is truth subjective?

[induction]

hey guys, this is my first post. hopefully you see it.
anyways, my claim is that yes, truth is subjective. Here is what i used to convince myself and pls feel free to see if i made any mistakes in my reasoning (i def did cuz no way is this true). thx

premise 1: to evaluate the truth value of a claim you must adopt a "world" to view the claim from (e.g 1+1 =2 is True if 1,+,=,2 are defined the way they usually are, and 1+1 != 2 if + is defined differently so there are 2 different "world" in this example).
premise 2: there are multiple "worlds" to view each claim from (language can be used to accomplish this).
conclusion: therefore the truth value of a statement is subjective to the "world" you are viewing it from.
so "truthful" claims are just claims the humans agreed upon to be true.

 

[capevicar]

hey guys, this is my first post. hopefully you see it.
anyways, my claim is that yes, truth is subjective. Here is what i used to convince myself and pls feel free to see if i made any mistakes in my reasoning (i def did cuz no way is this true). thx

premise 1: to evaluate the truth value of a claim you must adopt a "world" to view the claim from (e.g 1+1 =2 is True if 1,+,=,2 are defined the way they usually are, and 1+1 != 2 if + is defined differently so there are 2 different "world" in this example).
premise 2: there are multiple "worlds" to view each claim from (language can be used to accomplish this).
conclusion: therefore the truth value of a statement is subjective to the "world" you are viewing it from.
so "truthful" claims are just claims the humans agreed upon to be true.

Im not really well versed in this kinda stuff, but from what i understand/believe numbers themselves are an objective (and abstract) concept, existing independant of our thoughts (including whatever semantics any group of humans use to refer to them). The term for this is mind-independant from a quick google search.

Take for example; If you visually depict the number 3 with sticks to some people (without the use of man-made language or symbols), they will almost definetely be able to identify or comprehend it as the number 3. And even if they cant, or dont possess the cognitive ability to do so, those sticks are still congruent with the number 3, irregardless of that fact.

Now there's a point to be made about semantics and ontology here. Semantics in this case refers to the use of language; the word/symbol "3". Ontology is referring to the actual concept of 3, the very thing we're using the language to describe.

Although i can't really think of or provide an example for it, you can make alot of mindfucky statements using language (semantics) as to whats "true" and what's "false", so id say its not really a good metric to judge by, atleast in the way you outlined in your post. Bottom line is, the language we use for numbers is vulnerable to change and manipulation, where the actual numbers they denote aren't.

Worded this kinda bad i think, i might've repeated myself alot but these things are a headache to put into words. For the record, this whole argument is built on the understanding of numbers outlined in i THINK whats called "mathematical platonism". The best argument for it i could find is as follows:

a) We ought to have ontological commitment to all and only the entities that are indispensable to our best scientific theories
b) Mathematical entities are indispensable to our best scientific theories
c) Therefore, we ought to have ontological commitment to mathematical entities.

Now ofc, like everything, even the existence of numbers is argued; nominalism for example, the complete opposite, claims numbers dont exist at all. If you're interested in it at all, i suggest looking into both ideas.

 

[induction]

Im not really well versed in this kinda stuff, but from what i understand/believe numbers themselves are an objective (and abstract) concept, existing independant of our thoughts (including whatever semantics any group of humans use to refer to them). The term for this is mind-independant from a quick google search.

Take for example; If you visually depict the number 3 with sticks to some people (without the use of man-made language or symbols), they will almost definetely be able to identify or comprehend it as the number 3. And even if they cant, or dont possess the cognitive ability to do so, those sticks are still congruent with the number 3, irregardless of that fact.

Now there's a point to be made about semantics and ontology here. Semantics in this case refers to the use of language; the word/symbol "3". Ontology is referring to the actual concept of 3, the very thing we're using the language to describe.

Although i can't really think of or provide an example for it, you can make alot of mindfucky statements using language (semantics) as to whats "true" and what's "false", so id say its not really a good metric to judge by, atleast in the way you outlined in your post. Bottom line is, the language we use for numbers is vulnerable to change and manipulation, where the actual numbers they denote aren't.

Worded this kinda bad i think, i might've repeated myself alot but these things are a headache to put into words. For the record, this whole argument is built on the understanding of numbers outlined in i THINK whats called "mathematical platonism". The best argument for it i could find is as follows:

a) We ought to have ontological commitment to all and only the entities that are indispensable to our best scientific theories
b) Mathematical entities are indispensable to our best scientific theories
c) Therefore, we ought to have ontological commitment to mathematical entities.

Now ofc, like everything, even the existence of numbers is argued; nominalism for example, the complete opposite, claims numbers dont exist at all. If you're interested in it at all, i suggest looking into both ideas.

thanks for the response. what you said makes perfect sense, i guess i was putting too much weight on language. will def look into the 3 things you mentioned (platonism and mind-independent, nominalism) .

 

[johnsepei5]

hey guys, this is my first post. hopefully you see it.
anyways, my claim is that yes, truth is subjective. Here is what i used to convince myself and pls feel free to see if i made any mistakes in my reasoning (i def did cuz no way is this true). thx

premise 1: to evaluate the truth value of a claim you must adopt a "world" to view the claim from (e.g 1+1 =2 is True if 1,+,=,2 are defined the way they usually are, and 1+1 != 2 if + is defined differently so there are 2 different "world" in this example).
premise 2: there are multiple "worlds" to view each claim from (language can be used to accomplish this).
conclusion: therefore the truth value of a statement is subjective to the "world" you are viewing it from.
so "truthful" claims are just claims the humans agreed upon to be true.

Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective.all truths are subjective

 

[johnsepei5]

Wow just discovered there was philosophy spot here

 

[induction]

Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective.all truths are subjective

i think like that sometimes, but i stop myself cuz you'd go crazy if you think like that for long.

 

[induction]

Wow just discovered there was philosophy spot here

yup, welcome

 

[capevicar]

thanks for the response. what you said makes perfect sense, i guess i was putting too much weight on language. will def look into the 3 things you mentioned (platonism and mind-independent, nominalism) .

np!

 

[Mujaahid Rag ah]

hey guys, this is my first post. hopefully you see it.
anyways, my claim is that yes, truth is subjective. Here is what i used to convince myself and pls feel free to see if i made any mistakes in my reasoning (i def did cuz no way is this true). thx

premise 1: to evaluate the truth value of a claim you must adopt a "world" to view the claim from (e.g 1+1 =2 is True if 1,+,=,2 are defined the way they usually are, and 1+1 != 2 if + is defined differently so there are 2 different "world" in this example).
premise 2: there are multiple "worlds" to view each claim from (language can be used to accomplish this).
conclusion: therefore the truth value of a statement is subjective to the "world" you are viewing it from.
so "truthful" claims are just claims the humans agreed upon to be true.

Yo, are you studying IB ? Or philosophy?

 

[induction]

Yo, are you studying IB ? Or philosophy?

don't know what IB is but no, my major is math and not philosophy. am interested in pure math and since thats closely related to philosophy i've developed an interest in philosophy.

 

[induction]

Im not really well versed in this kinda stuff, but from what i understand/believe numbers themselves are an objective (and abstract) concept, existing independant of our thoughts (including whatever semantics any group of humans use to refer to them). The term for this is mind-independant from a quick google search.

Take for example; If you visually depict the number 3 with sticks to some people (without the use of man-made language or symbols), they will almost definetely be able to identify or comprehend it as the number 3. And even if they cant, or dont possess the cognitive ability to do so, those sticks are still congruent with the number 3, irregardless of that fact.

Now there's a point to be made about semantics and ontology here. Semantics in this case refers to the use of language; the word/symbol "3". Ontology is referring to the actual concept of 3, the very thing we're using the language to describe.

Although i can't really think of or provide an example for it, you can make alot of mindfucky statements using language (semantics) as to whats "true" and what's "false", so id say its not really a good metric to judge by, atleast in the way you outlined in your post. Bottom line is, the language we use for numbers is vulnerable to change and manipulation, where the actual numbers they denote aren't.

Worded this kinda bad i think, i might've repeated myself alot but these things are a headache to put into words. For the record, this whole argument is built on the understanding of numbers outlined in i THINK whats called "mathematical platonism". The best argument for it i could find is as follows:

a) We ought to have ontological commitment to all and only the entities that are indispensable to our best scientific theories
b) Mathematical entities are indispensable to our best scientific theories
c) Therefore, we ought to have ontological commitment to mathematical entities.

Now ofc, like everything, even the existence of numbers is argued; nominalism for example, the complete opposite, claims numbers dont exist at all. If you're interested in it at all, i suggest looking into both ideas.

by any chance did you study philosophy ?

 

[Mujaahid Rag ah]

don't know what IB is but no, my major is math and not philosophy. am interested in pure math and since thats closely related to philosophy i've developed an interest in philosophy.

That is great, IB ( international baccalaureate) it’s kind of high school but very intense, the rich white people kids go In Europe, also many Americans go in the state, it has a subject call TOK, which actually deals these kind of questions, and at the end of the school year, kids will chose a question like yours, then they will write around 1500 words eassy, debating it while bringing claims and explanations. Fun facts, they also have a Somali Subject as languages and literature.

 

[Mujaahid Rag ah]

don't know what IB is but no, my major is math and not philosophy. am interested in pure math and since thats closely related to philosophy i've developed an interest in philosophy.

So, every kid will chose one of the topics below to discuss

 

[induction]

That is great, IB ( international baccalaureate) it’s kind of high school but very intense, the rich white people kids go In Europe, also many Americans go in the state, it has a subject call TOK, which actually deals these kind of questions, and at the end of the school year, kids will chose a question like yours, then they will write around 1500 words eassy, debating it while bringing claims and explanations. Fun facts, they also have a Somali Subject as languages and literature.

aah, too old for that and i live in Canada haha. but sounds super interesting. did you do it?

 

[Mujaahid Rag ah]

aah, too old for that and i live in Canada haha. but sounds super interesting. did you do it?

Yeah, I was the only darkskin, the poorest , but I was good lol, had made great friends( fucking rich), some of them their grandparents made some drugs , bruh it was fun back then, now I am the only one who stayed in the country and studying , majority of them went US, South Korea and Canada.

 

[Nomadic lord]

Your argument makes sense up to a point, but there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed.

First, it's important to clarify what we mean by "subjective." If we say that truth is subjective, we might mean that it varies from person to person, or that it's a matter of personal preference or opinion. However, it's more accurate to say that truth is relative to a particular perspective or point of view. That is, a claim can be true from one perspective but false from another.

With that in mind, let's look at your argument. Premise 1 is correct: the truth value of a claim depends on the context in which it's evaluated. In other words, the same claim might be true in one "world" but false in another, depending on how the terms are defined and what assumptions are made.

Premise 2 is also true: there are many ways to define terms and evaluate claims, and different "worlds" can give rise to different truth values. For example, in one "world," the statement "the earth is flat" might be true, while in another "world," the statement "the earth is round" might be true.

However, the conclusion you draw doesn't follow logically from the premises. Just because truth is relative to a particular perspective doesn't mean that all claims are equally valid or that truth is purely a matter of human agreement. There are still objective criteria that can be used to evaluate claims and determine their truth value.

For example, in mathematics, we use formal logic and axioms to prove theorems and establish truth. While there might be different "worlds" in which different axioms are accepted or different logical systems are used, there are still objective standards for evaluating claims within those systems.

Similarly, in science, we use empirical evidence and the scientific method to test hypotheses and establish knowledge. While there might be different interpretations of the evidence or different scientific paradigms, there are still objective criteria for evaluating claims within those paradigms.

So while truth might be relative to a particular perspective, it's not purely subjective or arbitrary. There are still objective criteria and standards that can be used to evaluate claims and establish knowledge.

 

[The alchemist]

Truth is whatever we use of language and processes and verifiable outcomes (that got validity) that correspond with something true (i.e., to reality or fact). The latter is independent of the former, so it is not subjective.

I hear Gen Z often say, "my truth and your truth." There is no such thing. It's only one truth. For example, if two people look at a blank sheet of paper: one claims it is black the other says it is white. One of them is wrong. To proceed to call them both valid is invalid. Unless you claim they speak of different truths, and that is clearly not what we are talking about when we mean, it can only be one truth (if you say a tall man is short because of how relatively tall he is relative to a giant, or a person of diminutive stature is tall because he is taller than a dwarf, then you're just disingenuous). If you say, what if the person who said black had a white paper in their mind and associated that with the word black? Well, that is what is called deception. It's nothing but fallaciousness. At that point, you can say an immoral person is moral or a liar truthful, and the world flips upside down.

Words mean something, and it is crucial to use them appropriately. So "truth" cannot be many things that do not align when describing the same thing if the people claim to address the exact same thing. Imagine talking to someone and they are wrong about something, and then they say, "I don't even subscribe to your language, to begin with, so I can never be wrong, it's my truth that matters to me". That's why your truth and my truth people are full of hogwash.

They treat that "personal truth" baloney almost as a personal religion since they can never commit to anything real that holds them accountable to all the nonsense they are on about because they cannot give up on their corrupt ideas and acknowledge their bad ways to be wrong and change for the better. It's the same people who say they are not religious but very spiritual. "I'm not praying to god but I am channeling my essence today and I feel one with the universe". Yes, the last part is an actual rant because I see that garbage growing, especially with the new generation.

 

[induction]

Your argument makes sense up to a point, but there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed.

First, it's important to clarify what we mean by "subjective." If we say that truth is subjective, we might mean that it varies from person to person, or that it's a matter of personal preference or opinion. However, it's more accurate to say that truth is relative to a particular perspective or point of view. That is, a claim can be true from one perspective but false from another.

With that in mind, let's look at your argument. Premise 1 is correct: the truth value of a claim depends on the context in which it's evaluated. In other words, the same claim might be true in one "world" but false in another, depending on how the terms are defined and what assumptions are made.

Premise 2 is also true: there are many ways to define terms and evaluate claims, and different "worlds" can give rise to different truth values. For example, in one "world," the statement "the earth is flat" might be true, while in another "world," the statement "the earth is round" might be true.

However, the conclusion you draw doesn't follow logically from the premises. Just because truth is relative to a particular perspective doesn't mean that all claims are equally valid or that truth is purely a matter of human agreement. There are still objective criteria that can be used to evaluate claims and determine their truth value.

For example, in mathematics, we use formal logic and axioms to prove theorems and establish truth. While there might be different "worlds" in which different axioms are accepted or different logical systems are used, there are still objective standards for evaluating claims within those systems.

Similarly, in science, we use empirical evidence and the scientific method to test hypotheses and establish knowledge. While there might be different interpretations of the evidence or different scientific paradigms, there are still objective criteria for evaluating claims within those paradigms.

So while truth might be relative to a particular perspective, it's not purely subjective or arbitrary. There are still objective criteria and standards that can be used to evaluate claims and establish knowledge.

but doesn't that make all of mathematics relative? like if you can pick whichever logic and axioms you want (as long as they are consistent) then that system is ok. wouldn't that make mathematical truths all relative to their system then?

 

[induction]

Truth is whatever we use of language and processes and verifiable outcomes (that got validity) that correspond with something true (i.e., to reality or fact). The latter is independent of the former, so it is not subjective.

I hear Gen Z often say, "my truth and your truth." There is no such thing. It's only one truth. For example, if two people look at a blank sheet of paper: one claims it is black the other says it is white. One of them is wrong. To proceed to call them both valid is invalid. Unless you claim they speak of different truths, and that is clearly not what we are talking about when we mean, it can only be one truth (if you say a tall man is short because of how relatively tall he is relative to a giant, or a person of diminutive stature is tall because he is taller than a dwarf, then you're just disingenuous). If you say, what if the person who said black had a white paper in their mind and associated that with the word black? Well, that is what is called deception. It's nothing but fallaciousness. At that point, you can say an immoral person is moral or a liar truthful, and the world flips upside down.

Words mean something, and it is crucial to use them appropriately. So "truth" cannot be many things that do not align when describing the same thing if the people claim to address the exact same thing. Imagine talking to someone and they are wrong about something, and then they say, "I don't even subscribe to your language, to begin with, so I can never be wrong, it's my truth that matters to me". That's why your truth and my truth people are full of hogwash.

They treat that "personal truth" baloney almost as a personal religion since they can never commit to anything real that holds them accountable to all the nonsense they are on about because they cannot give up on their corrupt ideas and acknowledge their bad ways to be wrong and change for the better. It's the same people who say they are not religious but very spiritual. "I'm not praying to god but I am channeling my essence today and I feel one with the universe". Yes, the last part is an actual rant because I see that garbage growing, especially with the new generation.

you are right, ig i was putting too much on the weight on words/language. but i think the claim still stands for math where its not just words.

 

[The alchemist]

you are right, ig i was putting too much on the weight on words/language. but i think the claim still stands for math where its not just words.

You still have the system that is math, no? It has form, we can call the number 3 whatever, but we know what that means. So the object is not subjective still. That's why someone said it is semantics, confusing the language for what it represents.