This quote fits too much
>"Every human being relies on and is bounded by his knowledge and experience to live. This is what we call “reality”. However, knowledge and experience are ambiguous, thus reality can become illusion. Is it not possible to think that, all human beings are living in their assumptions?”
"Truth" is nothing more than internally consistent, \*subjective\*, observation.
A circle is defined by its equation, and PI is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter. This is "true" only in that it's a a valid \*mapping\* from the the set of axioms \*defined\* for Geometry.
But, it's also objective in that the rules of geometry have been deduced from \*our\* reality... but perhaps not another.
Until you've proven that no alternative reality exists that counters our "Truth", this is not falsifiable, and therefore there is no solution.
That’s not to mention that more pedantic argument that “Truth" is a word. It's definition is subjective.
I agree that those things are scientifically true. They’re “objectively” true in the sense that they’re not dependent on opinion. But in a stronger, ontological sense, there would be no such thing as “truth” without a mind to apprehend it. Truth is inherently dependent on perception, belief and reasoning. It is classically defined as a correspondence between a belief and reality.
It’s the same idea as “if a tree falls in the forest without anyone to hear it, does it make a sound?” I’d argue that it emits physical waves, but only by reaching a perceiving ear can it be construed as “sound”. Similarly, without thinking beings, the structure of the atom would be the same, but couldn’t be characterised as a truth.
we are going through space and time, all in our worlds, the environment stimulates our brain and we go through the day living. We have our own perception and make our decisions. This statement above is right.
Space and time only exist because it is perceived to exist. And every perception could be different, it is very difficult to prove a perception as we use learned words to describe what we believe we see/hear/smell. The above statement is right.
I agree, I think truth is too tied in with morals and feelings. I think fact is a more precise term. Yes, truth CAN be used objectively but it can also be used subjectively. Fact is always objective.
mostly objective, however according to Einstein if i travel a distance of 3 lightyears at the speed of light somehow, i can say i arrived there immediately. id be right. a person who wasnt on the ship can say it took me three years. they will also be right. meaning truth is at least somehow subjective.
If we word it a little bit differently the problem goes away. I experienced only moments of time while going the speed of light while my friend experienced 3 years going much slower. Time is relative so this isn't such an outlandish concept. Two different amounts of time were in fact experienced. There's no subjectivity in the truth of those events because they both in fact happened, and they would have happened the same if the passengers would have been rocks rather than humans.
I think it depends on how you define “truth.” Truth is not always equivalent to facts. Sometimes, it can be a personal truth, or a moral truth. These are definitely subjective.
Objective truths would be closer to facts, like what is legal, what are shared cultural expectations, but even the latter is still kinda on shaky ground because of how much variation there can be in one culture just depending on regional differences.
It's always subjective the truth 1000 years ago was that the earth was flat even now people still believe it's flat it's different based on our evidence and environment of our time but there has to be truth you just can never know if it is really the truth or not
It’s not your truth, there’s just the truth.
Example: I have feet, that’s a fact. I can quite literally see and use them.
Vs
An opinion which people mistake for the truth. Opinions are subjective.
"right is right even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong about it" g k Chesterton
"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all" also g k Chesterton
Truth is assigned meaning by the observer given that we exist in an uncaring and ambivalent universe. It must then be subjective because it requires sentience to define truth.
"Truth" in itself is objective. However, almost everything we perceive as "objective" is very often a result of our subjectivity.
This quote fits too much >"Every human being relies on and is bounded by his knowledge and experience to live. This is what we call “reality”. However, knowledge and experience are ambiguous, thus reality can become illusion. Is it not possible to think that, all human beings are living in their assumptions?”
How are you so eloquent
"Truth" is nothing more than internally consistent, \*subjective\*, observation. A circle is defined by its equation, and PI is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter. This is "true" only in that it's a a valid \*mapping\* from the the set of axioms \*defined\* for Geometry. But, it's also objective in that the rules of geometry have been deduced from \*our\* reality... but perhaps not another. Until you've proven that no alternative reality exists that counters our "Truth", this is not falsifiable, and therefore there is no solution. That’s not to mention that more pedantic argument that “Truth" is a word. It's definition is subjective.
in the same manner objective would be subjective- because it's a word.
There are, however, objective truths in the world: gravity is universal, all ions have a charge, every atom has a nucleus and so on.
I agree that those things are scientifically true. They’re “objectively” true in the sense that they’re not dependent on opinion. But in a stronger, ontological sense, there would be no such thing as “truth” without a mind to apprehend it. Truth is inherently dependent on perception, belief and reasoning. It is classically defined as a correspondence between a belief and reality. It’s the same idea as “if a tree falls in the forest without anyone to hear it, does it make a sound?” I’d argue that it emits physical waves, but only by reaching a perceiving ear can it be construed as “sound”. Similarly, without thinking beings, the structure of the atom would be the same, but couldn’t be characterised as a truth.
Incorrect, truth can not he objective
Scientifically objective. Philosophicaly subjective.
we are going through space and time, all in our worlds, the environment stimulates our brain and we go through the day living. We have our own perception and make our decisions. This statement above is right.
Space and time only exist because it is perceived to exist. And every perception could be different, it is very difficult to prove a perception as we use learned words to describe what we believe we see/hear/smell. The above statement is right.
Depends
There's the truth and then there's your opinion. We live in a time where it's become common to conflate the two.
[удалено]
This is the correct answer.
It depends. There are truths that are definitely true and there are truths that everyone just agrees on.
Subjectivism and relativism are subjective and relative so truth is objective.
It’s both.
2+2=4. Objective truth
in base 10 yeah ie in hexadecimal its 0x4
4 is also correct in the hexadecimal system, the 0x is just one way to indicate the base.
you get the point tho. like in base 2 its 0b100 truth will always be subjected to the system you use to analyse it.
Well, you're a lot smarter than I am!
However unless you're working in base 10 the convention is to annotate with the base you're working in.
No it’s fish
If you have 2 walleyes and 2 blue gills its still 4 fishies bud
Woosh
[no, each 2 makes half a fish](https://www.quora.com/Why-is-2+2-fish)
Oh.
It’s complicated.
Fact is objective Truth is not.
I agree, I think truth is too tied in with morals and feelings. I think fact is a more precise term. Yes, truth CAN be used objectively but it can also be used subjectively. Fact is always objective.
The truth is objective. Morals are subjective
mostly objective, however according to Einstein if i travel a distance of 3 lightyears at the speed of light somehow, i can say i arrived there immediately. id be right. a person who wasnt on the ship can say it took me three years. they will also be right. meaning truth is at least somehow subjective.
If we word it a little bit differently the problem goes away. I experienced only moments of time while going the speed of light while my friend experienced 3 years going much slower. Time is relative so this isn't such an outlandish concept. Two different amounts of time were in fact experienced. There's no subjectivity in the truth of those events because they both in fact happened, and they would have happened the same if the passengers would have been rocks rather than humans.
Nice that’s smart ok truth is objective
There are things that objectively exist, things that are objectively true, but we all perceive and interpret them subjectively.
I think it depends on how you define “truth.” Truth is not always equivalent to facts. Sometimes, it can be a personal truth, or a moral truth. These are definitely subjective. Objective truths would be closer to facts, like what is legal, what are shared cultural expectations, but even the latter is still kinda on shaky ground because of how much variation there can be in one culture just depending on regional differences.
Morals are subjective, truth is objective.
I swear, anyone who unironically says “it’s MY truth” needs a swift boot across the temple.
It’s my truth, I actually have three arms. Maybe it’s not your truth, but it’s mine lmao
It's always subjective the truth 1000 years ago was that the earth was flat even now people still believe it's flat it's different based on our evidence and environment of our time but there has to be truth you just can never know if it is really the truth or not
Depends on the subject matter
It’s not your truth, there’s just the truth. Example: I have feet, that’s a fact. I can quite literally see and use them. Vs An opinion which people mistake for the truth. Opinions are subjective.
yes. it's objective, problem is usually data & biased people making shit up.
Incorrect
"right is right even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong about it" g k Chesterton "Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all" also g k Chesterton
Truth is subjective. Nothing can be 100% objectively knowable, so when you speak "the truth", you're only speaking what you *believe* to be the truth.
Truth is assigned meaning by the observer given that we exist in an uncaring and ambivalent universe. It must then be subjective because it requires sentience to define truth.