You must log in or # to comment.
truth isn’t subjective, but perspective changes how you see something.
Truth is entirely subjective because all observations are subjective.
What about a thermometer?
mine says 0° but yours says 32°
what about a tachometer?
from my angle it says 4950RPM but from your angle it says 5000RPM
The one on my buttholes? Jeez that’s why I never look at my tachometer anymore
Gogo gadget boltzmann brain
Aurora borealis?
The whole truth?! At this time of year, at this time of day, in this part of the country, localised entirely within your brain?
Yes!
…Can I see it?
. . . No.
truth=facts. facts are objective. it’s a fact that the USA is a country in north America. there is no disputing that.
the notion that the USA is a good place to live is not a fact, it’s a subjective opinion
What if someone doesn’t recognize it as a country? Or what if they believe that there’s no north america, that there’s only one american continent?
In the first case, they’re simply wrong, a country is a country. We might disagree on whether it is a sovereign state and worthy of establishing diplomatic ties. In the second case, they’ll have to agree that the America continent has a part that is closer to the pole that a compass points to.
my compass points wherever the hell i want it to. what do you use to draw circles because i suck at it
If this kind of compass:
points anywhere but north, you may have one or more of a number of problems.
Hey the intentionally using the wrong definitions game is no fun with pictures
or what if they believe that there’s no north america, that there’s only one american continent?
THANK you i feel seen
Then they would be ignorant at best and poorly educated at worse.
They would be mixing up two entirely different classification systems. Functionally the equivalent of saying theirs no stars in the sky because water isn’t wet.
Its just nonsense.
You would have to first educate them enough to understand the defined terminology before you could even consider them a peer in the discussion.
A fact is something that can be proven.
“I love my wife” is the truth, but it’s not a fact, since we can’t really measure “love”.
Descartes wants a word…
I’m 14 and this is deep.
Sure, we can think there’s no way to actually know anything because your mind could have made up everything that happened before this moment. That’s a stupid way to interact with the world though. It doesn’t help you do anything thinking that way and only makes everything pointless, including conversing with you for people who don’t even believe this.
It’s rather curious how those people who claim truth is subjective never do it for gravity, jumping off a high building while claiming “gravity is false for me”. Because guess what, odds are they know it’s bullshit.
Personally, I don’t believe in football.
that’s A football, not Football. we’re allowed to hit one moleman in the groin.
Ahyuk yuk!
I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.
I also doubt you’ve met anyone that claims truth is subjective to their will at any time they choose.
It’s entirely possible, but unlikely.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
I doubt you’ve come across someone who claims that all truth is subjective all the time in all scenarios.
I wish I could say I’ve never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
The example you give isn’t an example of subjective truth, it’s an example of wilful/conscious control of reality, which isn’t the same thing.
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You’re right they aren’t the same thing, but they’re clearly tied.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Someone on earth vs someone on the ISS have different gravitational experiences for instance.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Ooh, time for science pedantry! The ISS is plenty close enough to Earth to experience almost the same gravity from the planet as on its surface, which is why it has to be orbiting at such speed - falling sideways fast enough and at the right angle so as not to come crashing down!
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount.
It sounds like someone still hasn’t played KSP! Play it! It’s great. You’ll learn a lot, and you’ll have fun doing it.
Stuff doesn’t stay in orbit because there isn’t gravity. It stays there because it’s moving sideways while it’s falling down, so it doesn’t hit the thing it’s orbiting. Without gravity it’d be able to just sit in space wherever it wants. Rockets mostly don’t go up, they go sideways. There wouldn’t be a geosyncronus orbit as all orbits would allow you to just sit above any location you want. A geosyncronus orbit is one that the amount it has to move sideways is, in degrees from the center of earth, the same amount the earth rotates.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them
sort of. they just keep falling and missing
I wish I could say I’ve never came across this sort of muppet. But… *sigh*
Yeah…
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective; and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality. You’re right they aren’t the same thing, but they’re clearly tied.
Not really…to any of that.
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
An unusual level of reality control could exist within an objectively truth based system. It would just have to adhere to the constraints.
Perhaps you mean omnipotence? I’m not sure on that one either, but definitionally it usually implies complete control, im not sure if that’s within a fixed system or not.
Reality control and subjectivity can be tied if an example ties them somehow, but it’s not a given.
The experience is different because the person in the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount. But that doesn’t mean gravity stopped existing for them.
Yep, that’s why I went with gravitational experience instead of one having gravity and the other not.
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
In this case, it does.
Let me put it this way: is the statement “there’s a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies” epistemically true?
If truth was subjective, the answer would be “true” or “false” depending on the subject. For those whom the answer is “false”, this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth. That implies they’d have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say “it’s now true for me” and fall, or “it’s now false for me” and stop falling.
Let me put it this way: is the statement “there’s a phenomenon called «gravity», experienced by all massive bodies, that accelerates them in relation to other massive bodies” epistemically true?
Scientifically, maybe? Because that’s what the scientific method is, best approximations given the knowledge we currently have.
But let’s assume yes for the purposes of this reply.
If truth was subjective, the answer would be “true” or “false” depending on the subject.
And context.
Same subject different circumstances, different gravitational forces.
For those whom the answer is “false”, this means they would not experience the phenomenon, even in situations other subjects would; e.g. near Earth.
That’s a binary interpretation of a non-binary system.
But again, for the purposes of this reply, sure.
That implies they’d have at least some control over experiencing gravity, because they could simply say “it’s now true for me” and fall, or “it’s now false for me” and stop falling.
There’s a big assumption there that this is a binary.
Gravity control, doesn’t have to be binary.
It doesn’t even have to be direct, they could achieve the same effect by increasing or decreasing mass.
But let’s say it’s magic, direct control.
In an objective system where gravity exists it would conceptually be possible to control the level of gravity acting upon yourself without turning it on or off fully.
In a subjective system where gravity could exist or not depending on subject and context, the same is conceptually true.
Which brings me back to:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth.
Emphasis mine.
The fact that people feel different gravitational pull based on where they are doesn’t make the concept of gravity different for each of them. You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.
That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!
Sure, i could have specified i was talking about the gravitational pull rather than the concept of gravity as a whole.
I was, however, replying to a message that was specifically talking about gravitational pull, so i assumed it was understood i was referring to the same.
Nevertheless i stand by my assertion, I’ll be specific though so it’s clear.
The idea of some sort of magical control of gravity (and all of the concepts covered by that word) wouldn’t necessarily be a binary on/off.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an objectively provable truth that consisted of an on/off state, control would mean being able to turn that system on or off, either as a whole, but more specifically in this case, for a specified subject.
in a theoretical system where gravity was an subjective phenomena, control would mean being able adjust the effect of that phenomena to some degree.
The systems I’m talking about here are my interpretation of the the systems posited by the person to which i was replying.
Which , again, brings me back to:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth
For completeness, I should have probably said:
There’s no reason gravity control requires a subjective truth ( using the exmples of subjective/objective truth as proposed by the person to which i am replying )
That’s why technical definitions (so we speak the same language) and education (si we understand that language) are important!
Agreed
As an aside:
You’re just using the wrong word to describe the acceleration produced by gravity, rather than gravity itself.
What word was i using incorrectly and in what context? , genuine question.
Wilful control of reality in this case requires truth to be subjective
Hmm, maybe. Others have covered this and it doesn’t quite seem perfectly true, but let’s let that slide.
and conversely, if truth is subjective you can control reality
No, that definitely doesn’t follow. If truth is subjective it doesn’t at all mean you can control it. It just means that what is true for you might be different from what is true for me. The reason that’s the case isn’t a part of that equation.
the ISS is simply not close enough to Earth to be subjected to Earth’s gravity, in any practical amount
Imagine being this convinced that one’s understanding of gravity is objective truth, while also being this wrong about how gravity works
Truth
Subjectively?
Speculative and Technical
The best kind of technical.
Correct!
no no i’ve gotten really high and ass-philosophical and sometimes we take ridiculous positions (e.g. horses are just poorly behaved long dogs) just to see how long it takes for the other person to figure out we’re high off our ass and giggling inside the entire time.
Good spot, i should have said “truly believes” instead of “claims”.
You might have to goad them a bit with “it’s only a theory”
what is the difference between what is true and what merely is? because truth is the former, gravity is the latter.
truth is the former
i.e. “the truth is what’s true”. Wow, deep.
who said i was trying to be deep?
I wonder if belief has anything to do with reality. Hmm.
Eh, probably the universe is a cold, dead clockwork of matter that spontaneously and randomly fell into place with only the barest of coincidences we can try to grasp as objective truths with which to define our sensationally complex environment.
Although . . . it is just as possible that matter arises from something more fundamental to something like a universal order, such as consciousness.
I dunno though, they never told me.
Eh, probably the universe is a cold, dead clockwork of matter
This, but unironically.
Spoilers: we’re riding some weird rock in the middle of the empty space.
Yes please lets have a semantic debate in which no one defines their terms
An Orange Box on the left wall, a blue portal on the right.
Genuinely though, English seems to lack the distinction between truth (the absolute state of something being universally true), truth (something that is correct from some point of view) and truth (an idea someone is dedicated to).
Some other languages have different words for these “truths”. You could say that first is truth, second is perspective, and third is an idea, but all three can be named “truth”, which can easily spark a debate over simple misunderstanding of what you mean, exactly.
Truth opinion and belief
Factt opinion and belief. The word truth is a statement over belief of something.
I would argue that the first and third are perversions of the word. A truth that is universal should be called a law. Like the law of entropy. Unfortunately the word “law” has also ben twisted to mean legal policy. The third should be “belief,” as it is what you hold inside you. Religion call their beliefs “truth” to push their agenda.
The obsession to have dedicated words when one would rarely bother to specify and just use the generic term anyway will forever elude me.
There is very little difference to me between saying two 1 syllable words and one two syllable words. And English is a very packed language. Most english wordy things already have meaning and reserving a 1 syllable thing that is sufficiently different to be distinguishable is just not realistic.
English has loads of words for the spectrum between fact and baseless claim, it’s just people have decided “truth” is contested, this is mostly that news on both sides of American politics report differently, producing often conflicting supposed facts, to the point where people say truth doesn’t matter anymore
People take that idea differently, from the sane end where it’s just the state of sectarian news through to the crazy end where they think nothing is real
Illustrative is one side of American political followers didn’t believe in COVID-19, the other side wore masks, avoided gatherings, and got vaccinated when vaccines became available
English is a dogshit creole that also lacks distinction between libre and gratis and “cultural artist” and “visual artist” (Turkish : sanatkar v ressam)
English is not a creole language.
To keep it simple, a creole language originates from children learning a pidgin (a contact “language” with barely any grammar), and “gluing” the lexicon with features on the spot. To the point its grammar doesn’t resemble any of the parent languages over the course of, like, a single generation.
In the meantime English is simply a West Germanic language that got a bunch of borrowings from Old Norse and then Norman+French. Those borrowings don’t change affiliation.
Regarding the distinction between “libre” and “gratis”: it’s simply that “free” displaced “costless”. That sort of semantic shift happens, it’s most of the time internal (i.e. not caused by interference of other languages).
It does not at all lack the ability to distinguish between any of those things, it just doesn’t do so in single words
Science routinely solves problems like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_51
In some sense this is the very heart of science: taking disparate views of the world and drawing likely conclusions that are testable and reproducible.
The twist:
It’s actually a flat piece of paper.
Ceci n’est pas une pipe
How very Escher of you…
Gödel , Escher, Bach, an eternal golden braid
Oh yeah. I remember attempting that. Lotta words in there.
The object’s ness is objective. The projection is your own dumbass ways of perceiving it because you lack the ability to objectively observe.
Because you used ness, i instantly thought of Loch Ness and imagined that there is a duck that lives in that loch whose shadow was randomly made huge by a boats light one evening resulting in the proceeding mania. Thus leading to the highly confusing situation for Duck Ness of waddling about telling people she’s who they’re looking for while they ignore her or threaten to put her in a pie.
Exactly why it’s only $3.50
Truth can be subjective, in one scenario: when it’s not the complete truth.
However an incomplete truth is via omission, thus making it a lie.
It’s only a lie if there’s intent to deceive. Mistakes are not lies and false memories are not lies.
However an incomplete truth is via omission, thus making it a lie.
Can an incomplete truth be not a lie if it’s incomplete, because the speaking person just doesn’t know the whole truth?
When you say something fully believing it, it is not a lie, regardless of factual/objective correctness.
And if you know that what you know isn’t the full truth, but still telling what you know and not revealing your suspicions?
So not fully believing it then? Does not need to be a lie, but omitting things can be a lie.
Therefore lies are subjective
Some say we live in a post-truth world. I say we live in a post-realism world. It’s not that objective reality vanished once this massive scale in ideological separation happened, it’s just that people stopped giving a fuck once it happened. Objective truth didn’t vanish though, most people just live without letting it inconvinience them.
The only thing you know is that you know nothing. Really a pointless conversation unless you wanted to circle jerk on Lemmy. oh wait
How we go about living our lives on only partially-available and unreliable information is one of the most practical and important questions of all! Who do we trust? What assumptions should we make?
It’s funny you bring that up, I offer a 6-week course on who to trust and what assumptions you should make!
what, you ain’t familiar with the double cylinder experiment?
I think people that say things like that are attempting to take up an analytic position akin to Wittgenstein or one of the other early linguistic philosophers, but they simply don’t understand the work they’re reading. Otherwise I genuinely do not know what they’re trying to argue or prove. Wittgenstein and others like him have flaws even when argued perfectly, so it’s kind of a null position to argue.
It’s more recent idealogy, namely postmodernism. They genuinely deny the existence of universals in all respects. But I am yet to see a legitimate (philosophical) argument supporting that 🤷 seems more like a pop culture thing than real philosophy.
