[SereneTugBoat]

If the world had no color and you had a dream where
you experienced color how can you define what "truth" is?
There is no way to objectively prove it but your experience
of it prevents you from simply writing it off. You know
the experience but cannot objectively prove it, so how
is "truth" defined here?

I thought this was interesting because a person in
this situation would have inner conflict.

 

[Neobick]

You can make this really silly if you want like "In a world with no cows, and you had a dream about cows, how would you prove they were cows?"

 

[SereneTugBoat]

You can make this really silly if you want like "In a world with no cows, and you had a dream about cows, how would you prove they were cows?"

Ya, I just picked something. I went with color because it's
something we all agree upon but if only one person experiences
it, you can't show it in the form of an object to another person.

 

[Neobick]

Ya, I just picked something. I went with color because it's
something we all agree upon but if only one person experiences
it you can't show it in the form of an object to another person.

Do I understand you correctly when I say that if I had a dream about dragons, I couldnt prove I had a dream about them?

Because thats the case, you cant prove your dreams. But that doesnt make them subjective, only if two people had the same dream and saw two different things you could speculate about subjectivness. But nothing is saying that someone didnt misunderstood it.

 

[str1nger]

Your idea of a cow would be true. But that doesn't mean that the cow itself would be objectively true, e.g. manifest itself in the external, objective reality.

 

[Sed Non Satiata]

If the world had no color and you had a dream where
you experienced color how can you define what "truth" is?
There is no way to objectively prove it but your experience
of it prevents you from simply writing it off. You know
the experience but cannot objectively prove it, so how
is "truth" defined here?

I thought this was interesting because a person in
this situation would have inner conflict.

Unverified personal gnosis is always true. It just isn't necessarily universally true.

 

[pie]

what does this even mean, "if the world had no color". do you mean if color does not exist? but color is just how we perceive different wavelengths of light, isn't it? so is this the absence of light? or maybe it is just that we are blind. can a person born blind dream in color? but in this case, light/color and non-blind eyes do exist, so that is a different question/scenario.

I am of the opinion that truth = objective truth. I don't know what people mean by "it's true for me" or "this is my personal truth". it may seem true for you and you might live like it is true and thus it informs your decisions/behavior/etc..., but that doesn't somehow make something objectively true. therefore (in my opinion, or as one might say, in my personal truth?) it is not actually "truth".

 

[Trainwreck]

Ultimately, living behind a human pair of eyes nothing will ever be objectively true. The experiences we receive ultimately dictate our conception of reality. Do I have the means to prove Einstein was right? Certainly not. Rather I must trust that all of the textbooks are not lying to me. There is only the verisimilitude of objectivity, an effort, that is something is 'more objective' by way of a preponderance of experiences, ie, every textbook tells me Einstein is right therefore I have painted the universe through the connections in my mind to resemble this, and it is fallible. Ultimately making my pursuit as an INTP for the truth fruitless, and that's the truth.

 

[str1nger]

Ultimately, living behind a human pair of eyes nothing will ever be objectively true. The experiences we receive ultimately dictate our conception of reality. Do I have the means to prove Einstein was right? Certainly not. Rather I must trust that all of the textbooks are not lying to me. There is only the verisimilitude of objectivity, an effort, that is something is 'more objective' by way of a preponderance of experiences, ie, every textbook tells me Einstein is right therefore I have painted the universe through the connections in my mind to resemble this, and it is fallible. Ultimately making my pursuit as an INTP for the truth fruitless, and that's the truth.

Note that that is only true for a posteriori statements, such as "all swans are white." A priori statements like "2+2=4" can be known as true. This is because all a posteriori statements are based on empiricism that can never be positively verified.

To explain this a little bit further: a priori can always be deducted using reason alone. 4 is inherent in 2+2. A posteriori statements requires knowledge about the external reality. Since we can never know that this reality actually exists, we can never make certain statements about it. But 2+2 will always be 4, whether the world we believe we live in actually exists in some way or not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

 

[pie]

Ultimately, living behind a human pair of eyes nothing will ever be objectively true.

I think our ability to recognize objective truth will always be imperfect, but that doesn't mean objective truth doesn't exist. some things exist. some events occur. (unless our existence is just a dream or simulation, but then I think a dreamer or simulator would have to exist, and the dream would be occurring, would it not?)

 

[Sed Non Satiata]

I think our ability to recognize objective truth will always be imperfect, but that doesn't mean objective truth doesn't exist. some things exist. some events occur. (unless our existence is just a dream or simulation, but then I think a dreamer or simulator would have to exist, and the dream would be occurring, would it not?) but also some things we might believe in do not exist, and some events did not occur the way we remember them.

If our ability to recognize objective truth is always imperfect, then how can you assert that we've recognized it at all? What exactly is objective, if we cannot apprehend it?

 

[str1nger]

I think our ability to recognize objective truth will always be imperfect, but that doesn't mean objective truth doesn't exist. some things exist. some events occur. (unless our existence is just a dream or simulation, but then I think a dreamer or simulator would have to exist, and the dream would be occurring, would it not?)

Very true, something has to exist. We just can't know what or how it is.

If our ability to recognize objective truth is always imperfect, then how can you assert that we've recognized it at all? What exactly is objective, if we cannot apprehend it?

Objective = what actually exists. There has to be something objective, but we can't know what or how it is.

If you think about it, Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum" - I think, therefore I am - is actually not true, because there's a logical gap between the existence of his thought and his existence. You can, however, derive that something has to exist, something that "thinks his thought" or at least gives the impression of doing so.

 

[Sed Non Satiata]

Objective = what actually exists. There has to be something objective, but we can't know what or how it is.

Why does there have to be something objective? Are you trying to imply that whatever exists empirically is objective? I thought we were talking about objective "truth"?

 

[pie]

If our ability to recognize objective truth is always imperfect, then how can you assert that we've recognized it at all? What exactly is objective, if we cannot apprehend it?

(oops, sorry, I was in the middle of editing my post when you quoted it; I think I had made things more complicated so I had deleted the last bit.)

anyway, my assertion is merely that some things exist and some events have occurred, and that would be the objective truth. sometimes we can recognize and understand some of it, but given our limitations, I do not think we can understand all of it. at least, we haven't yet. doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand it all better, of course.

 

[pie]

(btw, I suspect we are not all using the word "truth" in the same way and are thus not understanding each other. true?)

 

[Trainwreck]

Note that that is only true for a posteriori statements, such as "all swans are white." A priori statements like "2+2=4" can be known as true. This is because all a posteriori statements are based on empiricism that can never be positively verified.

To explain this a little bit further: a priori can always be deducted using reason alone. 4 is inherent in 2+2. A posteriori statements requires knowledge about the external reality. Since we can never know that this reality actually exists, we can never make certain statements about it. But 2+2 will always be 4, whether the world we believe we live in actually exists in some way or not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

A priori is merely they layout of the biological circuitry, that which we cannot transcend. Yes 2+2 can never equal 5, if it did it means a wire has crossed, which would not be conducive to our survival. The way we were wired is merely a tool for our survival, and we may not transcend it. Fire has always burnt me in the past, therefore I know longer touch it. Espousing knowledge in text books has brought me good grades in the past therefore I believe what they say as far as Einstein goes, and because it fits within our circuitry, the one that makes sure 2+2=4 and not 5, because if we're not right with our a priori we aren't going to get very far. It's also a priori that we are from birth conditioned to obey our experiences.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Everything a human observes as true derives from the electrical and chemical impulses in the nervous system. Even the words one reads represents different signals for different brains to interpret, connecting with various associative subconscious and conscious symbols, relative to the momentary perception, or sense datum received (or not received through obstruction or limitation).

 

[str1nger]

Why does there have to be something objective? Are you trying to imply that whatever exists empirically is objective? I thought we were talking about objective "truth"?

Whatever exists empirically is true in the a posteriori sense of truth. If you're on "Who wants to be a millionaire" and they ask you when Martin Luther King was assasinated and you answer "April 4th, 1968", that is the truth. Basically, everything that you need an outside source to confirm its validity is truth in the a posteriori sense. Like the assasination of MLK, if you don't know when it was you need some kind of source to tell you when it was. No matter how long and hard you think about it, it's impossible to get there if you don't know it.

A priori on the other hand can be worked out without an outside source. If you don't know what the answer for 2+2 is, you can work it out with your intellect. This might be easy for some and difficult for others, but it is possible. You don't need any outside source.

But no statement about objective truth can be derived from empirical truth. Even if you've spotted 1000000000000000000000 white swans, you can't say for sure that the next swan you're going to see isn't going to be blue. It's just highly unlikely. The same is true for causation. Without previous observation, it would be impossible to say what the effect of any given cause may be. You may want to read about the problem of induction: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction Or even better, Hume himself: gutenberg.org/ebooks/9662

A priori is merely they layout of the biological circuitry, that which we cannot transcend. Yes 2+2 can never equal 5, if it did it means a wire has crossed, which would not be conducive to our survival. The way we were wired is merely a tool for our survival, and we may not transcend it. Fire has always burnt me in the past, therefore I know longer touch it. Espousing knowledge in text books has brought me good grades in the past therefore I believe what they say as far as Einstein goes, and because it fits within our circuitry, the one that makes sure 2+2=4 and not 5, because if we're not right with our a priori we aren't going to get very far. It's also a priori that we are from birth conditioned to obey our experiences.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say. Obviously, if you ask a question like " Does something have to be objective to be true?" you have to believe in the fact that the world - and by that I mean, everything - is based on logic. If you think that everything is irrational there is no point in asking or answering questions because you could never find out any answer. I'm sure this belief is something that most INTPs will agree with. We're so Ti-heavy and deduct all the time that it would be nearly impossible to convince us that this deductive process is not leading us to true conclusions.

What you're saying about fire and Einstein is a posteriori though. I'm sure you're aware of that, just saying.

 

[Pacifique]

truth can be both just sensory, physical
and it can be emotional also i think
depending on what the target is
emotional truths can vary from person to person
say a certain situation can be beneficial for person A and destructive to person B
in that sense that certain situation becomes a multi faceted thing
so i think one's current sentiment is a truth in itself also because it clearly is a phenomenon on its own : feeling
so stay true to your feelings no matter what
there could be shared truths, multiple truths, individual truths, truths that ring our heart or truths that speak to our intellect or whatever
at the end of the day it is which truth you hold on to or you find matters more

 

[Psilocin]

True objectivity is beyond words or rationalization.