A question for those who believe truth is not absolute

[Ignorant]

1+1 = 2.

By doing the operation addition with two 1's we must get 2.
This is fact because it is true in all cases.  

2 = 1+1

To get the result 2 we must add 1 with 1.
This is neither a fact nor a truth.

To get the result 2 we can add 1 with 1.
This is a truth but not a fact because there are contradictories.

If the "left side" of the equation is the operation and the "right side" of the equation is the result (as it is in your first example), then your description of the 2nd example is inconsistent with the first.

A better description of 2=1+1 (if we use your first example as a model) would be:

1+1 must yield 2 (the truth) , and only 2 (the fact).

2 does not necessarily yield 1+1 (no truth), and may yield other things (no fact)

An example of a case in which that statement is false: 
2 = 1x2

The distinguishing fact I believe is the "must".  
You must get 2 if you add 1 with 1. 
You can get the result 2 by adding 1 and 1. 
(there is no must here) 
You can get the result 2 by adding 2 and 0. Etc

This is an overly complicated and confusing nomenclature. Is it true that 2=1x2? Who would say no to that? Is it a fact that 2=1x2? Who would say no to that?

[robvalue]

It is true as long as you define what all the symbols mean. It is true within certain abstract systems.

But truth about abstract systems is not the same as truth about reality; although it can often infer useful things, such as 1 orange and another 1 orange is 2 oranges, in our experience.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Why stop there, Rob? Wouldnt the universal category of oranges also be 'abstract'? While similar those things are each unique objects that you arbitrarily gave the name orange. Seems to me that carried to its logical conclusion your approach severs any binding relationship between truth propositions and objective reality.

[Aegon]

I got into an argument with a friend about this a little while ago.

He was saying that all truth is subjective, so if you believe something that makes it true to you. But I disagreed. I think that there is an absolute truth and if you sway from it, you're wrong. It's false. You thinking it's true doesn't magically make it so. Something being true to you while not actually being true just means you're wrong. And saying it despite believing it doesn't make you right. You're lying. Maybe not intentionally, but you are.

And even if you argue that no truths can be absolute for all these reasons mentioned, there are truths that are as absolute as they can be. Saying "well nothing is objective man" misses the point. It doesn't matter, you're still wrong.

[Blueyedlion]

I got into an argument with a friend about this a little while ago.

He was saying that all truth is subjective, so if you believe something that makes it true to you. But I disagreed. I think that there is an absolute truth and if you sway from it, you're wrong. It's false. You thinking it's true doesn't magically make it so. Something being true to you while not actually being true just means you're wrong. And saying it despite believing it doesn't make you right. You're lying. Maybe not intentionally, but you are.

And even if you argue that no truths can be absolute for all these reasons mentioned, there are truths that are as absolute as they can be. Saying "well nothing is objective man" misses the point. It doesn't matter, you're still wrong.

  Ok good, now explain how can you know what that objective truth is, if all you can know is the truth of your own personal experience?
You cant speak for anyone elses truth now can you?

[Aegon]

I got into an argument with a friend about this a little while ago.

He was saying that all truth is subjective, so if you believe something that makes it true to you. But I disagreed. I think that there is an absolute truth and if you sway from it, you're wrong. It's false. You thinking it's true doesn't magically make it so. Something being true to you while not actually being true just means you're wrong. And saying it despite believing it doesn't make you right. You're lying. Maybe not intentionally, but you are.

And even if you argue that no truths can be absolute for all these reasons mentioned, there are truths that are as absolute as they can be. Saying "well nothing is objective man" misses the point. It doesn't matter, you're still wrong.

  Ok good, now explain how can you know what that objective truth is, if all you can know is the truth of your own personal experience?
You cant speak for anyone elses truth now can you?

See, this is where you lose me. Nobody looks at a banana and sees a fucking cube, right? Bananas aren't shaped like cubes. If someone saw a cube-shaped banana you'd need to get your head checked. Absolute truth that bananas are not cube shaped. No?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Aegon, I think what he meant is how you see a banana is not how a dog see a banana(or a person with cataracts see a banana) , so how do you know how you perceive a banana as is how the banana is objectively?

[Whateverist]

Truth isn't about things themselves but rather about claims made regarding those things. Truths are therefore about the communicative function, not things in themselves.

Suppose someone is interested in determining the property of a new material. So he runs an experiment and reaches a conclusion.

A second person inquires of the first what his findings were and is told. The second person then asks "is that the truth?" What is the first person to say? "Yes, I wasn't lying about it." Or maybe the first person would qualify his answer in terms of the capabilities of the measuring devices used.

If the second person then asks "But is that the absolute, objective truth?" What is there left for the first person to say? It is the factual (true, not contrived) result of the experiment that was run. They might discuss how fitting the experiment was in determining the property in question or how competently the obtained results were interpreted. But that's the end of it.

There isn't anything extra to do to determine the "absolute" or "objective" truth which isn't just the same thing one did to answer the original question concerning the property of material in question. The 'objective truth' has no independent existence apart from the world and the language we use to describe it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

  Ok good, now explain how can you know what that objective truth is, if all you can know is the truth of your own personal experience?

You make the mistake of confusing differing sense data drawn from objects in external reality and the objects themselves. Basically you are saying that either 1) sense data has no relationship with objects in external reality or 2) there are no objects in external reality from which to draw sense data.

Belief in objective truth depends on the existential choice of the individual to accept the notion that there is an external reality capable of being known even if only partially. For example, you see an apple from the front and assume from prior experience that it is whole. I see it from the back and see that it has a bite taken from it. The sense data we take from the apple may differ, but we are still drawing that sense data from an object that exists independently of what either you or I think about it.

[Mister Agenda]

I take it as an axiom that reality is real, that is, that we are not brains in jars or some such scenario. Accepting that axiom allows us to make meaningful statements about was isn't or is true concerning phenomena we are in a position to know about and comprehend. If the axiom isn't true, we currently have no way of discovering that.