|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:22 am
There are many different ways to look at this issue, but I'll be relatively brief in defining it, and then let you respond before I give my opinions.
Brief definition of objective truth: The concept that 2+2=4 no matter what. This concept was examined extensively in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.
To expand a little, if truth is objective, that means that there are truths that exist whether or not someone is there to perceive them. An amusing way of looking at it is to ask, if 2 is added to 2 in a forest and no one is around to add it, does it still make 4? If truth is objective, then yes, 2+2 always equals 4, the sun is relatively hot, the earth revolves around the sun, water is wet, the sky is blue, and people have five senses.
However, if truth is subjective, then it exists only as far as you perceive it. Basically, 2+2 is only equal to 4 if you believe it is. If you are under the impression that 2+2 is 5, then it is 5 until you are convinced otherwise. If truth is subjective, then the sun is only as hot as you think it is, the earth moves in whatever pattern you believe it moves in, water is only as wet as you think it is, the sky is whatever color you believe it is, and people have however many senses you think they have.
I have a few theories on the subject of truth, but I'll let this post sit for a while before I get into my own ideas. Let me know what you think first.
Truth: is it objective, or subjective?
Yay fun. biggrin
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:37 am
Truth is objective.
My reason for stating that truth is objective is simple: If it is, it is. I will elaborate on this. I do not know quite how to put it into words with out examples so here it goes.
No matter how hard you believe in something that's impossible, it will not make it possible. That is just the cold hard truth of life. Take for instance, if I thought I could fly. Now say I believed with every fiber of my being that I could fly, that does not mean that if I go jump off my roof I will fly away and not plummet to my death.
Well there you go. That is why I think truth is objective. Please tell me your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:24 am
Objection!
Truth is subjective. My example goes towards the poll. If you think 2+2=5 it can also be proven through a very elaborate mathematical equation. Along those lines and others though I do agree with wolfchild as well. I mean unless we have evolved differently a human's anatomy would not be as light as a bird's anatomy and therefore cannot hold up air. Back to my original conclusion, I bet we could overcome this handicap because hey we already can fly as a mass and in the future to come technology will most likely becoe so advanced either we will evolve and our anatomy will allow us to fly or we will develop the ability to fly will either propulsion or wings or any other means of flying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:57 pm
I get to play Devil's Advocate!
@wolfchild: Ah, but how do you KNOW that you wouldn't be able to fly if you thought you could? After all, you don't think you can fly, so obviously, you can't. I argue that the reason you believe that what is possible, is possible, is because you're used to believing it. I say that anything, bar none, is possible. The only reason humans are bound by the laws of the universe are because they're used to believing in those laws.
@spitfire: In my opinion, even if we did develop technology to allow humans to fly, that doesn't address the question of whether truth is objective or subjective; that's a question of technology rather than epistemology. But, the way you bring up the 2+2=5 issue is very relevant, because that's another way of looking at it. It's like saying yes, truth is objective, but that doesn't mean we perceive it clearly. After all, what if the objective and irrefutable truth is that our reality is subject to our beliefs, and thus, the objective truth is that truth is subjective?
rofl I can't believe I find this fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:24 pm
I see your point, but to argue, the first humans did not know that. Trial and error has showed us what is and what isn't possible. I am sure that the first humans tried to fly off a cliff trying to chase a bird for food, or tried to breathe water to catch fish. Obviously they had failed miserably. I look forward to hearing your rebuttal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:30 pm
As an answer to that, Mankind probably already knew about that and had the thought already in their brains from how long ago evolution began. Before we were actualy humans our de-evolutions would maybe have already tried to fly or breath underwater many thousands of years before humankind and as we exvolved the thought went with us but also our natural curiosity grew making us want to try and fly or breath underwater.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:40 pm
Do you know that the first humans didn't know that they couldn't fly or swim?
We do know that every species has certain things pre-programmed into their minds from birth, as a natural result of evolution. Women have a natural maternal instinct and are inclined to protect more than to destroy; men are naturally more oriented towards physical work and violence; children are naturally inquisitive; the cat instinctively attacks small moving things; many breeds of dog instinctively bark at strange people; and so on.
Who's to say that the so-called 'laws of physics' aren't actually just another natural psychological trait of human beings?
Maybe the reason we can't jump off cliffs and fly like Superman is simply that we are pre-programmed to subconsciously believe that we can't; in other words, not just because we are raised to believe such things are impossible, but because we are literally built so that such a possibility does not fit into what our minds are capable of conceiving.
I wonder if the first humans did try to fly or breathe underwater; if they did, surely they must have failed, but even if they did fail, did they fail because it's impossible? Or did they fail because they were naturally inclined to believe it was impossible - thus rendering it impossible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:01 pm
Truth is a combo; it changes. Humans cannot fly. No amount of believing will get you off the ground. Physically impossible. For now. Will humans evolve and be able to fly? They might. But until that happens, truth is objective. To say humans are never going to be able to fly is where truth becomes subjective. If we evolve, well, then... why not have gills? Then we'd be flying AND breathing underwater. See my point?
And as for early humans wanting to fly and jumping off cliffs to try, well, I highly doubt that. I don't know if early humans had the ability to think so highly, but I know that they knew that they were terrestial animals. Imitation does nothing: you know dogs see birds fly too, but they don't jump off cliffs trying to imitate them. You can argue that humans are not dogs, and that I don't know if when dogs jumps off cliffs they are trying to fly, but I seriously think that it was a long time before man went swimming and jumping off cliffs to see if he would sink or fly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
