You must log in or register to comment.
truth isn’t subjective, but perspective changes how you see something.
Truth is entirely subjective because all observations are subjective.
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.
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 fact that people feel different gravitational pull based on where they are doesn’t make the concept of gravity different for each of them. You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.
That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!
Sure, i could have specified i was talking about the gravitational pull rather than the concept of gravity as a whole.
I was, however, replying to a message that was specifically talking about gravitational pull, so i assumed it was understood i was referring to the same.
Nevertheless i stand by my assertion, I’ll be specific though so it’s clear.
The idea of some sort of magical control of gravity (and all of the concepts covered by that word) wouldn’t necessarily be a binary on/off.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an objectively provable truth that consisted of an on/off state, control would mean being able to turn that system on or off, either as a whole, but more specifically in this case, for a specified subject.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an subjective phenomena, control would mean being able adjust the effect of that phenomena to some degree.
The systems I’m talking about here are my interpretation of the the systems posited by the person to which i was replying.
Which , again, brings me back to:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth
For completeness, I should have probably said:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth ( using the exmples of subjective/objective truth as proposed by the person to which i am replying )
That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!
Agreed
As an aside:
You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.
What word was i using incorrectly and in what context? , genuine question.
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!
what is the difference between what is true and what merely is? because truth is the former, gravity is the latter.
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
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?
Now do that with non-commutative (quantum) geometry and try to make the same claim.
The only thing you know is that you know nothing. Really a pointless conversation unless you wanted to circle jerk on Lemmy. oh wait
How we go about living our lives on only partially-available and unreliable information is one of the most practical and important questions of all! Who do we trust? What assumptions should we make?
It’s funny you bring that up, I offer a 6-week course on who to trust and what assumptions you should make!
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.
