Truth and Belief

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

Subjective knowledge is particular to the individual,

Yes, so it is subjective in the sense that some particular individual knows it. And I agree. Of course, that doesn't mean that other individuals don't know it. Nor does it mean that entire groups do not know it. So, to say that knowledge is subjective in that sense is, while true enough, not particularly important, and quite obvious. But what is important is that it is not subjective in the sense that if I think I know it, then it is true. Isn't that right? So I may think I know that Rio is the capital of Brazil and it not be true that Rio is the capital of Brazil (as it is not). When philosophers say that knowledge is subjective, it usually means that if someone believes he knows something, then he does know it, but you don't appear to mean anything of the sort. Or do you?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Yes, so it is subjective in the sense that some particular individual knows it. And I agree. Of course, that doesn't mean that other individuals don't know it. Nor does it mean that entire groups do not know it. So, to say that knowledge is subjective in that sense is, while true enough, not particularly important, and quite obvious. But what is important is that it is not subjective in the sense that if I think I know it, then it is true. Isn't that right? So I may think I know that Rio is the capital of Brazil and it not be true that Rio is the capital of Brazil (as it is not). When philosophers say that knowledge is subjective, it usually means that if someone believes he knows something, then he does know it, but you don't appear to mean anything of the sort. Or do you?

kennethamy,

That an individual or a group for that matter are not infalliable means necessarily that mistakes both in perception and/or judgement are an everyday reality. You may think something is cool to pickup when in fact it is whitehot, if your perceptions is that is will be cool to the touch, then your perception is wanting and your judgement will aline with that wanting perception, the object is indeed whitehot.

"When philosophers say that knowledge is subjective, it usually means that if someone believes he knows something, then he does know it, but you don't appear to meaning anything of the sort." quote

I have little idea of what you are hearing, the fact the perception and judgement are not infalliable should make it apparent that one can be wrong about what one believes to be true.

[Arjen]

Boagie, subjective in philosophy usually means known to a subject (a person or being). Subjective also has a second meaning (which you seem to voice), namely that something is not obejctively true: false. This is a meaning that is used in science. For their intents and purposes it mostly fits the bill. It is not entirly accurate though (in my opinion).

Anyway, this just to eliminate the miscommunication.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Arjen

Boagie, subjective in philosophy usually means known to a subject (a person or being). Subjective also has a second meaning (which you seem to voice), namely that something is not obejctively true: false. This is a meaning that is used in science. For their intents and purposes it mostly fits the bill. It is not entirly accurate though (in my opinion).

Anyway, this just to eliminate the miscommunication.

Arjen,

Thanks for the input. In what way might this defination of subject and object not be accurate? If all meaning is the property of a subject certainly objectively there is no true or false.

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by Isa

Perhaps the lesson in this is that the subjects are to learn as much about themselves as they do about the objects they are observing.

...........

[Isa]

Originally Posted by boagie

Arjen,

Thanks for the input. In what way might this defination of subject and object not be accurate? If all meaning is the property of a subject certainly objectively there is no true or false.

Hi Boagie,

If there is no objective truth, where does truth reside?

If truth resides in the subjective, there can be no falsehood: one in the same view cannot be subjectively true and subjectively false in the same subject. If there can be no falsehood, there can be no truth.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Isa

Hi Boagie,

If there is no objective truth, where does truth reside?

If truth resides in the subjective, there can be no falsehood: one in the same view cannot be subjectively true and subjectively false in the same subject. If there can be no falsehood, there can be no truth.

Hi Isa,

There is no true or false, good or bad to be found in the objective/physical world, and only the subject/individual is a knowning entity. These things are value judgements/meanings and only a living entity holds these. There was an old buddhist whom held up a flower to his class, asking them what is the meaning of a flower---------uneasyness and silence--- Then one student indicates to his master he understood. The understanding was this, that the flower had no meaning, it simply is. It is logical however, as you stated above, a thing cannot be true and false at the same time. All meaning is subjective, so necessarily true and false are subjective value judgements of an individual.

[perplexity]

If all meaning is subjective, what does the self mean to the self, apart from another self to validate?

"Value judgement" begs the question.

Is the value judgement true or false?



The point is that there is no true or false, except that belief should make it so.

QED

[Isa]

Originally Posted by perplexity

If all meaning is subjective, what does the self mean to the self, apart from another self to validate?

"Value judgement" begs the question.

Is the value judgement true or false?



The point is that there is no true or false, except that belief should make it so.

QED

If there is no true or false, how can you even have a point to make? What is it you are pointing to? How can your subjective experience be any more right than any other subjective experience?

If you see a red rose, it is a subjective experience; there is no right/wrong or true/false, it just is. But once you make an inference about a subjective experience; like planting a red rose in red soil will make it more red; then for the inference to be true, it must line up with reality, or it is a falsehood.

Believing that something is false, if it is false, is not a falsehood. If a subject believes something that does not line up with reality, that belief is a falsehood.

[Isa]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hi Isa,

There is no true or false, good or bad to be found in the objective/physical world, and only the subject/individual is a knowning entity. These things are value judgements/meanings and only a living entity holds these. There was an old buddhist whom held up a flower to his class, asking them what is the meaning of a flower---------uneasyness and silence--- Then one student indicates to his master he understood. The understanding was this, that the flower had no meaning, it simply is. It is logical however, as you stated above, a thing cannot be true and false at the same time. All meaning is subjective, so necessarily true and false are subjective value judgements of an individual.

Hi Boagie,

A fact of logic is if a statement is to be considered to have a truth value, either to be true or false, it has to have the possiblity of being either. And as it has been pointed out, subjective experience cannot be either true or false, it just is; so subjective experience cannot be the "seat" of truth.

Subjective meaning, without truth, is meaningless. Without truth and meaning, there is no thought, only experiece. Without truth, meaning and thought, there is no communication. Without truth, meaning, thought and communication; there can be no agreement.

There is truth.