sure, all of that is included in what you take away from that simple event that would be a simple ball catching for another person, but even for you, what you have actually perceived is just the catching.

Everything we do is directed at the future, (if only the next moment in time) and everything we say is anticipating a response, but everything we have ever perceived belongs to the past.

A potential x is something that may become an x in the future but is not an x now. Potential information is something that may become information in the future but is not information now.
Whatever is, is actual. Information about a potential, is actual.

What is not dependent on the mind for existence? I understand why you’re saying that the most basic information is the plastic-like substance, its actuality. That seems to be the truth of the object that exists regardless of what you or I think about it. Even if the dog was able (or cared enough) to argue with you, he couldn’t deny that it’s made of plastic. I’m not saying that this isn’t objectively true - I’m arguing that this is not the sum of objective truth. — Possibility

Plastic exists independently whereas a bottle is dependent on the human mind to exist, but not on any specific mind. Anyone I asked above the age of three would probably identify this thing as a bottle, so that is also an objective truth. I thought this distinction might be relevant to your scheme, but maybe it isn’t.

So while you can confidently say it is objectively true that you have a plastic bottle on your desk, very little of that information means anything to your dog. Which is fine, as long as you don’t care how your dog relates to the world. And the fact that he doesn’t care about particular information renders him ignorant from your perspective - even though the potential truth he gets from perceiving the bottle on your desk may be more than you realise, and even more than you may get from the same experience. — Possibility

Even though I see what you mean when you say that the dog may use the bottle as a piece of information indicating it will soon be taken for a walk, and you call this information potential truth, I don’t think it’s necessary (or even right) to separate potentiality from actuality in a question of truth. Potentiality exists as actuality. In a seed, the plant it might become, the potential of becoming a nasturtium, is now actually present in that seed. The information is actual, and a biologist could ascertain that under a microscope. The bottle on my desk is actually there, and that is the actual truth that the dog uses to make its inference. Your “potential truth” may or may not become an actual truth, so it is not the truth now, which means that it’s not the truth at all. On the other hand, potentiality existing as actuality, is now the truth, that is truth proper. Potentiality is certainly important, and we are always on the lookout for potentiality in things in order to predict the future, but the truth that we see is in what is actual.

I’m afraid I’m still struggling to grasp the meaning of your basic terms. Would the following have any relevance?:
I have a plastic bottle on my desk. I think that is objectively true since I believe most people would identify it as such. The fact that it is made of plastic or some plastic-like material is the most basic (actual?) information. Even a dog would recognize the characteristic of this material, perhaps without putting much meaning into it beyond that. For the dog it is what it is, so to speak, a lump of plastic. For us it is also a bottle, that is a cultural artifice, but there is nothing about the object itself that makes it such a thing. An alien wouldn’t see a bottle, but maybe it would remind him of some object known in his world. Would this “bottle” then have the potential of being something else, of having another meaning?

when people make a claim to truth, the ‘truth’ they’re claiming is not objective, but a limited perspective of what is true. — Possibility

It may be that they are confused about the meaning of objectivity being misled by the modern emphasis on individual sovereignty and the so-called right to decide what is right for oneself? They think that if taste is subjective any other impression is also subjective, but when they actually make a claim, they are implicitly stating their opinion about an objective truth.

For me, I can believe it to be objective truth only if it appears filled with possibility. — Possibility

And again, why is that? Why isn’t any utterly useless information about something existing just as true as something heavily pregnant with significance? There aren’t any degrees of truth; something is either true or not true. Either A or not A.

I’m not saying that you are not onto something important, though. Of course, you don’t bother to argue for the truth of some ridiculous detail that wouldn’t expand our knowledge of the universe anyway.

In our discussion I have made sure to call it “objective truth” to avoid any doubt about where I stand on the issue: Truth is always objective. For me, therefore the qualifier “objective” is redundant, but that’s not the case for you, is it? By ”objective” I think you mean something like ‘that which can be included in our common understanding of reality’ or at least ‘that which can be included in my systematic understanding of the relationship between things’. Scattered details, though true, you don’t call objective if they remain isolated. Am I right?

This definition wouldn’t neatly fit in with the dictionary definition, as we have already suggested. Then why don’t you instead try to find another word for the idea you’re trying to get across to avoid confusion?

Our conception of objects are based on two elements: perception and judgment. The judgment we both call subjective, but you want to call individual perception objective since other individuals would have perceived exactly the same if they had had the exact same background experience. My only candidate for objectivity, on the other hand, is what might be called the thing in itself - independent of an observer, but that leaves it open what to do with perception as opposed to judgment. Well, the two can’t really be separated and even two individuals imagined to have lived the exact same life would judge their experiences differently. You may be imagining an observer stripped of subjective judgments, something like a machine, a camera or a robot, or a human being as a mere thought experiment. The moment a person left out his judgment (if that were possible) he would see the world “objectively” in your sense of the term, even though that vision would still be unique to him and could not be copied by anyone else. Is that so?
But we are never content with what we see. We automatically try to include perspectives we don’t possess; we assume the object has a backside and even imagine what it looks like; then it is subjective and likely to be objectively wrong.
If we don’t make a judgment, we don’t really see at all. A dog “sees” the same objects as the human members of the household, but unless it is food or its leash it means nothing to that pet; it’s neither subjective nor objective, it’s nothing.

It is unfortunate that the words “viewpoint”, “standpoint”, “outlook” and “perspective” are more or less synonymous with “opinion” and “belief”. The former group draws the attention to the position of the believers and thereby makes their subjective opinion seem quite inevitable, excusable and the theoretical possibility of an objective truth more remote. After all, everyone of us possess a physical perspective that is unique in a rather trivial way. We were all born somewhere, grew up somewhere and have had concrete experiences that belong only to us. Even two twins are different simply because they occupy different chunks of space, and since no one can be on the same spot at the same time objectivity is thought to be impossible or even non-existent. But this kind of subjectivity is trivial since all it would take would be for someone to be in another person’s position and he would judge the world in the same way, and that clearly is not the case.

This is not your mistake since you believe in objective truth, but your notion of truth is somehow multiple, depending on the infinite number of different angles from which we can be hit by potential information and create our vision of reality. Is it objective just because anyone in the same position would have reached the same conclusion?

A claim to certainty in stating ‘that’s an elephant’ is a reduction of all the information integrated from thought - excluding any of the incomplete or potential information which would improve objectivity, yet undermines the certainty in our perspective of truth. — Possibility

We can never have certainty. We don’t know if there is an elephant standing in front of us. But the objective truth, at any given moment, has only two possibilities: there is or there isn’t. Right now, for example, I think that I’m comfortably sitting at my desk, but I know that either there’s an elephant standing in front of me or there isn’t. (I go for the latter, but that’s just my subjective guessing.)

Always adding another perspective and including different points of view will not automatically increase objectivity. One may perhaps think that an article about Judaism would not be objective until it also included the opinion of neo-Nazis, but that is a misunderstanding. Adding ever more subjectivity can’t possibly increase objectivity. Rather “objective” as in “an objective article” would indicate the absence of any specific viewpoints as far as that is possible. Of course, it’s not possible to be completely objective in this sense, but one can always get closer to it.
However, this objectivity is not the same as objective truth. It may very well be that one subjective opinion is the objective truth, unknown to everyone including the person holding this opinion. In fact, every time I argue for something, I think that is the objective truth (that’s why I bother to argue) and I think it’s the same for you and anyone else (unless they argue just for sports like sophists). The ultimate objective truth would not be expressed in an objective and detached way.

The source of a thought about an elephant isn’t the elephant. There is no actual elephant involved in thinking about an elephant. The way I see it, a thought is an energy event, a manifest interaction between potential information accessible to the system. The potential energy for that event comes from you, as the system. It is you who is affected by a thought as it comes into being, whether you entertain it or reject it. — Possibility

You get input from somewhere, a real elephant, a picture, a story or from some other untraceable memory and mix it with your energy or however you would like to express it, it doesn’t really matter. I don’t really have a problem with this (apart from some of your confusing word choices like “potential information” but I guess we have already more or less cleared that up.)

So, the way I see it, all of this potential information is part of who you are, affecting you as an element of the material world. It doesn’t just belong to the future. — Possibility

It belongs to the future in the sense that I am receiving information right now, then I process it and create a new state of reality. There is a time aspect of input > processing > output, even when it happens very fast. There exists an objective state of the world that is unalterable because it has already occurred, for example the world as it was on May 12, 2020 at 7pm GMT. That includes my own mental state at that point in time. Whatever I can make of it and use to change the state of the world, will occur after this point, that is in the future.

That standard constitutes the limits of a camera’s capacity to interpret light. The photograph is then a limited perspective of truth (ie. subjective), just as a human looking at an object renders a limited perspective of truth. — Possibility

The subjective part of our interpretation of the world is not really found in our perceptive organs, which would be equivalent to a camera (a machine) reproducing an image. Let’s imagine we all had the same eyesight and there was no color blindness and other confusing idiosyncrasies. We would get the same imprint on our retina, but that wouldn’t make our impression any less subjective. follow later Subjectivity follows when the actual interpretation happens (I’m looking at a rock, no, wait, it’s an elephant!). The mind as an interpreting entity is not yet active at the first visual impression, so there’s no reason to talk about subjectivity. Similarly, subjectivity is not really about our looking at objects from different perspectives and angles. If it were, all it would take would be for you to step into the spot where I’m currently standing, and you would see the world from my perspective. But you would still interpret this same visual impression differently, and that is subjectivity in the proper sense. Therefore the analogy with photography doesn’t capture the concept of subjectivity.

This is where patience, integrity and self-awareness play an important role, and where humility, lack of information and error are experiences we can embrace as opportunities to learn. I want to thank you, in particular, Congau, for your generosity, kindness and gentleness throughout our lengthy discussion on this topic. We see the world so differently, and I am learning so much from how patiently you articulate your perspective of truth. — Possibility

I’m happy to hear that and I likewise appreciate your civil attitude and willingness to listen in spite of our disagreement. Fruitful discussions are not about reaching an agreement. It’s about achieving more clarity about one’s position, whether or not it is moved, while learning about other possible views.

So, given that you can spontaneously bring a thought into existence from nothing, how would you describe the relation between your existence and that of your thought? — Possibility

It doesn’t come into existence from nothing. The point is that the thought, as it comes into being, doesn’t affect its source. (Sure, it may result in action which may later affect the material world, but that belongs to the future.)

A photograph was engineered to replicate the human experience of visual interaction as an isolated capacity. It makes a single interpretation of the light that most closely matches the human visual perspective, including many limitations, and then adjusts for certainty. The ‘truth’ of a photograph is then evaluated within the subjectivity of the broader human experience. — Possibility

A particular camera is designed to absorb light in one specific way and render colors according to one method. Two photographs taken by the same camera will truthfully copy two instances of reality according to the same standard. A human looking at two objects may interpret one of them correctly and the other incorrectly even according to his own standard.

It helps to begin with a common definition, sure. But we need not be constrained by it in relation to reality, just for the sake of certainty. Your understanding of the potential and meaning of the word extends beyond the stated definition, as does mine. You’re just not willing to let go of the sense of certainty that a written definition offers. — Possibility

In philosophy the certainty of a definition is of utmost importance and many a philosophical discussion fails because the substance of the matter slips away, and the opponents keep talking about different things. In daily life exact definitions are of much less importance as we generally know what the other person is talking about and if we don’t, the consequences are usually rather small.
What is the difference between a shoe and a boot, for example? How high around the ankle does the shoe need to be to become a boot? No one knows exactly, and it usually doesn’t matter, but if you run a shoe store, you may want to decide on an artificial distinction to conveniently classify your merchandise.
Similarly in philosophy, you may argue that the colloquial definition of “objective” is not watertight, but in that case you’ll have to decide on one that is, and then why not choose the dictionary definition as it is more likely to be recognized by the person you are talking to. As it now is, I have no way of knowing what you really mean by “objective” since you have admitted that you are working with an open-ended definition which as such cannot be clear even to yourself.

What do you mean by ‘a reality of its own’? Are you maintaining a dual sense of reality, as in mental vs physical? You agree that beliefs are objectively real and yet don’t understand why I include them in an objective sense of reality. I recognise that each of these beliefs are subjective, but together they contribute to a conceptual structure of truth that is in itself more objective than what is merely actual. — Possibility

No, that’s not what I mean. I’m just saying that a thought is one addition to reality. Reality consists of stones, houses, nail polish, thoughts etc.
“I am now thinking about x.” That immediately adds one item to reality, this thought of mine, but it does nothing to x.
“I’m thinking about an elephant.” The elephant is not affected.
“I’m thinking about a unicorn.” The unicorn didn’t come into existence, even though my thought did.

A photograph of an object is subjective, because it displays only one limited view out of many, and offers no reason to suggest that another perspective is possible — Possibility

A photograph is objective. It makes a copy of exactly how the object looks from a particular angle (including the degree of light/darkness and haze). It doesn’t make any interpretations, what it “sees” is what a human would have seen if we had been able to leave our biased impressions aside.

A photograph (or a human replica) makes no claim to be saying anything about the human experience. An objective understanding of the, or rather a, human experience would be the same as telepathy.

I guess I’m not one to work only within the actual constraints of a dictionary definition simply because it’s written down as such. Definition is a reduction of knowledge, which is a reduction of meaning, after all. — Possibility

In that case it’s just not possible to communicate your thoughts to others. We are dependent on a common definition to be able to communicate. However, it’s not our definition because it is written down in a dictionary, but the other way around. Dictionaries only reflect our shared understanding of a word.

The definition of ‘objective’ is where I think our main issue arises, though. I recognise that the dictionary definition of ‘objective’ is “not dependent on the mind for existence; actual”. But I would argue that even though what is actual may exist independently of your mind or mine, it is not entirely independent of perspective as such. — Possibility

A lot of our disagreement, as is often the case in philosophical debate, is actually about linguistics and how to define terms.

Of course I agree that we use input from the world to draw conclusions about it and make conjectures about what the future might look like. This perpetual human interaction creates individual and collective understanding and does constitute a reality of its own. Cultural and intersubjective beliefs are existing entities (and as such objective in my understanding of the term) but I don’t understand why you insist on calling such ideas objective. When the dictionary clearly states that “objective” means “not dependent on the mind” why is it necessary to push that dictionary definition? Couldn’t you get your point across by using other words? In the beginning of our discussion I was pleased to learn that you acknowledged the existence of objective truth, but then I realized that your understanding of “objective” was different from mine. Isn’t a debate about mere words really an unnecessary confusion (although a very common one)?

Any object can be viewed from an infinite number of perspectives, which would make an infinite number of objective truths and that is rather a characteristic of what is subjective. Why not call it subjective then?

I may vaguely connotate this point with the sentiment that it is an obligation to dedicate one's life to the ultimate minimalisation of suffering in the world — JacobPhilosophy

If it were your obligation to achieve the ultimate minimalization of suffering in the world, what exactly would your obligations be? An obligation must be definite. If you have to do this, it is an obligation. If it would be nice if you did it, but you don’t really have to, it’s not an obligation.

So exactly what would an ultimate minimalization of suffering mean? I suppose someone would have achieved it if he had reached a point where he had maximized his capacity for alleviating suffering; the point where he couldn’t possibly do anything more. But what would that look like. Suppose he worked day and night, never giving himself rest, never wasting a second that wasn’t used for the good cause. Well, even that wouldn’t be his maximum. He could always work even harder, sleep even less, spend even less time eating, move even faster.
Well, he would soon drop dead from exhaustion, so he would need to portion his energy if he were to maximize it, but what exactly would the right measure be? Besides, maybe he was using the wrong strategy, maybe another profession would be more effective for minimizing suffering. There is no way of knowing what his obligations would actually be, and he would be sure to fail.

It can’t be your obligation to do something that can’t be done.

to try to give an example of an action that is morally virtuous, but one that is not an obligation. My first instinct was that charitable financial donation is one such example, however I found myself finding it easy to justify this as an obligation, using Peter Singer's example of witnessing a child drowning and not intervening; — JacobPhilosophy

There’s a big difference between having a child drowning in a pool right in front of you and knowing there are unspecified children dying far away in Africa at this moment. That kid in the pool can be saved by you and probably by you only with only a minor effort on your part, and if you don’t do it, it really is as if you were the one who killed it. You may argue that the distance, six feet away versus ten thousand miles, is only relative and therefore the principle is the same but when a fellow human being has come within your immediate range of action, he is yours, so to speak. The only obligations that we have are those that we have taken upon us through our previous movements. You have rented a house, and you are under obligation to pay the rent, you have crashed into someone’s car and you must pay for the damage, you have walked into the perimeter of a drowning child and you are obligated to save it.

There are no limits and no obligations in virtue. It would certainly be virtuous to save that starving child twenty thousand miles away, but it can’t be an obligation. Why that child and not another one? You can’t save everyone anyone, and an obligation that it’s not possible to fulfill is nonsense.

It seems to me that a Utilitarian approach to the pandemic would be to literally do nothing. If approximately 5% of the population (a high estimate) eventually succumb to COVID-19, 95% of us would be better off just going about business as usual. The greater good for the greater number of people would clearly be served by simply letting the most susceptible die — Donovan

If 5% died, that would cause unspeakable suffering for the remaining 95% simply because everyone would have close friends and relatives among the dead. So for purely utilitarian reasons that would be intolerable.

From a Kantian perspective it’s possible to turn the argument on its head and say that people’s concrete and personal livelihood is being sacrificed to save unspecified people in society. We don’t know who might contract the virus so if there were no measures, no particular person would be treated as a means to someone else’s end. As it now is, real named persons are being laid off for the benefit of an abstract and unknown entity, a purely potential society of people who might or might not get sick. All the lockdown measures do nothing to help people who are already sick, and only they are concrete persons in the Kantian sense.

The interesting utilitarian dilemma is how to balance the measures so that as few people as possible will suffer the loss of life and livelihood. If the measures are too harsh that may cause a lot of death from other reason than the virus itself since poverty also kills. Incidentally, that is also a Kantian dilemma since poor people may be viewed as sacrificed for the benefit of sick people.

Preconceived concepts direct our perception, not language as such. You have a concept of what the thing is that we happen to call a computer, but the word as such is irrelevant. Imagine a child who was not taught any language but was allowed to play around with a computer. It would be restricted to use pictures and not words, but there would still be opportunities for quite advanced computers skills. Of course the child would recognize its toy and that means it would have a concept of it.

On the other hand, imagine someone who saw a computer for the first time, and who had no reference points outside the rainforest, say. He would not make any sense of it, would notice different parts than what is usually considered most relevant for a computer, like its color and smooth surface. If this person formed a concept of it at all, it would only happen if it had a vague resemblance of anything he had already seen. But at no point would the lack of a word for that object be the obstacle and he wouldn’t get our concept of a computer even if he was told what the object was called.

You can insist on the existence of an objective truth value, but its existence is only ever a possibility, just like the existence of ‘God’. Any statement you make regarding the existence or properties of this ‘objective truth value’ is both true and false, or neither, because there is no way of distinguishing its value objectively. — Possibility

Right. There is no way we can distinguish truth value objectively, there is no way we can think anything objectively or do anything whatsoever objectively. We are all subjects. Objective truth has nothing to do with what we think; it is out there independent of us. Every conceivable statement about existence has a truth value which we cannot know or distinguish. A statement about the existence of God has an objective truth value. It is either objectively true or objectively false. We don’t know which; we only know that it can’t be both and it can’t be neither since that would be logically impossible. Nothing can both exist and not exist. “A = not A” is logically impossible.

“X exists” has no truth value, because x as it stands is not referring to anything but put anything in the place of x and the statement receives an objective truth value. Whether x is God or my computer or a unicorn the existence of it is an objectively definite true or false. “Objective” doesn’t mean “can be known”, it doesn’t refer to knowledge at all since knowledge is only something in the mind and minds are subjective.
The existence of something is a mere possibility for us, but in reality (unknown to us) it absolutely exists or absolutely does not exist.

Objective truth has nothing to do with our thinking and even less to do with our action. If you insist on connecting truth to our subjective attitude, why do you call it objective at all?

Logic doesn’t bring certainty to anything existing. It just states the consequences if something is accepted as existing.

Only one truth value can exist for every proposition. There is a matchbox on the table in front of you and you know that either there is at least one match inside it or there is not. “There is a match in the matchbox” has the objective truth value T (1) or F (0). Let’s say you have no clue what if anything is in the box. Let’s say it’s impossible ever to open and check. Let’s say it would dissolve the moment anyone tried and no scientist could ever by any means, x-rays or whatever, get any idea what was in the box. That has no influence on the truth value.

Are you confusing the meaning of the word “value” here? A mathematical value is just a number, it doesn’t mean that it is actually valuable for anyone. No one may care the least to know the truth about some insignificant detail in the universe, but it still has a truth value.

On the one hand there is objective truth, manifesting itself as past events that can be described with propositions all of which have the truth value T. This truth value will stay the same forever.

On the other hand, there are our attempts to make conjectures about past events, more or less qualified, and more or less based on reliable assumptions (true or false, relevant or irrelevant). We come up with propositions which carry the truth value T if they express events that have actually happened or F if they refer to something that did not happen.

We never know for sure if a proposition has the truth value T or F, but for practical purposes our feeling of certainty is good enough. Therefore, we give the proposition “Paris is the capital of France” the truth value T and “London is the capital of France” the truth value F, although strictly speaking the truth value is always a secret to us.

When we grapple with piecing reality together in our mind, we can never change the actual truth value of anything, only our assumptions and guesses about what it is, can change. We keep assigning Ts and Fs to propositions, changing back and forth, although their real value can never change.