You said that "I am" is meaningless without a predicate. No it is not.

The clarification falls on the word "be."

Look up the word "is"

–verb
1.
3rd person singular present indicative of be.

Use:

It is.

I am.

So you've been wrong every time you said it. Truth is not an opinion. Objective fact is not an opinion. The sun is not an opinion. The moon is not an opinion. My cup is not an opinion. This keyboard is not an opinion. The claim is not true.



Yes, and your point of view confuses truth with your belief by calling your belief "the truth".



Yes, I know.



Yes, we do.

As far as I can see we have actually answered the question of the thread as best as it can be answered.

The question was, "Is truth subjective?"

That only reasonable answer is clear. The only truth that we can ever truly know is that we subjectively experience existence. This is the only self-evident truth that anyone can know.

They could attempt to deny the existence of this self-evident truth, but to do so would irrationally require them to claim that it's not self-evident to them that they exist. That would be an obviously irrational stance to take.

So everyone who acknowledges the self-evident truth that they exist is already starting out with the recognition of that the most fundamental truth of all is indeed subjective.

Therefore we have actually shown without any ambiguity that all truth must ultimately be subjective.

Q.E.D.

This foundational insight has been in place since the dawn of humanity. We know that it is the basis of the Eastern Mystical philosophies and they have been around since the dawn of history.

So we've actually recognized that truth is subjective since the dawn of human history.

All by itself it is meaningless. It needs distinction between what I am and what I am not in order to have meaning.



It is.... what? If we are talking and I ask "Is the cup on the table?" and you look and say "It is." then it has meaning attached to it.

I am... what? If we are talking and I ask "Are you so and so?", and you answer "I am." then we have meaning attached.

My only point is/was that we cannot remove everything else and expect "I am" or "I exist" to have any meaning, because they don't.

It does not matter what it is.

"It is." ... is a complete and proper sentence. It is not misuse of the English language.

"I am." is a complete and proper sentence. It is not a misuse of the English language.

They have meaning.

That you say they do not, is your opinion. It does not make it true.

Now you are saying that "I exist." does not have meaning?

Ridiculous.

Admit defeat.

Have some iced tea!

It does not follow from the fact that human experience is subjective that truth is. I certainly do not see any justification for that that claim that does not immediately negate it.

According to the above, it is unreasonable to say that I know that my cup is on the table. I would not call that claim "a truth". Rather, I would call that a bit of knowledge. I believe it, I can justify it, and it corresponds to fact/reality... it is justified true belief. It's self-evident as well... you can look for yourself.

Other self evident axioms include...

All meaning is contingent upon distinction.
A claim cannot be both true and false simultaneously.
I believe X means I believe X is true.
If all A's are contingent upon B, and all B's upon C, then all A's are contingent upon C.

I mean, there are numerous self-evident claims. It is certainly being unreasonable to call all others "unreasonable". I mean, there they are... some of 'em anyway.



One can deny that the claim 'I exist' is a "self-evident truth" without denying their own existence. The fact that I exist is evident... here I am. Calling a self-awareness claim "a self-evident truth" is what I'm rejecting. It is a bit of knowledge. Namely, knowing how to make the self-referencing claim.



We have shown nothing of the sort. "I exist" is not true because we say it, nor is it true because we become self-aware and are equipped to be able to say it. "I exist" is true because it corresponds to fact/reality.

The cup exists and it doesn't think at all.

'I exist' IFF I exist.

None of these stand alone, each of these require something other that the subject to obtain meaning.

"I exist"
"I am"
"It is"

What does "I exist" mean all by itself?

What does "I am" mean all by itself?

What does "It is" mean all by itself?

None of these have any meaning whatsoever without 'other'.

Abra,

Your argument is also a prima facie example of affirming the consequent, begging the question, presupposing the conclusion in your premisses.

I'll gladly admit that those are common uses of the English language. What I am pointing out is the fact that they do not stand alone, all by themselves. In the context of a discussion they all will obtain meaning through the context, not in and of themselves. That is what I'm objecting to here. The notion that they are meaningful in and of themselves.

"I exist." Means exactly what it says. If you want me to spell it out for you, it is a declaration by a conscious unit (observer) that it realizes its own existence.

"I am" means "I exist."

"It is" standing alone, literally means "it exists.'

Go ask your English professor.

Within a context the meaning may be more specific or even altered a little.

But they do stand alone.

I understand them perfectly. They have meaning to be.

Therefore, if they have meaning to anyone, then they have meaning.

You're claiming that "I exist" stands alone and means "exactly what it says", but then you go on to offer a meaning which is not exactly what it says. Rather the meaning you've laid out is something 'other' than what it says, which is exactly the point I've made and you've repeatedly confirmed.

The question is not if they have meaning to anyone within the context of living and becoming self-aware, learning language, remembering definitions, etc. The point is that the claim "I exist" is a demarcation of self-awareness and that requires other than self to have any meaning whatsoever.

One finger cannot point at itself.

Applied meaning is necessarily contingent upon first making a distinction.

That is why I did not really want to have to explain it to you in that way. I exist means EXACTLY what it says.

If you say is has no meaning then it is YOU who fail to understand.

My explanation was not a definition of it. I was simply trying to help you understand what it means since you don't seem to get it.

So, excuse me for trying to help you understand what it means.

Don't turn that against me, or else I won't give you any help in the future.

You just want to win an argument I think. Figure it out for yourself then. Next time I won't take your bait. You just get all tied up in trivial semantics. Waste of my time.

And that, my friend, is why I created you.

I can know i exist without you. Without "others."

But Now I have acknowledgment, since I manifested others.

I knew I existed, but I needed someone else to acknowledge my existence.

So I created others.

So sayeth the Lord.

Amen.

But isn't that the crux of it right there?

In the above quote you are attempting to turn the self-evident truth of someone's experience of existence into a mere opinionated objective claim of self-awareness. And you are "claiming" to have done this using "logical analysis".

That's like being on the outside looking in.

Jeanniebean is speaking from the center of existence. She is speaking from that which is. She is the experience of self-awareness. She's not making this claim "objectively" for someone external from her to analyze with some supposed formal logical system.

She's speaking from the center of her truth. It's not her opinion. It's not her claim. It not up for objective analysis at all. It's simply her reality. It is the only truth she can be certain of. She is that she is. There is no denying that.

Her experience of existence is her truth, therefore if your logical formalism isn't equipped to deal with that truth then clearly it's your logical formalism that is necessarily flawed and in question.

Her truth remains unscathed by your external "claims" that it doesn't pass your objective logical analysis.

You never cease to amaze me. You never cease to understand.

This is where the Eastern Mystics would disagree with you. It is their claim that consciousness needs no stimuli to exist. In fact they try extremely hard to achieve mental states of consciousness where they virtually ignore all sensory input, and thoughts.

They call this transcendental meditation because it transcends sensory input and thought.

What does "I exist" mean all by itself? It means that you can be aware that you exist without any need for thought or sensory input. Without any need for 'other' as you claim.

That is a "claim" that you would need to prove.

You say, "None of these have any meaning whatsoever without 'other'."

That's your "claim".

It's up to you to prove it. I can only say "Good luck with that!".

True/truth in a scientific realm means factual, verified to utmost that can be done.

So in that realm truth is not subjective.

But in everyday people truth is very subjective and unverified/verifiable in lots of cases.