Poll: Truth: Objective or Relative?

[Archon]

Hello Escapists! I'm currently engaged in a long e-mail debate with some colleagues from law school.

We are not debating *whether* truth is or is not objective, but debating what most people believe to be the case.

One faction in the debate believes that most people have been educated that truth is objective, while the other faction in the debate believes that most people have been taught that truth is relative.

This poll should help us decide which faction is correct about people's views. Please share your opinion. Thanks.

 

[Darth IB]

Truth is ultimately objective, as long as you're specific enough. If truth is subjective is not proper truth in my opinion

 

[Baby Tea]

Truth is ultimately objective, as long as you're specific enough. If truth is subjective is not proper truth in my opinion

I would agree with that.
If a truth is subjective (I.E. what foods/bands/movies are good), then we aren't talking truth, rather just opinion.
"Personal truth" is hardly "Truth" at all.

But maybe that's just my personal truth.

 

[2xDouble]

Why be limited to only one?

There are objective truths (the sky is black, water is wet, 1+1=2, etc.), and there are relative truths (that painting is beautiful, that person is innocent, space-time is static, etc.). Not all things considered "truth" fit into one or the other category.

 

[Raven's Nest]

I don't remember being taught either way but I believe matters of truth are objective... But it is impossible to verify actual truth without true objectivity... So in a way, what we as humans define as truth isn't necessarily true, so we must rely on relativity to explain the concept to others.

 

[Hiikuro]

Truth, as in the truth about the physical world, is objective. This is what remains when the opinions of everyone are thrown out of the window. The irony being that I proclaim this as a subjective statement.

Truth about ethical matters are subjective. Though I consider truth in ethics to be irrelevant. To me, any ethical argument starts with the assumption that something is right or wrong. Whether or not this assumption is correct or not is not decideable from an objective standpoint.

In the end, I leave ethics out of truth (meaning: I believe there are no truths in ethics), as ethics don't seem to be a fundamental physical element, but rather a human (or animal) construct, and thus is subjective.

As for personal opinions, this including what one likes or not, is entirely subjective. Truth is again irrelevant.

In conclusion, I consider truth defined as objective truth. That makes subjective truth irrelevant in the first place.

 

[Sejs Cube]

Both. It really depends on what manner of truth is being discussed at the time.

 

[Archon]

Both. It really depends on what manner of truth is being discussed at the time.dicks

For purposes of this poll, if you accept "truth is objective" than what you are saying is that statements that are not objectively true are opinions. "This painting is beautiful" is an opinion, if you believe in objective truth.

On the other hand, if you believe in relative truth, then "this painting is beautiful" is a truth, and "Alexander the Great conquered Persia" is a truth, of the same sort.

I hope that helps clarify what this poll is asking. It's not a trick question.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I absolutely believe that truth is relative. Granted, I tend to draw a lot of my philosophy from the Hindu idea of this world as Maya, an illusion made of Brahman, and as a result of, well, let's call them shamanic ceremonies that I have participated in, that idea is very real to me. If you accept that then the whole of perception is just a story, none of it is objectively true, meaning that it can only be true in a relative sense.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

I'd say "truth" is nothing but a social construction. Both in a semantic as well as in a pragmatic way:

The very definition of the word "truth" is a social construction as meaning something total absolute. The polar opposite of "false" - which you can already see as something subjective as being defined in that way.

Then, there is the pragmatic point: we cannot ascertain total truths. I cannot know if the color red, for example, is the same color red that I see, for everyone else. I can merely say that we all agree what "red" is on a social level which, again, defines the value of something being "true" or not. However, as individuals we cannot know for certain, thus making "truth" in its absolute sense not possible.
On a side note: Even Natural sciences can only measure proposed "truths" to a certain degree and can only verify them thus also to a certain degree. Total knowledge of quantities through measurement is not possible.

I would say that both points mean that "truth" is something entirely subjective. But then, you can begin to debate what "objective" and "subjective" in such a context means and we are off to an extensive philosophical debate...

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Technically speaking, as reality is subject to our perception, no truth can truly be an ultimate truth that isn't relative. We can perceive things as truth and even prove them as truths, but our proofs themselves will always be something that will use our own perceptions to perceive and thus nothing is truly concrete.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Truth is ultimately objective, as long as you're specific enough. If truth is subjective is not proper truth in my opinion

I don't even think the ultimate truth is objective...

Everything we take in of the world around us, and everything we consider to be reality or 'the truth', is based on the limitations of our brains and sensory systems. We already know we as a species do not have the sharpest senses on this planet, and looking beyond that there may be species in the cosmos with far higher brainpower than ours. So it follows that their understanding of what is around them, their 'truth' will be more advanced than ours; and there will probably be life forms out there that suppass even them, so the cycle goes on.

Someone might point to a table and say "That is a table, that is the truth." but when you think about it, the name table was given to it by a man. Is that man God? Does that man have a complete understanding of the universe? Can anything he says be taken as absolute truth? No, no, and no. If you take away the name what it is is a mass of atoms carved into a shape... and even then every noun I have just used to describe it was given to it by an imperfect entity, so cannot be true.

Put shortly, I don't believe the truth is objective or relative...
I believe the truth is a myth.

 

[similar.squirrel]

The truth is ultimately objective, but should be treated as relative under most circumstances. I don't know what context this is in, though. Scientific, social..?

 

[Jack_Uzi]

Truth is sbujective. Because the format of truth is what a person precieves as the truth and thus can not see it in any other way. So truth can never be objective, it can only be a socially accepted shared opinion about what truth could be.

 

[Scabadus]

I would have to say that truth is objective, but many people misuse the word. No matter how many times you state that a red car is actually blue it doesn't change the colour, in the same way that saying that a painting is beautiful doesn't nessicerily make it so for all observers.

 

[gigastrike]

Truth is objective. It doesn't matter how messed up your perception is, the truth is the truth.

 

[randomsix]

I like to think that the truth is objective. Too bad you would have to be omniscient to know it though.

So all truth as we know it is relative. But this doesn't mean no one can be wrong.

 

[Kilo24]

Hmm... how to phrase this...

There exists "truth", but even our best conception of it is really, really inaccurate because our capacities to analyze it suck. What is "truth" is objective; but what people usually call truth is relative because objectivity is a pretty hard feat for the human mind, and for the majority of knowledge outside of the hard sciences is impossible to verify with an objective source. Even within the hard sciences, we still don't do much objective work, since people rely so much on assumptions made by other people.

In other words, philosophy has confused me into not voting.