That it is called true is a matter of opinion. Whether or not it is true is not.

'The cup is on the table' IFF the cup is on the table.

The original claim...



After being asked to justify the above the below was given...



So we have an original claim that has went unsupported, along with another which calls the original a "TRUE claim". Truth claims are about the way things are. The claim is that truth is meaningless and useless if it has to remain objective and if it is never subjective. I'm claiming that it is neither objective nor subjective. It is connective. It connects thought/belief about reality to reality. This always holds good in practice.

If one holds that truth is subjective they also hold that reality is subjective in the same way. The same holds good for those who claim that truth is objective. Truth and reality are necessarily entwined in thought/belief, because that entwinement facilitates thought/belief formation as has already been explained in this thread. This holds for any and all consistent positions on truth, or reality regardless whether they are called objective or subjective.

The reason for this is that truth is neither, thus binds the positions together in the same way. That is because truth is connective.

Truth is central to all thought, belief, and knowledge... and therefore central to everything spoken and/or written.

What do you mean by "central?"

To report one's feelings or personal judgment is to use language to put them forth. How else can one report anything?



All reporting of one's opinion is a positive assertion. It is to say here is what my opinion is on the matter at hand. All positive assertions are claims. Therefore, all reports of opinions are claims.



What I want is meaningful coherent use of our language.



This is false in two ways that I'm willing to comment on.

1. It is based upon false presupposition. Namely presupposing that you somehow know what my wants are. Judging by the above, you don't. What basis does anyone have for making claims about anothers wants, especially when those claims about another's wants contradict what has been clearly expressed by the wanting person?

True conclusions cannot validly follow from false presuppositions.

2. Depending upon the context, there can be sufficient information about what is being opined. There is a significant difference between opinion and subjective personal preference/taste. It would be ridiculous to argue against someone's subjective preferences/tastes, but that is not the same as arguing against stated opinions about X.



Some people know that stated opinions about X are claims about X. "I think" is necessarily presupposed by all claims. Opinions are nothing more than statements of belief.

There are no objective claims.

That truth is necessarily presupposed in thought/belief. I think/believe X means I think believe that X is true, is the case, is the way things are... without exception.

Thank you for proving my point by example. Your response, as far as I'm concerned, is gibberish. If anyone reading this thread can understand it or agrees with it, please explain it to me because I don't know.



I use "our language" perfectly. I am an A student in English, and always have been. I speak clearly and simply. Even an idiot can understand what I am saying.

For you to call it incoherent is not only false but illogical.

Expressing my opinions is how I communicate. You cannot argue with opinions and that apparently annoys you. When people don't agree with you, that also apparently annoys you.

Deal with it.

I have you all figured out now.

I think some truths are subjective but others (much like the ones in the political thread, which I'd rather not get into here), are objective. Some things are matters of fact regardless of what one thinks on the matter, and others are matters of opinion.

The trick is in understanding which is which, what is true and what isn't, and also understanding what facts are more important than others as well. That is to say, sometimes it's not all that important to be right even if you are, where other times it's different.

Can you support any of those claims to reason and logic by offering some?



1. Why can't opinions be argued with?
2. How does a lack of understanding on your part constitute gibberish on mine?
3. How can one have another "all figured out" when they do not understand what they write?

What are you calling a subjective truth? We need an example to work with.

EDIT: I misunderstood you, when I speak of subjective truths, it's stuff like: "this is the best movie" or "pizza is the best food ever". Stuff like that that is true for one person, but may or may not be true for someone else, it is based on preference.

I understand the dilemna, what I don't understand is where there is a subjective truth in all of that.

Reports of opinions are only claiming that the reporter has a specific opinion for an unknown reason. It is not a 'claim' by that reporter that the opinion is true. For example:

"I believe aliens exist and are responsible for cattle mutilations."

Or even: "I think its very likely that aliens are responsible for crop circles."

When someone asks me to give them reasons for why I said that or why I believe that, I can only give my personal reasons. But they want to insist that I provide proof of some kind "to support my claim."

I am not making the claim that aliens exist or that aliens are responsible for crop circles. My claim is that I believe or suspect this is the case. My claim is that I think this is very likely. My claim is that I have an opinion on the subject, not that I KNOW IT FOR A FACT.

It is ridiculous to argue with someone about their opinions. Sometimes they are just opinions. Perhaps people should NEVER express their opinions in your world.

If that were the case, I don't think there would be much communication at all.

You look at everything as a claim. I look at everything as an opinion.

Jb,

Do you believe your opinions?

No problem.

So...

"This is the best movie" is a subjective truth on your view?

How is that true at all? Perhaps it be better put, what makes that claim true?

What is that supposed to mean?

Answers:

1. You can't argue with my opinion because, as you have said before, ITS NOT ABOUT ME. My opinion is a report ABOUT ME. it is not about a state of affairs or a truth claim about a state of affairs.

2. I understand plain English. You don't write plain English. If you consistently fail to get your point across again and again, with a person like me who speaks plain and simple English, then the failure to communicated is on your head, not mine.

I did not take a college course in logic and I don't use all the vocabulary and terms that you use. If a college course in logic cranks out people who all talk the way you do, they are going to have a problem in the real world.

3. I don't understand what my cat means by "meow" either but I know when she wants to be fed or to go outside. I have her all figured out too.

I would reveal what I have learned about you, but it is against forum rules to go off topic and get personal. Not to mention that it is irrelevant what I think and you are clearly not interested in my personal opinions.

It is not about me or my opinions so it is irrelevant if I believe them or not. Opinions change all the time. They are fleeting and temporary.

This is incoherent, Jb.

The last claim contradicts the first two.

It is to say "I believe that aliens exist", but I'm not claiming that aliens exist.

Are you equal to your own thought/belief about the world?