Truth and Belief

[boagie]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Obviously enough, except to agree, the concept of truth is useless and meaningless.



What else would you do with it?

--

"Narrative" also implies the part the observer plays, "..all the World's a stage" etc.

We believe to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss.

--

perplexity,

Reality is constituted of the relations between subject and object are you saying these relations do not exist? It is true these relations are relative to both subject and object both entities of process, but don't you think there is a correlation between them which gives them a certain stability. If the concept of truth and falsehood did not exist, we as individuals would not last long. Experience of the moment is truth, taken out of that context it becomes probability, and even probability is a most useful concept in maintaining our well being. PS: the link you provided is not functional.

[perplexity]

The corollary to "all is motion" is that there is no object apart from the motion.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by perplexity

The corollary to "all is motion" is that there is no object apart from the motion.

In that, being is motion.



"There is no such thing as right or wrong only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

"To God all things are well and good, only to man some things are and some things are not." Heraclitus

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by boagie

"There is no such thing as right or wrong only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

Correctly quoted, "for there is nothing either good or bad... " in view of the full context, Hamlet's point would rather be that the rightness or wrongness (to call Demark a prison, objectively) fails to assuage the ill of it, subjectively.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Correctly quoted, "for there is nothing either good or bad... " in view of the full context, Hamlet's point would rather be that the rightness or wrongness (to call Demark a prison, objectively) fails to assuage the ill of it, subjectively.

perplexity,

Thank you for the correction. All meaning is subjective, so I think that statement would be universal, " For there is nothing either good or bad only thinking makes it so." Billy Shakespeare. I wonder, is that TRUE!

Those nihilists, what is the meaning of a flower, I say it is not this or that, it just is.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

perplexity,

Thank you for the correction. All meaning is subjective, so I think that statement would be universal, " For there is nothing either good or bad only thinking makes it so." Billy Shakespeare. I wonder, is that TRUE!

Those nihilists, what is the meaning of a flower, I say it is not this or that, it just is.

The dictionary says that "brother" means male sibling. Why is that subjective? It is a report, a true report, of what speakers of the language mean by the term, "brother". That report is objectively true.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

The dictionary says that "brother" means male sibling. Why is that subjective? It is a report, a true report, of what speakers of the language mean by the term, "brother". That report is objectively true.

Kennethamy,

What are you talking about, Brother? Things can be objectively true, but only subjectively known to be true. There is no meaning to the objective/physical world that the subject does not give it. Kennethamy, did you just pull the term brother out of the air, you seemed to be challenging me with a term you thought I had misused?

[Isa]

Originally Posted by boagie

Kennethamy,

What are you talking about, Brother? Things can be objectively true, but only subjectively known to be true. There is no meaning to the objective/physical world that the subject does not give it.

Hi Boagie,

But it is not the truth if the subject gives the objective/physical world meaning that it does not posses.

I think the problem is all the baggage that has been attached to the words objective and subjective. In common use, even in science, we have been told that a person can be objective in their observations if they are impartial. Whereas, a person is considered to be making a subjective observation if they are showing partiality; like making choices simply as a matter of taste.

The use of subjective observation, because the person making the observation is the subject observing the object which is anything else that is in the world or reality, is correct: but it flies in the face of the common concept of being “objective” in ones observation, to denote one trying to be impartial in ones observations in order to accurately find out the truth of a matter.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Isa

Hi Boagie,

But it is not the truth if the subject gives the objective/physical world meaning that it does not posses.

I think the problem is all the baggage that has been attached to the words objective and subjective. In common use, even in science, we have been told that a person can be objective in their observations if they are impartial. Whereas, a person is considered to be making a subjective observation if they are showing partiality; like making choices simply as a matter of taste.

The use of subjective observation, because the person making the observation is the subject observing the object which is anything else that is in the world or reality, is correct: but it flies in the face of the common concept of being “objective” in ones observation, to denote one trying to be impartial in ones observations in order to accurately find out the truth of a matter.

Hi Isa!

I think it is a matter of degree don't you, there can never truely be an objective observation, it is a matter of how invested and in what ways the subject has an interest in the out come. I Hear again Schopenhaur in my ears, subject and object stand or fall together. Any experiment which fails to consider the observing subject as part of the equation, is at least partially a failure.

"But it is not true if the subject gives the objective/physical world meaning it does not possess."

Lack of the proper perception or fantasy, even lieing might be examples, mistakes or deception. Niether perception nor judgement are infalliable. Personification of nature in the literary world, is not deception, it gives the metaphor a wonderfully clear vivid connotation which can overlapp with other concepts, until the physcial world all most becomes a character and main player of any story.

[perplexity]

The only way to prove an objectivity is to plant the evidence.