Well, actually Di, I think this shows vividly how certain things that people consider to be "truths" are indeed entirely subjective.

You speak of JB as though you understand her position on things well enough that you can draw the conclusions that you have stated above. My understanding of JB's position on things is quite different.

I would even venture to say that my understanding of JB is closer to "Her Truth", than your so-called understanding of her position which appears from my perspective to be a complete misunderstanding of things.

I feel this way simply because JB herself has stated quite often that I appear to understand her position on things.

I do not agree with all of JB's conclusions about specific things. But I don't feel that this is required. After all, her very own position is not held out to be 100% correct. The only thing that she holds to be 100% true is that she exists. I've never heard her state any certainties beyond that.

However, she does give her reasons why she feels that certain things are more likely to be true than others. Just as I do.

I also agree with her that it would be a total misunderstanding of her position to think that she supports solipsism.



Abra:


I can’t say I understand your confusion. In this thread we have been discussing reality, which you have aptly indicated are those things that we know (in your examples, through science) which match up to reality.

Whether a person can actually experience weightlessness or space flight is not reason not accept the reality surrounding the science which makes those things possible. We are intelligent and creative beings and with critical thought processes and abstract creativity we can internalize knowledge and base beliefs upon it without actually experiencing it.


I agree with all of that Di.

However, that still does not constitute sufficient reason to restrict our view of "reality" solely by the macro laws of Classical Physics.

If you're going to consider scientific knowledge and observations how can you ignore things like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?

There are Classical Notions that are being "held-out" as the position of science in general. Which is a false notion.

Sure, those observations and knowledge are indeed the scientific position concerning the macro laws of physics. But that's a restricted domain of applicability. To suggest that science in general demands that everything must be restricted to the Classical laws of physics would indeed be a gross misrepresentation of Modern Science.

~~~~

Now having said all of this, and getting back to JB's views on things, I do perceive that JB's views on reality allow for the possible overriding of the classical laws of physics.

But to be perfectly honest with you Di, I'm not convinced that this can't be the case. Just because we feel that the Classical laws of physics appear to be fairly rock solid, does not in anyway imply that there may not be ways to override them. Perhaps there is.

Perhaps the universe is some sort of computer or "Mind of God" that is generating the entire 3-D matrix that we experience as the macro world. The classical macro laws of physics are nothing more than the "programming" of this "mind" (or computer). And therefore it may very well be possible that we are the "programmers" via our very thoughts, and because of this our thought could potentially override any so-called "laws of physics" if we only knew how to do it.

Hey, Jesus said, "If you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move a mountain".

Maybe that's true. Who's to say that it's not?

There exist philosophies that allow for a world to exist that is indeed the result of pure thought. And those very philosophies provide for the apparent macro laws of physics that we experience.

So such philosophies are indeed consistent and plausible.

Who's to say that they can't be "truth"?

And obviously arguments such as "The Cup is on the Table" are extremely weak arguments against such philosophies because those philosophies already acknowledge that the cup is on the table. It's not a problem.

In fact, to continually act like as if it is a problem is really nothing more than to a display of gross ignorance concerning the philosophies that allow for this as part of a far deeper reality.

Even our modern scientific knowledge has revealed to us that there is a far deeper reality that lies beneath any cups on any tables.

Trying to restrict philosophy to only considering the Macro Classical Laws of Physics is not even a scientific position actually.

You need to totally reject the observations and findings of MODERN SCIENCE in order to hold that position.

So holding out the macro laws of classical physics as being the restricting "cornerstone of science" is no longer a tenable position.

That's just not where Modern Science is at.

It's actually grossly wrong to claim that Modern Science supports a view of reality that is solely restricted by the Macro Laws of Classical Physics.

That notion itself is totally false and untrue.

That does not make truth subjective. It makes people's understanding of truth muddled.

Could it be the difference between what the claimant says and what what the claimant means to say? Could it be the difference between using language consistently and not? Could it be that using the term "truth" to indicate belief, to denote fact, to denote opinion, is the real problem here?

There are unwritten rules to the language game.

Mutual understanding is a two way street. Understanding is not.

The truth itself is not subjective, ones definition of the word "truth", is.

Discussion about potential liars is irrelevant.

We're talking about truth. If a person is lying then clearly they aren't even speaking a truth. Thus it would be of no concern to us.



If, and only if, we conflate a true claim with that which makes it so. Abra, your response calls a truthful answer, or a true statement "a truth", or "truth". Doing such a thing is very very common, but it leads to needless confusion. That is because it muddles up the necessary distinction between a true claim and that which makes the claim true. There are much better ways to set these things out, ways which do not confuse truth and personal preference/taste, ways which do not confuse a true claim and truth, ways which show what truth does, rather than what people do with the term "truth". The beginning of the post has layed this out rather nicely. In closing, I'll offer what I find to be a much more powerful description of the example you've given.

People possess personal preferences/tastes. These differ from individual to individual. We call those subjective preferences/tastes. Those personal preferences/tastes are products of and/or represent the subject's mental states of affairs. So, the existence of those constitutes being a fact. The different answers to the question "Was today a beautiful day?" obtain truth soley by virtue of corresponding to those states of affairs that we call personal preferences/tastes. So we can see, once again, that the answers can be all true even though they seemingly conflict with one another. That is not because truth is subjective. Rather, that is so because each claim obtains it truth value by virtue of corresponding to fact/reality.


The bottom line here is that the very criteria that must evaluated must necessarily be a person's own subjective preferences.

There can be no getting around that.

Therefore a person's personal perspective of whether or not they considered a day to be "beautiful" is necessarily their own subjective truth.

There's no way that you can take that away from them.

Besides, we already have a very concrete scientific example of this in the twin brother's paradox. Even science reveals that some truths for humans are necessarily subjective (i.e. Observer dependent).

So we already have a confirmed case where at least some truths are indeed subjective based entirely on the perception of the individual who's truth we are considering.

You keep speaking in terms of absolutism.

You act like all truths must be "absolute". But we have already shown where this is not the case. At least for humans.

You speak of "understanding" as though it can be absolute.

But what would that mean?

When humans communicate, Mutual Understanding is indeed the goal.

You don't need to actually agree with the other person to understand their ideas and concepts.

Understanding does not require agreement.

Are you sure about that?

What about the Twin Brother's Paradox? Are those truths not subjective?

Well, if you say that they aren't, then "who's truth" are you speaking of?

How do you define "truth"?

What is your domain of applicability for this term?

I am sure that is what I believe and by my definition I can not call it the "truth". Beliefs are not truths they are opinions, people arrogantly confuse their own opinions for truth on a regular basis. This is why I say ones definition of truth is subjective. If you can not accept my opinion that is fine but it does not make either of our opinions true or not.

The entire platform presupposes honesty and truthfulness of testimony. That is meaningless without falsehood.

Now that's what I consider to be understanding.

True things can be believed, but all beliefs are not true things.

Beliefs are opinions whether they are true things or not.

Beliefs can be facts.

Facts can be believed or not believed.

Beliefs can be false.

Facts must always be supported and challenged.

You can persuade or convince someone to change their opinion but it is ridiculous to argue with them concerning their opinion by asking them to support or prove that their opinion is a true fact. They must be motivated or on a mission to convince you to adopt the same opinion before they will engage in such an exchange.

Opinions do not have to be supported when they are simply self reporting. It is only when a person wants to convince you to hold the same opinion that they must be supported.

If I said that I believe in the flying spaghetti monster I don't have to support that belief/opinion with evidence.

Another example:

"Your cousin Vince is guilty of murder."

The above demands evidence or proof. It implies that there is evidence.

"I believe your cousin Vince is guilty of murder."

The above reveals a personal belief or opinion. It does not imply that you have evidence. You cannot demand evidence. Instead you would ask:

"Why do you believe that?"

The answer might be: "It's just a gut feeling."

Does not follow. Confusing a true claim with what makes it so.

Correspondence to states of affairs is what makes the claims true.

We have no such thing. Conflates personal preference/taste with truth by calling a true claim "truth", by calling personal preference "truth". Confuses a true claim with that which makes it so.

Correspondence to fact/reality.

Not what I wrote.



False presuppositions cloud reason.