Objective Truth

[iconoclast]

I've read through this thread an can nowhere find an explanation of the question that's being debated. I gather Resha Caner has argued that objective truth is possible - IMHO, a claim equivalent to proof of God, so I should very much like to see it.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

I've read through this thread an can nowhere find an explanation of the question that's being debated. I gather Resha Caner has argued that objective truth is possible - IMHO, a claim equivalent to proof of God, so I should very much like to see it.

iconoclast,

Thanks for your input iconoclast, so, that is what this is about, why not just come out with it Caner. Well truth as a term is of necessity meaning, and meaning just is not to be found in the physical world, so yes indeed, I would like to see him present this wonder as well. I do hope from this point on you will be a little more direct caner.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by boagie

I do hope from this point on you will be a little more direct caner.

Hmm. The title of the thread is "Objective Truth", and I made this statement (along with other similar statements):

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

I believe in absolute and objective truth.

How could I be more direct? But, I'll take your word that my explanation of that statement was lost somewhere in the fray - or that I've been unclear.

It seems no good deed goes unpunished. Originally, my intent was to branch off from another thread to avoid hijacking it. I thought the discussion would involve those who followed me from the other thread, but that didn't happen. I've learned my lesson and won't do it again. If you recall, boagie, I thanked you for your first post. How this turned adversarial I don't know. Yes, we hold different views, but ...

Anyway, I had no intention of presenting a proof. In fact, I said exactly that in the very first post:

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

I didn't say I was going to prove anything.

What I offered to do was explain my view. And, I intended to make commentary on opposing views, hoping to highlight where we differ and get people to expand the positions they were taking.

que sera, sera

Caner

[boagie]

Caner,

My apologies if I have offended you. I still have little idea of how you would prove objective truth, do you agree that truth as a term is a meaning, and that meaning is the soul property of the subject. I won't go on until I have some idea of where you are coming from. What is it about the physcial world that you might think capable of containing truth in and of itself? Edit: Does it not come down to this, if there is objective truth, in that it does not belong to the subject, then what would be doing the knowing of this objective truth?

[Holiday20310401]

If we lived in a fractal universe would it require something intrinsic and objective to it? Think about it.

Edit: So that it doesn't seem like spam I will edit instead of creating a new post that is relatively short as much as this.

Boagie,

How does your view of the interaction of subject and object differ between a relational reality and a "not" relational reality.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by boagie

I still have little idea of how you would prove objective truth, do you agree that truth as a term is a meaning, and that meaning is the soul property of the subject. I won't go on until I have some idea of where you are coming from. What is it about the physcial world that you might think capable of containing truth in and of itself? Edit: Does it not come down to this, if there is objective truth, in that it does not belong to the subject, then what would be doing the knowing of this objective truth?

I will reiterate that I don't claim to prove objective truth. All I am trying to do is explain my view of it.

Also, I assume you mean "sole property", not "soul property". I don't mean to nitpick, but I'm trying to tread very carefully. In using your nomenclature, I may "translate" something incorrectly, and give an unintended impression.

With that said, let me try to answer your questions.

First, I think I can agree with this statement: truth as a term is a meaning, and that meaning is the sole property of the subject.

However, where we probably differ is in stating the identity of the subject. I would say the subject is God (Though I'm still pondering the implications of saying that. It may have an element I've not yet considered)

So, as to your next question (What is it about the physcial world that you might think capable of containing truth in and of itself?) I would answer: basically nothing. If the world has any truth in it, it is because God sustains that truth through his non-physical nature (what I would call the "spiritual").

I don't expect you to agree with that. All I ask is: do you understand it?

[boagie]

Caner,

Well, you are quite right on this account, I do understand it, and I do not agree with it. One needs to take a leap faith I imagine, why would you present it as something debatable, or as something resolveable, you have faith that this is so, that really does not cut any ice here.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

I've read through this thread an can nowhere find an explanation of the question that's being debated. I gather Resha Caner has argued that objective truth is possible - IMHO, a claim equivalent to proof of God, so I should very much like to see it.

Why would it be that if it is (objectively) true that water=H20 then God exist? I don't understand that.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

Also, I assume you mean "sole property", not "soul property". I don't mean to nitpick, but I'm trying to tread very carefully.

Is that what he meant. It is hard to tell what Boagie means.

[Resha Caner]

boagie,

I'm glad we finally seem to understand each other.

Originally Posted by boagie

why would you present it as something debatable, or as something resolveable

It has to be resolvable for me to post it? Really? What if I just want to hear people's opinions on a subject (which is closer to my intent for this thread).

But, I'll answer the question, rephrased this way: why did I bring up the subject of "objective truth"? (aside from the pragmatic reason of trying to salvage another thread).

The short answer: if there is objective truth, it completely changes the debate from this point forward.

The long answer (I hope I can state this clearly):

Let me try an analogy. Think of a person (A) 10,000 years ago watching birds fly, and he asks the question: Do you think humans could fly?

Another person (B) replies: We can't fly.

A: No, not now. But do you think it's possible?

B: Maybe. But I can't fly, so why should I consider it?

With that attitude, the airplane would never have been invented.

So, my question is this: if objective truth is possible, why not seek it? I contend that if you make the declarative statement "objective truth is not possible", that is as much a statement of faith as making the declarative statement "objective truth is possible".

Therefore, the statement you choose becomes a fundamental assumption of your philosophical view. I agree that these fundamental assumptions (or faith statements if you want to call them that) are not really debatable, but only in a certain context.

What context is that? In short, it is unlikely anyone will change their fundamental assumptions because of chatting on the Internet. It usually takes a crisis in the real world for people to question the fundamentals.

But, they can be debated in many other contexts. The one I proposed amounted to this: for the sake of discussion, change your position on something and search out the implications. In my case, if I consider only the physical universe, then I come to the same conclusion on objective truth as you, boagie.

A second context in which it can be debated is to ask: what does that mean?

A third context is that of persuasion. I expect this is the one you decry, especially when it takes the form of religious proselytization. But, philosophy always involves some amount of persuasion. Why?

In logic, one begins by stating every definition and assumption. Then, by agreed upon rules of manipulation, one lays out a process for moving from point A to point B. If that process is successful, all who agreed to the definitions and assumptions must concede point B.

In philosophy, we never agree on all the definitions and assumptions, nor on the rules for laying out a path to a conclusion. Because of that, I say your position is as much a "leap of faith" as is mine. If so, why is the path you take better suited to this forum than mine?

- - -

Just a quick digression on my "leap of faith". I don't deny faith plays a part in the assumptions I make. What intrigues me so about discussions such as these is that people often deny that faith plays any part in their position. They treat it like rock-solid fact. Facts must be proven. If they can't be proven, it is an assumption, which is similar to faith.

In my mind, the two terms are separated by an important distinction. An assumption is something I'm willing to concede, to change if it will lead to a more profitable path. Matters of faith are non-negotiable. In that case, you are right. This is not the place to debate such things.

Second, terms such as "faith" can have both positive and negative connotations. I use it in a positive way, as something which I know apart from reason. The negative connotation places faith beneath reason as an inferior thing - as something "unreasonable".

Rest assured, I am well aware that the only discussion you'll have with me is one based on reason. And I think we can do that.