What is Objective Truth

[RubySera_Martin]

I am moving this over here from "Does somebody have to be wrong" in the Alternative section.

Ruby said:

If I would give you the name of the place where I live as my residence, I would be telling the truth.

juantoo3 said to Ruby:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you live at 101 Farmer's lane. That is what you know your address to be, that is your truth. I knew that property when Farmer Brown and his wife and family used to farm that property years ago. I still think of it as a part of Brown's farm. That is my reality and my truth. No less true than your truth. Provided of course, that we view truth as relative. In point of fact, neither of us is completely true, because that land was know by others by different names and uses etc long before farmer Brown came along, and that land will be known by still others for different reasons long after you have moved on and your grandkids have grandkids. Neither of us has the whole, complete objective truth.

The closest to objective truth about this property that either one of us can attain, is the geographic coordinates, longitude by latitude (or is it the other way?). That would be the only thing that could conceivably in this example serve as objective, irrefutable and undeniable truth to not only you and I, but to any and everyone who has any concern about this property. With the caveat that they must understand geographic coordinates, without which "the truth" is of no use to them.

[RubySera_Martin]

As I suspect you know, Juantoo, this is a topic with which I am so familiar it feels like the foundation of who I am. I'll skip a discussion on the pros and cons of that for now. Not knowing who owned every farm in the neighbour where I grew up would have been scandalous. Not knowing the parents and grandparents of all those people would have been little better. Why? We went to the same church and the same school. I am quite sure that I can also correctly list the names of everyone who is farming there today (excluding people from other churches) even though I have not lived there for several decades; I only go to visit. I feel almost like a traitor that I do not know the names of all the children who are now growing up on those farms and will someday own them but the human brain can only hold so much. So much for justification.

Equating land with truth is outside my frame of reference. Nearly ninety years ago my great-grandfather bought a certain plot of land for his daughter and future son-in-law. I don't know the name of the previous owner. My cousin is now farming the place. These facts are true to the best of my knowledge.

However, I don't understand how that farm becomes anyone's truth, objective or otherwise. The farm is a piece of land. The buildings are made of the stuff buildings are made of. Then there's the people and animals and plants. The people and plants (with the possible exception of some old trees) are either descendents of the original or brought in through marriage (people) or as seed (plants). The animals are probably renewed stock every so often. All of these facts are true to the best of my knowledge. I would guess there are either financial or legal records for every last fact listed here. But how do they become anyone's truth?

I tried doing a degree in philosophy and gave it up for obvious reasons. I do not understand the grammatical structure of that statement that the farm is someone's truth. How can truth be owned like that? I can say "the way I understand the situation," or "as I see it," or "according to such as such records," etc. And I could swear to the truth of those facts in a court of law if for some odd reason it were required. Thus, it is my understanding. It is my view of the matter, etc. But my truth???

I just don't understand the logic behind the word "truth" being used like that. Can anyone explain? Oh, as for the ancestral farm, since my cousin is single and has no children one of his nieces or nephews will probably get the farm when he retires. That is the truth of the situation as I understand it. It does not feel like it is mine, or anybody else's. It just is the way things are. Go and check it out for yourself if you don't believe it--it's that type of truth.

I think it's objective truth/fact because everybody in the world would agree to it given the legal system under which it exists in this particular part of the world at this point in history. That's about the best I know to state my question and support my arguement.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, RubySera!

OK, since I see my example is not being understood, allow me to try again.

Who owned the land before your great-grandfather? Who owned the land, named it and did anything at all with it or on it before it was "settled?" Who will own the land long after you are gone? How will they use it?

I have no way of answering these questions specifically, and I kinda wonder if you really can answer about the people before, I doubt you can predict who will come after. Let's say that before your little township was settled, it was a Native American encampment, maybe every couple of years or so. You call the farm by one name, perhaps the same name your great grand dad did. But what did the people your grand dad bought the property from call it? What did the Indians call it? Now, what will your grand kids call it? Will it still be a farm, or will it become a subdivision or a factory or a grain elevator? Relative truth is just that, relative, because it is relative to how we each as individuals view the world. As faithful to family as you may be, you do not see the world exactly the same way your mother or father or any of your siblings see the world. You do not see the world identically to what your grandparents saw, and you do not see exactly the same way your great grandparents saw. I guarantee, your children will not see the world the same way you do. And I guarantee you do not see the world the same way I do. Everybody sees the world differently, everybody has a unique perspective and outlook.

We all see the world through the collection of our experiences, and no two people's outlooks are the same. That is why and how each of our individual truths are relative, even if we are looking at substantially the same truth.
This is why I used the example of a piece of land, the land represents substantially the same truth. You may know that piece of land by a certain name, it may have a certain relevance to you, it holds certain meaning and value to you. That same piece of land may also hold certain relevance to me, but I call it by a different name, the meaning, relevance and value are different. We are both looking at the same piece of land, but that piece of land means different things to each of us. We have different truths regarding the same piece of land. This is relative truth. If you wish to equate in broad terms with the various religions of the world, OK, but it really gets down to the point of the individual, so that within each religion there are multitudes of subsets of varying degrees of truth.

An objective truth must be the one and only truth applicable to all. This is the basis of "fact." This is the basis of "reality." We each may view that piece of land differently, but each of us agrees it is composed of a layer of good topsoil on top of a layer of mineral earth on top of a layer of bedrock. And it is located at longitude whatever and latitude whatever. These are things that are unmistakable, we all understand these things if we have any understanding of earth and land at all. This is objective truth. Objective truth is what evidence points towards, therefore one needn't be a "believer," so much as have a basic understanding or intuition, it can be shown to a complete stranger with absolute understanding. It helps to be able to read a map, it helps to be familiar with growing practices, there is other education that may come in handy, but the bottom line is that no matter what your subjective / relative view of that piece of land is, what value and meaning it holds for you, and no matter what my subjective view is, the objective reality we both understand is that there is a piece of land. We both can point to it, we both can describe it to others, we both know how to make productive use of it, it is there. We can grab a handful of earth from it and crumble it between our fingers. It exists, it is real, it is objective reality, it is TRUTH.

I used the analogy of land because land is an indisputable truth. It is there, we can agree. When we get into what that land means, what value it holds, then it becomes a relative truth because we attach our sentiments and experiences to it.

How can truth be owned like that? I can say "the way I understand the situation," or "as I see it," or "according to such as such records," etc. And I could swear to the truth of those facts in a court of law if for some odd reason it were required. Thus, it is my understanding. It is my view of the matter, etc. But my truth???

Of course its your truth, who else's truth are you going to hold? Unless you do not think for yourself, or have any unique experiences to reference in your mind and heart. If everythink in your mind was someone else's truth, we would call that "brainwashing." So of course you own your truth. And I own my truth. I will not impose my truth on you, although I will offer to share it (what is called "teaching"). You will not impose your truth on me, although I may be willing to listen and consider (what is called "learning"). We could grow up side by side as identical twins, and we would still have different views because our collective experiences would not be identical. Maybe I've got a mole where you don't. Maybe I took to trucks and you took to tractors. Maybe I took to sheep and you took to cotton. Maybe mom liked you better, and dad liked me. Maybe I went into the service and you became a pacifist. And on and on throughout a lifetime, but especially in the "formative years," our experiences form our personality and outlook, and through these we view the world, and it is this view that colors and frames our perspective of what is true and what is not.

Go and check it out for yourself if you don't believe it--it's that type of truth.

I'm not one of those "reality is an illusion" type people. The impact of fist on face is enough to prove reality to me. So holding earth in one's hand is easy enough.

There is a practical reality, in which a shared understanding bridges across a culture. But shared understanding alone is not sufficient to mark objective reality or objective truth. This would be reality by consensus, which as we know is not always correct. The consensus at one time was that the world was flat, and anybody who thought otherwise was heretical. The consensus at one time was that the sun revolved around the earth, and anybody who thought otherwise was a heretic. So even shared cultural "truths" that everybody agrees about is still relative truth (and might not even be truth at all...).

[RubySera_Martin]

We each may view that piece of land differently, but each of us agrees it is composed of a layer of good topsoil on top of a layer of mineral earth on top of a layer of bedrock.

Whoa! Speak that which you know. You do not know that this piece of land is composed of this particular stuff. The "good topsoil" factor is not something you know. There is topsoil and it produces crops. Otherwise it could hardly be called a farm. How good those crops are is not something you know. Thus you can't make the statement about "good" topsoil unless you qualify it in some way. The whole post sounds like a lecture you've repeated twice a year for the past couple dozen years. (Now you're probably going to tell me you're a first-year philosophy student. I give up.)

These are things that are unmistakable, we all understand these things if we have any understanding of earth and land at all.

As a human who is reading this site, I am included in your "we all." I don't know these things but I do know land. Thus, your statement is false....

Okay, I've read through the post. I don't understand a thing you say. I think you are saying exactly what I said, except for the fact that you remove yourself one step further from the fact you are discussing. I think most of the questions you ask are answered in my posts, esp. the ones about who owned the land before my grandfather and who will own it after my cousin. But you treat the whole thing as if I were totally wrong. I conclude we are speaking two different languages.

And I still have no idea what "objective" truth is. I know what truth is and it belongs to everyone. Anyone who challenges my cousin's right to that piece of land is going to find himself in deep trouble. The same goes for other pieces of land owned by people I know. Unlike most of my relatives, I chose to invest in something other than land.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, RubySera!

You wouldn't be argumentative for the mere sake of being argumentative, would you?

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Whoa! Speak that which you know. You do not know that this piece of land is composed of this particular stuff. The "good topsoil" factor is not something you know. There is topsoil and it produces crops. Otherwise it could hardly be called a farm. How good those crops are is not something you know. Thus you can't make the statement about "good" topsoil unless you qualify it in some way.

How many times must I state for you, emphatically and without reservation, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. For your benefit, I stayed with the farmland analogy. I garden, I understand about topsoil. I can make certain valid assumptions based on my understanding of growing techniques. If it were not good topsoil, the farm would not produce any crops. Also, why would a farmer go to the trouble to plant and harvest acres and acres of "bad" crops?

The whole post sounds like a lecture you've repeated twice a year for the past couple dozen years. (Now you're probably going to tell me you're a first-year philosophy student. I give up.)

Nope. Second time here, except I used an ancient tree in a park before. And I am not even a philosophy student, officially. Just an interested amateur. Although I was asked as a student to teach one class in philosophy 101. I taught on St. Augustine's "Just War." So that "lecture" has been to the classroom.

As a human who is reading this site, I am included in your "we all." I don't know these things but I do know land. Thus, your statement is false....

Besides this being an EXAMPLE...it is also taken out of context. Let us place it back into context:

Originally Posted by jt3

An objective truth must be the one and only truth applicable to all. This is the basis of "fact." This is the basis of "reality." We each may view that piece of land differently, but each of us agrees it is composed of a layer of good topsoil on top of a layer of mineral earth on top of a layer of bedrock.(*this is basic agriculture 101!) And it is located at longitude whatever and latitude whatever. These are things that are unmistakable, we all understand these things if we have any understanding of earth and land at all. This is objective truth. Objective truth is what evidence points towards, therefore one needn't be a "believer," so much as have a basic understanding or intuition, it can be shown to a complete stranger with absolute understanding.

So, unless your gripe is only with the basic ag 101 and you already agree with the balance, then I will reiterate just one more time. Objective truth must be the same for all. Objective truth is what we also call "fact" and it is the reason we can convey a truth to complete strangers we never meet, even across time. Relative truth can theorhetically be conveyed as well, but there is often something lost in translation due to the nature of the "truth."

The sky is blue. Is this statement objective or relative, and why?

The sea is green. Is this statement objective or relative, and why?

We breathe oxygen. Is this statement objective or relative, and why?

Okay, I've read through the post. I don't understand a thing you say.

The simple nutshell: Relative truth is from each person's perspective; belief, intuition, experience. Objective truth is true for all regardless of belief; proven, fact, reality.

But you treat the whole thing as if I were totally wrong. I conclude we are speaking two different languages.

WTF??? You asked a question, I provided an answer. You challenged the answer, I provided a deeper answer. Now you nitpick, looking for loopholes (sure you're not a lawyer?), and it's somehow my fault??? The only fault I have is in engaging you in this pointless conversation. There is a difference between not understanding, and refusing to understand.

I know what truth is and it belongs to everyone.

Very well, what is truth? What is your definition of truth for everyone?

Anyone who challenges my cousin's right to that piece of land is going to find himself in deep trouble. The same goes for other pieces of land owned by people I know.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

[wil]

I'd hesitate to say it looks like you are getting stuck on nuance, since that seems to be the topic. Reminds me an awful lot of the absolute truth discussion, but I'm hoping no one here has particular agenda... I would like to understand how they relate though, absolute and objective...

If I may jump in...

>>The sky is blue. Is this statement objective or relative, and why?

relative, based on perspective, and incompleteness sunrise, sunset, nighttime, overcast...


>>The sea is green. Is this statement objective or relative, and why?

relative, color varies with location...from space quite blue, from a ship often green, black, in the islands amazingly blue...

>>We breathe oxygen. Is this statement objective or relative, and why?

I guess objective...We is us, if breathe is what goes in and out of our lungs, and oxygen is one of the many ingredients exchanged in the process. While it isn't the only, nor do we take in to our bodies all the oxygen we inhale..we do breathe oxygen. I'm agreeing because if we debate the definition of 'is' we won't get anywhere.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Wil!

Seems to me you've got a pretty good handle on this subject.

Originally Posted by wil

I'd hesitate to say it looks like you are getting stuck on nuance, since that seems to be the topic. Reminds me an awful lot of the absolute truth discussion, but I'm hoping no one here has particular agenda...

No agenda on my part, although I too wonder...

I would like to understand how they relate though, absolute and objective...

I have to qualify this by saying I don't recall the "absolute truth" thread. So, pleading ignorance and simply going with the terms, I would say that IMO absolute and objective are essentially one and the same.

If I may jump in...

>>The sky is blue. Is this statement objective or relative, and why?

relative, based on perspective, and incompleteness sunrise, sunset, nighttime, overcast...


>>The sea is green. Is this statement objective or relative, and why?

relative, color varies with location...from space quite blue, from a ship often green, black, in the islands amazingly blue...

>>We breathe oxygen. Is this statement objective or relative, and why?

I guess objective...We is us, if breathe is what goes in and out of our lungs, and oxygen is one of the many ingredients exchanged in the process. While it isn't the only, nor do we take in to our bodies all the oxygen we inhale..we do breathe oxygen.

Sounds like pretty good guesses to me.

I'm agreeing because if we debate the definition of 'is' we won't get anywhere.

Do we really want to open that can'o'worms?

Thanks for stabilizing this.

[wil]

So if anyone has a few spare days...check out the topics on truth here on this site over the past few years....

[RubySera_Martin]

Wil, thanks for your examples and explanations. I think I understand those. I will go over the examples in my own words so you can tell me if I am correct.

So it seems that an objective truth is a statement that is true for all time and all places and in no way dependent on situation and/or conditions. So long as we are alive we breath oxygen. When we are deprived of oxygen for more than a very limited time we die. Thus "We breath oxygen" is an objective truth.

However, a statement about the colour of the sky or sea is dependent on, or related to, many different conditions. Therefore it is relative truth.

Thus, the statement "This piece of land belongs to my cousin" is a relative truth because it depends on time and condition; it is true at this point in time but has not always been true nor will it always be true. Am I getting it?

As for something being "my" truth or "your" truth--isn't that just a fancy way of saying "this is how I see it" or "that is your position"?

If I am correct in this, it would seem that "relative truth" and "objective truth" are not statements that belong in normal everyday life. They work only for abstract philosophical discussion. Am I on the right track?

My "agenda" is to learn and understand what is meant by these terms. However, when I get the impression that my best efforts are discounted for so much garbage, as seemed to be the case above...well, that kind of thing puts most people into a defensive mode. Thanks, Will, for intervening.

[wil]

Perception seems to be key in much of life. And particularly in the realm of my car, my land, my belief, my thought, my religion... and the word that seems to have issue is that possesive 'my' which does make us defensive when we decide our 'my' has been attacked...and makes it hard to remain objective.

I also am on the learning curve 'round here. Very little in the way of fomal education I so appreciate virtual mingling with those much more well informed than I. On the absolute truth thread we were debating as to whether absolute truth existed...I think the goal there was to not only prove that it did exist but once we did that someone was ready to tell us that they had the key to it. And truthfully while I'd love that, to know that...I would really need to see how it could be experienced right now, and by everyone who choosed to, ie not based on perception.

But that is what has become my absolute objective truth, that it appears everything darn near is based on perception. ie if I were a tree, would I not breathe oxygen but exhale it...

So in life everything that happens.... is and my perception makes it good or bad. My perception allows me to grow from it or wallow in it. My perception allows me to forgive or whine the rest of my life to whoever will listen...no right or wrong, simply my perception of what occurs...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, RubySera!

when I get the impression that my best efforts are discounted for so much garbage, as seemed to be the case above...well, that kind of thing puts most people into a defensive mode.

I am not sure where or how you got the idea I was attacking you, or "discounting" your ideas. If I in some way did so, I apologize, but I really do not see where I did so. I do understand how an attitude that is not there can be read into something, which is why I try very hard to watch what I say and how I say it. If I intend sarcasm, I make it very plain and evident. If I intend anger or some other unpleasantness, I make that apparent as well. I seldom use anger. I use sarcasm more often, even then I meter it out. I used neither of these with you up until you expressed anger with me. I am truly confused, as I did not point any attitude at you, and you came screaming back at me with attitude. I can let bygones be bygones, if they truly are bygone…

BTW, I think you finally have it figured out.

Peace? It's your call…

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Wil!

Originally Posted by wil

Perception seems to be key in much of life. And particularly in the realm of my car, my land, my belief, my thought, my religion... and the word that seems to have issue is that possesive 'my' which does make us defensive when we decide our 'my' has been attacked...and makes it hard to remain objective.

Agreed. It can be difficult when our "my truth" is challenged, particularly when that challenge is well formed and hard to get around. It can be difficult to lay aside our preconceived notions and follow where evidence leads. It is so much easier to begin with the end and fill in the blanks with convenient truths. Of course, this is not ethical.

I also am on the learning curve 'round here. Very little in the way of fomal education I so appreciate virtual mingling with those much more well informed than I.

I get the feeling there's a lot of that going on around here, a lot of kindred spirit in that sense.

On the absolute truth thread we were debating as to whether absolute truth existed...I think the goal there was to not only prove that it did exist but once we did that someone was ready to tell us that they had the key to it. And truthfully while I'd love that, to know that...I would really need to see how it could be experienced right now, and by everyone who choosed to, ie not based on perception.

There is a similar argument on the subject of morality, that is, whether or not there is an objective morality. At first glance it seems unmistakably so, and then you start looking...and then maybe morality isn't quite so objective after all...

But that is what has become my absolute objective truth, that it appears everything darn near is based on perception. ie if I were a tree, would I not breathe oxygen but exhale it...

Except at night, when you would breathe oxygen like the animals...so yeah, almost every truth out there is relative. And it is hard to limit your "belief" to objective truth because of two problems I have found: either you end up worshipping science in some form or other, or you end up discounting spiritual experience(s) because by their nature they cannot be proven. So every religion has some element of relative belief, something that "must" be taken on faith.

So in life everything that happens.... is and my perception makes it good or bad. My perception allows me to grow from it or wallow in it. My perception allows me to forgive or whine the rest of my life to whoever will listen...no right or wrong, simply my perception of what occurs...

I have heard this before elsewhere. Still not sure I agree, but I think I see. I can also see how this can easily cross from truth to morality to reality and back among all three. It gets complicated, and confusing. No wonder so many just walk away shaking their heads...

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by wil

So if anyone has a few spare days...check out the topics on truth here on this site over the past few years....

Ummm, hey, Wil...checked the link and I'm not getting anywhere. It's a dead end. What forum and what is the thread name?

[wil]

lotta good that does...

it was this site...I clicked on search, then advance search and then typed truth, and clicked on search titles only...still didn't find absolute truth, but did locate another objective truth....and lots of other truth!!

So lets see when it comes to religions all truth is relative, unless of course we are talking mine, which in that case it absolutely objective truth or objecitively absolute truth...

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by wil

lotta good that does...

it was this site...I clicked on search, then advance search and then typed truth, and clicked on search titles only...still didn't find absolute truth, but did locate another objective truth....and lots of other truth!!

Yeah, I did some looking too and came up empty. 'Course, I hurried, so I might have looked right over it.

So lets see when it comes to religions all truth is relative, unless of course we are talking mine, which in that case it absolutely objective truth or objecitively absolute truth...

Well, maybe...except for mine, of which I am posilutely absitive (or is that absitively posilute?) is the one and only objective truth.

Can we start a war now???

(*Just kidding, please don't take this seriously*)