(October 7, 2015 at 12:20 am)Delicate Wrote: Well, I'm tempted to agree with anything John Searle says- I mean it's Searle! And frankly, it makes sense that one can study subjective facts objectively, just as one can treat the statement "I like vanilla ice-cream." in a third-person, objective, analytic way.
But this doesn't collapse the difference. Nor does it say subjective truths are true objectively.
It merely means that one can be viewed in the perspective of the other. It works the other way around too: Objective truths can be studied subjectively.
I don't think what Searle is getting at is "All truth is objective."
It's objectively true that matter attracts matter with a force, proportional to its mass.
Or is it? After all, we could just be brains in a jar, imagining or being fed this 'objective' truth. The Cartesian foundation applies here. It's intellectually honest to understand that even our most established 'truths' are open to assumption therefore error. 'Absolute' truths cannot be established, honestly consequently it's a redundant term. Instead we should simply ignore it and move on with what we can demonstrate, pragmatically, empirically and logically as 'truth'.
Sum ergo sum
