Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 20, 2010 at 3:55 pm)tackattack Wrote: OK objective truth I'll redefine. Truth is subjective information because it's what? unobservable, non-subject to peer review, able to be counted, imitated, describable. If it is the antithesis of theese things I'm calling it objective. Perhaps I should have used the term "non-subjective informational truth", but objective seemed better for brevity.
I didn't urge you to redefine objective truth but my point is that you are asserting that objective truth is observable. Objective truth in my book is the same as reality itself. The question however is if we can directly observe raw objective truth. Since the nature of observation is interpretation of phenomena presumably associated with objects instead of direct knowledge of truth itself, it is always impossible to be 100% sure if you're indeed observing truth itself. So the combination of observable objective truth is what I disagree with not with objective truth as such.
(January 20, 2010 at 3:55 pm)tackattack Wrote: As far as intangible evidence as proofs; mathmatical evidence supports mathmatical findings, logical thought progression supports a theoretical premise, historical evidence or provenance provide historical proofs. My point was the type of proof is relative (as it should be) to it's summation. You can use math or logic or history to prove some areas of let's say astronomy, but astronomical evidence that is observable is the best proof.
While I "cannot conclude anything about reality from those two things alone" (refferencing logic and intuiton) I am not concluding anything about the definition of reality you're using in the above quote. I am concluding spiritual truths based off spiritual evidence supported by logic, intuition, peers, and observations.
You said of religion that "It can be objectified if reason, logic and intuition count as observations." But objectification must mean something like "compare it objectively with reality itself", since it is not self-evident that what is thought up is true in our reality. In order to do so you need direct access to reality or objective truth. When you mean by this that from conceptual truths you can conclude other conceptual truths, I agree, but the truths you obtain are still dependent on the premises from which you depart.
I sense an underlying question: Is logic absolute, non-contigent, independent of everything? To answer this one you can break it down in two questions:
1) is logic dependent on a basic set of rules that do not follow from logic itself?
2) does logic apply to reality?
Please let me know what your answer on these questions would be.
(January 20, 2010 at 4:46 pm)Saerules Wrote: If there is an objective meaning to life, morality, or even existence: we cannot know it as subjective beings. And what is objectivity to begin with? As far as i can be aware: this is all my delusion. I can only define things for myself... and since i can define them in any way at all: it follows that anything can be defined in any way,..
It does not follow from subjectivity of knowledge that anything can be defined in any way without consequences. It turns out that the definition matters in respect of predictiveness of reality. If you define things you perceive arbitrarily, dealing with reality might become impossible. Suppose for instance that you define a lemmon as a sourish fruit on one occasion and as sweet fruit on another occasion. So for a reality that to a large extent obeys a certain logic as perceived by our senses, it might be advantageous to assume a certain logical consistency of reality reflected in perception. Of course that would not be truth itself, just a working hypothesis.
(January 20, 2010 at 4:46 pm)Saerules Wrote: ...thus the definition for anything is entirely based upon the subjective viewpoint of the definer... and thus there is no meaning without a definer (existentialism). Because there is no meaning without a definer (which is subjective): there is no objective meaning for anything (nihilism).
Moral judgement is indeed based on the subjective viewpoint of the definer, but its definition is not without consequences. When dealing with other humans (of which their existence for the sake of logical consistency of reality reflected in perception is assumed (see above)) one might therefore assume other moral judgement, but dealing with these other humans generally means some sort of syncing or sharing of moral judgement. Sharing of moral values is the basis of cultural demarcation and provides an 'infrastructure' for the individual to operate and survive in. So I agree there is no objective moral truth, but it is shared moral truth that makes reality tick for you.
OK so objective truth is reality to you. Let's go through an excercise. Remember vividly what you had for dinner last night and the events that led up to it. Is that an objective truth? It happened there is no denying and your memory isn't faulty and it involves real observable objects and is duplicatable, verifiable by peer review, and describable. Vividly remember an important aspect in your life from a few years ago, something you focused some will on. You remember it well and are adament that you're remembering it correctly, however thoughts/ memories when subject to time lose their objectivity as they lose the focus of will. I think a lot of atheists are under the impression that theists have this one moment where God makes sense and all our belief is based off tha one moment. God and the spirit is a continuing evolution and revelation focusing our will on every second of every day keeping as much objectivity on perception as possible.
I don't think "raw objective truth" is observable directly. That doesn't mean you can't derive truths from your direct or indirect observations. If you friend says he just came from dropping the kids off. You may observe that the toilet paper stuck to his shoe lends evidence to his claim and indirectly assert his truth. It is unlikely that he spent the time trying to decieve you and supported it by attacing toilet paper to his shoe.
I agree that just because something is thought doesn't necessarily mean it's part of reality. Personal reality though, "you world", is made up of those that affect your life and the observations of your surroundings and your thoughts on those is as objective as we can achieve. The concept of the world as it is is just as "pie in the sky" as God. You assert that you can know what the real world is as I assert I can know what God is, from what we observe in our personal world and rationally and logically extrapolate and test theories based on that. We all have "direct access to reality" and extrapolate what general reality is based off of our personal reality. I as a theist have access to "objective truth regarding God" and extrapolate a global idea of God based off of my personal truths revealed by God. The first is just objectively tangible and the second is objective informational.
Answers to your questions:
1) is logic dependent on a basic set of rules that do not follow from logic itself?
examples Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense. I don't see these as based off human thinking. They are and are not subject to mutual agreement. Laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions like the laws of physics. Laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth. I don't know where they came from from your perspective so I propose the same perspective.
2) does logic apply to reality? Certainly if it's a part of science, physics, defining characteristics. We draw usefull conclusions from it. A fire is fire. We use reason to assert that fire is hit. Cause and affect teaches if fire is hot, it can burn us. You first must define using logic, but yes I think it's apllicable to reality.
Perhaps I won't use the term objective truth. I'll say true objective truth isn't observable. Personal conclusions off globally agreed subjective truths could be defined and observed though I believe. Regardless both terms boil down to truth. Truth itself is probably just subjective. That doens't make it any less true to others, especially to you personally. My brain hurts and I think I'll step back and gergitate.
