Is there objective Truth?

[Soldat Du Christ]

@pocaracas
"I take it you agree with everything else I wrote, then..."

Mmmm... There was alot of unnecary filler that all ammounted to the same point(s) so i found it irrelevent. Then there was the obvious contradiction so i kind of discredited the rest anyways..

I'm also not sure if you say what i said earlier in reply to somebody else on the topic of solipsism. And i would agree with you! It is a rabbit hole i refuse to go down.

I'll get back to all your guys comments later gtg

[I_am_not_mafia]

[robvalue]

Depends how you define it, huh.

Lim x->0 (x^x) = 1

Lim x->0 (0^x) = 0

Lim x->0 (x^0) = 1

[pocaracas]

@pocaracas
"I take it you agree with everything else I wrote, then..."

Mmmm... There was alot of unnecary filler that all ammounted to the same point(s) so i found it irrelevent. Then there was the obvious contradiction so i kind of discredited the rest anyways..

I'm also not sure if you say what i said earlier in reply to somebody else on the topic of solipsism. And i would agree with you! It is a rabbit hole i refuse to go down.

I'll get back to all your guys comments later gtg

unnecary? what that heck is an "unnecary filler"?!

If what I said before is an obvious contradiction, then you should have no problem to expose it in simple terms, huh? Because, in case you missed it, I don't see any contradiction.

[Kingpin]

@OP.

If you state there is no objective truth, you are essentially saying the truth is relative. If you make the statement "truth is relative", that is a self-defeating statement. If that statement is true, then not all truth is relative since that statement would be an objective truth. However, if all truth is relative then that statement is not always true.

In short, yes objective truths exist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

How could I know there's objective Truth, when I'm a purely subjective being?

I think that is where something like the Principle of Non-Contradiction comes in. It is self-evident that the PNC was true before people appeared to think about it and that it would be true even if there never was anyone to think about it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Google the following:

definition:objective

"not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

definitionubjective

"based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."

In both cases objective or subjective is used to describe how we describe or act on some thing, not whether that thing exists.

Now google the following:

definition:truth

the quality or state of being true.
that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

Truth can be objective or subjective depending on what you are talking about. This is because 'Truth' is a mere description, a part of a language, in the same way that Maths and Logic are ways to describe something. Do not confuse the language used to describe something as being the same thing that it is describing.

The context that the description appears in is used to determine whether it can be considered an objective or subjective truth.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@Whateverist, do you not believe that non material things exist? For example gravity? Mathematics? Laws of logic? Truth is fact, by definition. Do you not believe in facts? These are all in fact immaterial.

They are not immaterial. Maths and Logic wouldn't exist without the human population. You are essentially arguing that language itself is immaterial but it requires material for it to exist. Whether it's written down, spoken or stored, it requires material.

Same with facts. Facts relate to material.

In fact anything relevant to the world and our lives is relevant to something material.

@Soldat, you may not have noticed but Mathilda is saying that artifacts cannot qualify as objects. Let's suppose he is correct - mathematical entities are invented rather than discovered. What does that say about physical artifacts, like thermostats. People invented thermostats. Does that mean that a thermostat is not an object? An object is simply something that has independent existence from the subject that is aware of it. Because he conflates the terms real, object, and material, he begs continually begs the question. Mathilda also doesn't realize that the existence of something can be distinct from the material in which it is embodied. To use language as an example, the meaning of a phrase can be identical in both verbally expressed English and written French. The meaning is distinct from the material that carries it and will be recognized independently by different people fluent with the languages.

[Soldat Du Christ]

[Soldat Du Christ]

"... which were previously invented and are still evolving."

Are you saying it's okay to make up your own definitions for things? I can't understand why anyone would choose to abide in insanity. Or is that the neccecary result of a godless universe?