You must log in or # to comment.
truth isn’t subjective, but perspective changes how you see something.
Truth is entirely subjective because all observations are subjective.
What about a thermometer?
mine says 0° but yours says 32°
what about a tachometer?
from my angle it says 4950RPM but from your angle it says 5000RPM
The one on my buttholes? Jeez that’s why I never look at my tachometer anymore
Gogo gadget boltzmann brain
truth=facts. facts are objective. it’s a fact that the USA is a country in north America. there is no disputing that.
the notion that the USA is a good place to live is not a fact, it’s a subjective opinion
truth=facts. facts are objective. it’s a fact that the USA is a country in north America. there is no disputing that.
Not trying to say that everything is subjective, but that in particular is kind of a bad example.
Countries are socially constructed. The US is something that only exists so long as people agree that it does. There is no objective, material way of determining where one country ends and another begins.
In fact, there was quite a bit of disputing that historically. Prior to the American Civil War, lots of people said that the US was not a country but a union between countries, they were called “states” after all, and it was common to say “The United States are” rather than “The United States is.” There are still successionists today who argue for that interpretation. To say that the US is objectively a country means that there must be something in material reality that we can point to to prove that one interpretation is correct and the other is incorrect. What is that thing?
Whatever that thing is would have significant implications for how we see the world and look at other disputes, whether we’re talking about Spain and Barcelona, the UK and Scotland, China and Tibet, or Israel and Palestine. For example, if you say that historically, most US secessionists supported slavery and therefore they lacked moral character and the position is illegitimate, then it follows that what states exist is a function of the moral character of their supporters, and that seems to be adding lots of assumptions and moving away from any sense of objectivity.
“The US exists” is much more subjective than something like “This chair exists.” With the latter, you could argue that grouping a collection of atoms into the category of “chair” is arbitrary and there’s no way of determining when an atom stops being a part of “chair,” but that’s much more pedantic than socially constructed concepts that don’t really have a physical essence.
people created the ideas of countries, then made a list of them. USA is on that list.
if you really want to get philosophical about it, you can say the only fact that anyone knows for sure is that they are experiencing something. Nobody knows for sure that everyone else in the world isn’t an NPC, nor whether this world is real or a hallucination.
I’m trying to keep it simple for the purposes of this argument
people created the ideas of countries, then made a list of them. USA is on that list.
People? Which people? If I get a bunch of people and declare a micronation within what the US considers it’s borders, is that objectively a country or not? Or suppose I convince a bunch of Americans that Germany isn’t really a country, does it then cease to be a country despite what the Germans themselves believe?
In any case, I would think that if something falls under the standard of, “This is true because a bunch of people say it is, even though there’s nothing physical you can point to to prove it” then it seems somewhat absurd to call that an “objective fact” What do “objective” and “subjective” even mean, then?
I’m not interested in arguing semantics or philosophy. you can disagree with my example, I don’t care.
the point is, there are objective facts and subjective opinions.
I see, so you’re only interested in asserting your own philosophical positions, not examining or defending them in any way.
A fact is something that can be proven.
“I love my wife” is the truth, but it’s not a fact, since we can’t really measure “love”.
Descartes wants a word…
It’s rather curious how those people who claim truth is subjective never do it for gravity, jumping off a high building while claiming “gravity is false for me”. Because guess what, odds are they know it’s bullshit.
Personally, I don’t believe in football.
that’s A football, not Football. we’re allowed to hit one moleman in the groin.
Ahyuk yuk!
I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.
I also doubt you’ve met anyone that claims truth is subjective to their will at any time they choose.
It’s entirely possible, but unlikely.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
I wish I could say I’ve never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You’re right they aren’t the same thing, but they’re clearly tied.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
I wish I could say I’ve never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
Yeah…
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You’re right they aren’t the same thing, but they’re clearly tied.
Not really…to any of that.
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
An unusual level of reality control could exist within an objectively truth based system. It would just have to adhere to the constraints.
Perhaps you mean omnipotence? I’m not sure on that one either, but definitionally it usually implies complete control, im not sure if that’s within a fixed system or not.
Reality control and subjectivity can be tied if an example ties them somehow, but it’s not a given.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Yep, that’s why I went with gravitational experience instead of one having gravity and the other not.
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
In this case, it does.
Let me put it this way: is the statement “there’s a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies” epistemically true?
If truth was subjective, the answer would be “true” or “false” depending on the subject. For those whom the answer is “false”, this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth. That implies they’d have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say “it’s now true for me” and fall, or “it’s now false for me” and stop falling.
Let me put it this way: is the statement “there’s a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies” epistemically true?
Scientifically, maybe? Because that’s what the scientific method is, best approximations given the knowledge we currently have.
But let’s assume yes for the purposes of this reply.
If truth was subjective, the answer would be “true” or “false” depending on the subject.
And context.
Same subject different circumstances, different gravitational forces.
For those whom the answer is “false”, this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth.
That’s a binary interpretation of a non-binary system.
But again, for the purposes of this reply, sure.
That implies they’d have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say “it’s now true for me” and fall, or “it’s now false for me” and stop falling.
There’s a big assumption there that this is a binary.
Gravity control, doesn’t have to be binary.
It doesn’t even have to be direct, they could achieve the same effect by increasing or decreasing mass.
But let’s say it’s magic, direct control.
In an objective system where gravity exists it would conceptually be possible to control the level of gravity acting upon yourself without turning it on or off fully.
In a subjective system where gravity could exist or not depending on subject and context, the same is conceptually true.
Which brings me back to:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
Emphasis mine.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them
sort of. they just keep falling and missing
no no i’ve gotten really high and ass-philosophical and sometimes we take ridiculous positions (e.g. horses are just poorly behaved long dogs) just to see how long it takes for the other person to figure out we’re high off our ass and giggling inside the entire time.
Good spot, i should have said “truly believes” instead of “claims”.
Truth
Subjectively?
Speculative and Technical
The best kind of technical.
Correct!
In Einstein’s general relativity, different observers can disagree about the order of timed events, so long as their individual stories don’t violate causality. This is broadly known as the Relativity of Simultaneity.
[Warning: bar philosophy. Might include ramblings, booze, chain smoking, and fried snacks.]
And yet, gravity is still there.
Even if simultaneity is relative, the phenomenon is still there, you know? You can claim something fell before or after another event, but you can’t really claim it didn’t fall. And you can’t claim two simultaneous events stopped being simultaneous if they’re stationary for you, so it’s less of a “truth is relative to ME! ME! ME!” and more of a “truth is relative to that speed”. It’s still an objective matter, not a subjective one.
so it’s less of a “truth is relative to ME! ME! ME!”
This, I think, is an argument that exists in your head only. An excellent example of relativity, if I’m being honest.
I don’t understand why subjectivity makes people so uncomfortable. Like, people would fight each other over the objectively correct temperature for the AC of their building if you let them—I just, I don’t get it.
This, I think, is an argument that exists in your head only.
This is blatantly false. The argument exists in the comment I wrote. If it existed only “inside my head”, you wouldn’t access it. Because nobody knows what’s “inside someone else’s head”, nor we (people in general) should lie = assume = bullshit otherwise.
An excellent example of relativity [SIC - subjectivity], if I’m being honest.
Also false. While I believe my argument is correct, there’s also the chance it’s incorrect. If it is correct, my belief is true. But if it is incorrect, it won’t magically become “true for ME! ME! ME!”; I’d be simply holding a false belief. But either way, that depends on the argument itself, not on the fact I’m the one voicing it or analysing it or whatever. The subject here (me) still doesn’t fucking matter. And that’s bloody common sense.
I don’t understand why subjectivity makes people so uncomfortable. [implied* by context: “relativity makes lvxferre uncomfortable”.]
Okay… first off, let me address the most pressing matter: in no moment you showed that this “truth is subjective” babble would be even remotely true.
Secondly. You’re making a bloody mess of “relativity” and “subjectivity”, as if both were synonymous. Get shit right dammit — subjectivity is a specific type of relativity regarding the subject. Showing time is relative to speed does jack shit to prove things would be relative to the subject, i.e. “gravity is false for me lol I’m jumping from the building!”.
Thirdly. Why are you bullshitting = assuming = lying about what I’m comfortable or not with? You have no way to know it, don’t lie you do. I’m not uncomfortable with subjectivity. I simply consider it such inane bullshit, that I’m outright mocking it. Just like I’d mock flat Earth, souls, zodiacal signs, aliens visiting Earth on weekends, et cetera.
Finally, drop off the Reddit style sealion: “I dun unrrurstand” followed by bullshit? Seriously, keep this shit in Reddit.
Like, people would fight each other over the objectively correct temperature for the AC of their building if you let them—I just, I don’t get it.
Gotta love assumptions…
Not wasting my time further with you.
*see Gricean maxims, specially the one of relevance.
Showing time is relative to speed does jack shit to prove things would be relative to the subject,
With this attitude, I just don’t feel like you’d be living up to Einstein’s manner of thinking. Just too rigid.
in no moment you showed that this “truth is subjective” babble would be even remotely true.
Uh. Subjectively, I think it’s true.
I really don’t think you even understand what I was trying to say with all that.
i.e. “gravity is false for me lol I’m jumping from the building!”.
Who is saying this?
If you jump out of a bridge, you will still break your face on the ground for every reference frame outside of a black hole.
I believe that’s true, yes. Your point?
what is the difference between what is true and what merely is? because truth is the former, gravity is the latter.
truth is the former
i.e. “the truth is what’s true”. Wow, deep.
who said i was trying to be deep?
I wonder if belief has anything to do with reality. Hmm.
Eh, probably the universe is a cold, dead clockwork of matter that spontaneously and randomly fell into place with only the barest of coincidences we can try to grasp as objective truths with which to define our sensationally complex environment.
Although . . . it is just as possible that matter arises from something more fundamental to something like a universal order, such as consciousness.
I dunno though, they never told me.
Eh, probably the universe is a cold, dead clockwork of matter
This, but unironically.
Spoilers: we’re riding some weird rock in the middle of the empty space.
Yes please lets have a semantic debate in which no one defines their terms
The twist:
It’s actually a flat piece of paper.
Ceci n’est pas une pipe
How very Escher of you…
The object’s ness is objective. The projection is your own dumbass ways of perceiving it because you lack the ability to objectively observe.
Science routinely solves problems like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_51
In some sense this is the very heart of science: taking disparate views of the world and drawing likely conclusions that are testable and reproducible.
Gödel , Escher, Bach, an eternal golden braid
Oh yeah. I remember attempting that. Lotta words in there.
what, you ain’t familiar with the double cylinder experiment?
The only thing you know is that you know nothing. Really a pointless conversation unless you wanted to circle jerk on Lemmy. oh wait
Now do that with non-commutative (quantum) geometry and try to make the same claim.
The product? so the projections created the product?
There is no truth, only interpretations.
of what
It’s a quote from Nietzsche; which I think is becoming more true than truth itself the older I get.
