Truth and Belief

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by boagie

To whom might the question involve, is there no subject present, the lights are on but there is no one home. You are simple silly.Silly and pretentious.

However, fortunately, with nobody else at home it is not then an issue, except to stuff your head up your **** to make it so.

[boagie]

Pretention will get you in trouble perplexity, it is not a safe place to be.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

What is objectively true can only be subjectively known. The object in question does not know what you think of it.

Whether I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador can be tested objectively. It is either true or false that I know that the capital is Ecuador. So what make my knowledge subjective? That I believe I know what the capital is, is subjective. But that I know it, is objective. Whether I know it depends on whether I meet three conditions: 1. I believe it. 2. That belief is adequately justified. 3. That belief is true (Quito is the capital). If I meet those conditions, then I know that Quito is the capital. And since whether I meet those condition is an objective matter, whether I know that Quito is the capital is an objective matter.

[boagie]

There is only one way of knowing and that is subjectively.If the object was doing the knowing I suppose it would be objectively knowing.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by perplexity

< >

Obviously enough, an objective truth that can only be be subjectively known is an oxymoron.

The objective truth is a belief, not a truth

"Objective" means "believe this or else"

"Subjective means, "go away, your opinion is not convenient"

Sophisticated abuse.

The question is, what does "subjectively known" mean? If it means that when I claim that I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, I is the subject of that sentence, then of course, whenever I claim to know something, that something is subjectively known (supposing it is known). But, in what other sense is something "subjectively known" except that when I know something, it is I who knows it rather than you or he?

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by boagie

There is only one way of knowing and that is subjectively.If the object was doing the knowing I suppose it would be objectively knowing.

Unfortunately it is not logically possible to communicate except to presume an objectivity. To discuss is to presume a sufficient communality of experience to make some sense of it.

The moot question is then indeed "what does "subjectively known" mean?

It is then and therefore ludicrous to objectively suppose it possible to differentiate in practice, as if to demand

"Give me an example of your knowing that is not subjective"

while it is simply not logically possible anyway to confer a subjective understanding apart from the albeit remote possibility of some sort of communal objectivity, which is to agree to such as some sort of truth.

In the mean time then, what is truly "subjectively known" is impossible to confer.



For want then of a reasonable proof of objectivity, the only way to discuss the notion meaningfully is in terms of human behaviour, what actually happens when the words are used.

---

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Observed - Definitions from Dictionary.com

The only willful intent I see in your definition is in the observation of a ritual. That doesn't apply.

[kennethamy]

So, then, what does "knowledge is subjective" mean other than that when I say, that I know this or that, I am saying that I know it rather than someone else knows it? It certainly does not mean what it would ordinarily be thought to mean, namely that if I think that I know something, then I know it, for that is obviously false. We often believe we know what we in fact do not know. So, "knowledge is subjective" does not mean the same kind of thing as, "morality is subjective" means, which does mean that I if I think that something is right or wrong then it is right or wrong. So, what does "knowledge is subjective" mean? Perhaps we should settle that (if we can) before we discuss whether or not it is true.

[perplexity]

Perception is biased by prior experience, whether or not another person is immediately involved or subsequently concerned.

......

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

So, then, what does "knowledge is subjective" mean other than that when I say, that I know this or that, I am saying that I know it rather than someone else knows it? It certainly does not mean what it would ordinarily be thought to mean, namely that if I think that I know something, then I know it, for that is obviously false. We often believe we know what we in fact do not know. So, "knowledge is subjective" does not mean the same kind of thing as, "morality is subjective" means, which does mean that I if I think that something is right or wrong then it is right or wrong. So, what does "knowledge is subjective" mean? Perhaps we should settle that (if we can) before we discuss whether or not it is true.

kennethamy,

Subjective knowledge is particular to the individual, it does not state that I know it rather than someone else, it is your independent experience, if you find a group which agrees with you, it is a collective of independent subjective experiences, a double check of independent experience. Subjective experience is not infalliable, nor is group agreement but it is the best we can do. Only death and taxes seem to be eturnal realities. Subjective knowledge simply means the subjective knowledge acquired by the individual, in that perception itself is not infalliable so to is the said knowledge acquired. Think about it this way, everything that is not you, is object. From here is the spiritual realization that subject and object can never be considered separate, as the Upanishads say,"Thou Art That,"or as Schopenhaur said, "Subject and object stand or fall together."