The Moderation Doctrine (An Introduction)

Note: The following posts on this blog will be one of complete speculation, personal reasoning, and feelings. The information presented may not be completely accurate or reliable. Please do be
understanding if my views differ from your personal convictions.

PS: I assure you guys that the topic would no longer be as cheem as those posts about the Truth Theory, so please sit back, relax, and enjoy the words as they come. LOL

Project Re-affirmation is a project aimed to refine the understanding of Truth, not only as a concept of it's own, but more about it's significance and application to our personal lives. When I had set up this project on the 21st December 2008- it's fundamental objective was to seek out my true identity and the 'true' way of life to live so that I may not commit again to the mistakes I had once made. Hence, it is in this respect that Project RN (T) is similar to project C2.

-

We should be very familiar to the following phrases / questions:
-

-Why is the world so Materialistic?

-People are just so superficial, why so?

-Why do teenagers today suffer from peer pressure and addictions?

-Why study? And for what am I studying?

-True friends are very hard to get.

-True love is even harder to find.

-Then again, what is true love?

-A or B, what should I choose? How should I even start considering?

-Where is the relevance of God in Today's world?

-Why do some people think so cheem-ly? They must be crazy.

-Why does no one seem to understand me?

-

and especially...

-

-How much can you say its true that there are atoms in the desk? Just because some textbook or teacher tells you so? Do you actually go to the Science Laboratory and put it under the microscope the experience it for yourself? ( Fahy again...LOL)

-

I am sure that in some point of time, at least one of the above mentioned phrases had once occurred in your mind. I do not wish to dwell deeper into the reasons that may cause to think as such, but I am positive that at that point of time everyone had wished then they had a full explanation on these topics. Perhaps we may formulated a sort of reason to some of the 'issues' already, and perhaps there are still questions we may never find an answer to, the reason being that the Truth to these questions are either obscured or difficult to reason out.

-

Then and again, do these questions even have a true answer to it? Yes I do believe so. The answer may be an objective statement or a subjective stand; but recalling Part 1 on "Does Truth Exist?", we know that be it objective or subjective, it is also True.

-

Part 1 has also concluded that there are two methods in refining Truth. Advocated by the philosophies of Science and Religion, the two fundamental methods are Logic and Feelings (Beliefs), and it is by the integration of both (via compatibilism or like a GP argumentative essay) that we may contrast and compliment out a clearer picture at the end of the day.

It should be made known at this point that these two methods can be used to at least address the 'Truth' of the above topics.

-

The Moderation Doctrine is not a clear cut method in obtaining a true answer for such questions about our lives. I believe that if it were that simple many of us would not have been 'victims' to the world today (yet of course there are other reasons, of which I'll explain in the following posts). The Moderation Doctrine is actually an approach to life, based on the Theories formulated on the optimal way for seeking out the 'Truth'. As stated, the two fundamental methods are Logic and Feeling; naturally, the Moderation Doctrine FIRST moderates itself between these two methods.

-

Let us assume there is a Truth to life . Putting this concept on a religious aspect, do allow me to quote the Bible- Jesus himself has said: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". In this respect, he has already stated that there is indeed a Truth to everything, and since He is all three at the same time it's imperative that all three are one. In light of this, you may equate the "Way" as the Moderation Doctrine, the "Truth" as the Truth we had discussed in part 1, and the 'Life" not only as life in general, but also an an orientation of the Truth towards goodness (life) as opposing to evil (death).

-

Putting the concept on a scientific analysis on the other hand- if Science assumes Truth Universally; then Life, being a subset of this 'universe', is therefore subjected to the same assumption of Truth before any form of logical reason may apply. Hence to assume the existence of Truth would have already assumed a Truth to life. I personally hope we do not have issues on this at this point of time, but in case we really do, we may discuss this out in the near future.

-

Now, how are we going to find that True way to live life to the 'best?' How has the world been living their lives? Based on the above mentioned topics, we can see that much of the world we see today is materialistic and superficial. People study to pass examinations, and pass examinations to secure high paying jobs in the future. There may be a lot of conversations between friends, but on closer analysis we find that there is no depth beneath the superficiality of 'Hies' and 'Byes'- leading to politics, backstabbing, and ultimately regret. The 'Love propagated by the mass media focuses greatly on romance and the human needs (especially when Love and sex seem to come hand-in-hand), but other aspects of a loving relationship, such as commitment and trust seem to be lacking severely.

-

Note that these attitudes of the world are very superficial or 'here and now'. There is both logic (as to education) and Feeling (as to love) to the actions of the world today, but we hardly take that and call it the 'True Way' of living. This now brings forth a new concept- that there is another element, opposing to the 'Now' attitude much of the world today, that is supposed to be ingrained to 'balance' out life, what is that concept? I'll term that concept as 'Eternal'

-

Do note that most of us consider Religion and God to be Eternal. Feelings (devoted to one's religion and God) tend to more 'eternal based' and can be easily termed as 'Values'. Such of these eternal feelings include values such as 'Cherish', 'Share', 'Love' (aha- we know this love is diff. fr the love you'll give your girlfriend), and especially 'trust' (Belief).

-

On the other hand, logic too has an 'eternal' perspective to it. Known today as 'cheem stuff' or 'thinking about unsolvable issues' by many, philosophy has been seeked over generations by many and it's fundamental concepts had never seemed to change whether it is studied today or a hundred years ago. (Truth is one of the concepts anyway, and that's the actual reason why some people say that the last topic is cheem).

-

In the end of the day, we get four basic grounds:

'Logic Now' - a.k.a. Practicality, Materialism (negative).

'Logic Eternal' - a.k.a. Philosophy, 'Cheem stuff' (by some, alt. the definition of cheem differs).

'Feeling Now' - a.k.a. The feelings we feel when we are happy or sad or in love.

'Feeling Eternal' - a.k.a. Belief, Trust, and most of the religious/moral values we know today.

-

Truth Theory had reasoned that there ought to be a balance between Logic and Feelings. It is intuition to balance ourselves between the 'Now' and 'Eternal' to ensure that we may not be too Materialistic or 'out of phase' with the world. The Moderation Doctrine aims to find a balance between the Four.

-

Of course there are other concepts not addressed in this method of seeking the Truth in life. The most noteworthy being the concept of Good and Evil, which I'll attempt to address in the future. I really do not intend to push this Moderation Doctrine under your noses and make you accept my theories, and I am more than willing to hear you out should you have another model of explaining the world today. But please do consider this more as an alternative method in attempt to explain and straighten life as it is; and by applying it directly to our selves, seek out the Truth of Truth in a much more comprehensible and practical light.

The integration of philosophies (an analogy)

Allow me to compare Truth as a GP essay.

-In a GP essay, we intend to make our views as truthful as possible.
-So how do we do it? we write an Argumentative essay.
-The first thing we do is acknowledge the topic (address the Truth)
-Then we proceed immediately to state our stand (our beliefs about the Truth)
-We know that the stand alone has no backing and highly fallacious. (our beliefs are incomplete representations of the Truth)
-So we back up our stand with arguments
-Our arguments are logical.
-In the end of the paragraph, we conclude our stand with arguments (integrate belief and logic)
-Then we refine the arguments and beliefs next time to attempt understand the topic (Truth) better.

Logic without beliefs is like an argumentative essay without a stand. We could term that kind of essay as expository essays- but note that we do not use expository essays to deal with GP and university papers (in fact, we do away with it after O levels)

Beliefs without logic are argumentative essays without arguments- it's highly fallable to do that.

For logic gave belief reason, and belief gave logic orientation. Without reason, our beliefs can never be defined or given credit. Without orientation, our logic never comes to a conclusion. It is only by the integration of both (the philosophy of science and religion), can we truly start defining the Truth as it is- and of course, come up with a better explanation for the world we know of today (The topic)

With this, I hereby conclude my discussion on the Topic of Truth. I thank you once again for reading and sharing your opinions. I'll move on now the The Moderation Doctrine (applications of logic and belief into our lives), but nevertheless this topic of Truth is still open for discussion at anytime.

Happy CNY =)

On Causality and Free Will.

It may come across to some that I may sound confusing or long winded over the previous posts. I understand that such a topic on Truth requires years of extensive study before I may do justice to address Truth truthfully; let alone attempt to summarize it in a couple of blog posts. There are definitely multiple concepts within this topic I had skipped or simplified, especially in the philosophy or Science & Religion as well as the definition of Truth, and in the process I may have blurred the full picture itself. I sincerely apologise, but I have to move on to other topics-

In general, I may summarize the essence of my previous topics broadly into the following three statements.

Truth is a knowledge.
For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true.
Knowledge entails both logic and belief.

Lets take an example, shall we? The subject we are dealing today is: the sky is blue. I take the word 'sky' and 'blue' not to be human interpretations of the object 'sky' and the colour 'blue' but rather them as they truly are.

Naturally, it's True that the colour of the sky is blue. This Truth is objective- it needs no form ontology or epistemology on the part of us humans.

For us to know that the Sky is Blue and know it's true, we have just successfully applied the Correspondence Theory of Truth to sync our Knowledge to the objective Truth. We could have acquired that knowledge via our senses (ontology), or belief.

Note that our senses are logical- we have to Know the concept of blue before we may logically associate the 'blue' of the sky with the 'blue' that has been taught to us. In this respect, Knowledge entails logic.

But do note that it is paradoxical to say that ''I know the sky is blue, but I don't believe it.'' (see Moore's paradox for more information) This is because it requires conviction. In this respect, Knowledge too entails belief.

In conclusion- Knowledge, being correspondent of Truth, entails both logic and belief.

*

Note that I had used 'Science' and 'Religion' as the two primary forms of expression for the concept of 'logic' and 'beliefs'. This topic may have sounded nostalgic, especially to those whom have taken the General Paper at A level. The fundamental controversy of this topic lies in the debate on whether 'There is a conflict between Science and Religion'- or rephrased in today's context, 'can there be a convergence between the two philosophies of Truth'.

-

I have attempted to explain previously (and above), that Truth entails both logic and belief. If Knowledge, being Truth and seek out by both Science and Religion, entails both logic and belief, then it would be rational to assume that both Science and Religion is actually correct at the same time. And if Truth, like Knowledge, is one entity by itself (objectivism and subjectivism are both subsets of the Truth); we can see that there would ultimately be a convergence of the two contrasting philosophies at the end of the day-

-

That being the ultimate convergence to the Truth.

-

Now how is that possible? One of the immediate issues that may arise in argument against this proposition is the long-standing debate on Free Will and Causality. Science, being logical- generally advocates the theory of causality; In other words, everything that exists today is actually a produced effect of some cause in the history of time. Now if everything, including us, are subjected to the laws of causality, where would the Free Will that religion advocates then stand?

-

From here, I would like to channel your attention to the concept of Determinism and Compatibilism.

-

Indeed, the argument I had addressed in the previous paragraph is one of Determinism- Determinism proposes that every event, including human cognition (thinking) and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Applying to the context of Free Will- Determinism suggests that whatever 'free will' we may have is completely caused by either 'Nature' or 'Nurture' and henceforth, we are not 'free' in actual fact.

-

So, are we free? And if we are, how free are we?

-

We should have been all aware by now that recent studies in quantum physics have found proof that not everything in this universe are subjected to the laws of causality. This can be especially seen in the behaviour of quarks and strings when they seem to 'disregard all known laws of physics'. Moreover, the basic concept of radioactivity has already baffled many determinists- indeed, the decay of nuclear particles are caused by the instability of the nucleus, but there is virtually nothing that determines which particle decays at which point in time (the nucleus seems to have a 'free will' in choosing when to decay itself)

-

Hence, while the philosophy of science tends to that of Determinism, many of our scientists actually tend more to the philosophy of Compatibilism. Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are actually compatible ideas, and the 'Free will' in compatibilism is taken to be a 'hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires.'. I do not have enough expertise to discuss Compatiblism in greater detail, but we could generally portray free will as the choices one can make in a game of chess, where we are still partially determined by the moves the opponent makes, but still have the free choice to choose which countering moves do we want to make on our part.

-

It is interesting to note that the concept of Compatibilism is also portrayed in both Jewish Christian Theology, as stated succinctly:

-

Compatibilism in this context holds that the sovereignty of God and the free will of man are both biblical concepts and, rightly understood, are not mutually exclusive. The all-knowing God (who sees past, present, and future simultaneously from the perspective of eternity) created human beings (who have the subjective reality of making choices in the present that have consequences for themselves and others in the future) in such a way that both are true: God is ultimately sovereign and therefore must have at least permitted any choice that a human could make, but at the same time God is right to hold humans accountable because from their perspective within the confines of serial time, humans make moral choices between good and evil.

-

Therefore, if Compatibilism holds, there would then be no conflict between causality and Free will. And hence there would be no conflict in science and religion at all.

-

Please note that whatever that I have stated here is not directly contradictory to my previous GP essay 'There is a conflict between Science and Religion'. In my previous essay I had maintained that " There may be a possibility that ‘science’, or more correctly-”knowledge” in itself can actually be able to prove the credibility of the bible, and the existence of God". In today's context, allow me to patch the concept of Science not only to be only Knowledge, but also of Truth. And since I had maintained that Truth (and knowledge) entails Logic and Belief; perhaps with the philosophy of Compatibilism in mind, we may one day indeed converge both Science and Religion together.

-

-

-

PS: We may do that if we had more time and expertise in such matters, but Project RN does not focus in the converging of science and religion. Project RN instead, seeks more to refine the understanding the Truth in our lives and the world around us.

Religion as a philosophy of Truth

Note: This topic may be controversial to some, and the information presented here may be incomplete in their own respect. Please do be understanding, and feel free to leave a comment in an attempt to improve our interpretation and understanding of this topic.

____________

What is Religion?

Some people think Religion is the religion we see and hear today: Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism etc. Some people take it to a more personal level and define religion as a set of beliefs forged by the individual or a community (ie. The saying that Money is my Religion). Before we get to analyse Religion as a philosophy of Truth, I would like to redefine Religion once more:

Wikipedia has maintained that: The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[1] but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

Some people believe religion, or religions- are different and irreconcilable beliefs and practices forged by differing cultures and philosophies. I will not attempt to disclaim this opinion, because much as I would want people to respect my beliefs I have to respect the opinions of others too. I personally do not see too great a distinction between religion; I believe that as long as a particular religion speaks of Truth and values that advocate life, then that religion is already a true religion itself.

As I once quoted: If we advocate the existence of Truth, then we would have advocated the existence of God. Today, we will see how Religion, as a general whole, explain (and be a philosophy of) Truth.

It is interesting to note that most religions have a certain concept towards Truth. As much as the Buddhists have the Four Noble Truths as a fundamental teaching, Judaism recognises Truth in the Word of God. Christianity maintained Truth fundamentally with Judaism, with an added aspect that since Jesus (God) is 'the Way, the Truth and the Life'; hence the bible (being the teachings of Jesus and ultimately the word of God) is without error and True. Hinduism advocates Truth as a state of being true (righteous)- be it in speech, nirvana, or reality. Jainism believes that there is only one Truth, which is not one-sided but wholesome, and that only the enlightened may fully perceive that Truth as it truly is.

Allow me to have the liberty summarize the above information into one concise statement: Subjective religion may be in their approach, they actually point (in their respect) to the existence of the Objective Truth.

Now it would be easy to assume that Truth is actually Objective, and that metaphysical subjectivism is actually a subset method in an attempt for humans to find the objective Truth. I do not believe that this assumption is valid- we do not know for a fact whether there is an objective truth for everything, and as long as there is uncertainty there would be subjectivity: for different hypotheses would lead to different beliefs (and religion), and no one can objectively say which point of view is True or False [this view actually corresponds to that of Jainism]. Hence till the day should we find out that there is either an Objective Truth for everything or that there is no Objective Truth, Truth will be subset-ted equally to both the Objective Truth and the Subjective Truth.

I would like to turn your attention to the means the different religions adopt to reach to their ultimate conclusion to their Objective Truths. Their methods are highly subjective when viewed in a macro approach, as different religions have very different beliefs and teachings that lead them to very different conclusions. So if I were to ask a generic question "Is there one True way for Religion to meet the Objective Truth?" there would be no true answer because everything is subjective. In this respect, religion is a very subjective philosophy in an attempt to define Truth, which I personally take to believe as equally Subjective as much as it is Objective.

While some religions have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions, others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors. It is notable that the formalistic doctrinal definitions actually are built upon the latter factors of feeling and intuition to give 'logic' and reinforce the 'sentiments' experienced. Hence no matter what approach taken, religion is something we could coin as a 'subjective, feeling, belief' thing.

Putting this in layman's terms, haven't religion always stressed on 'faith', 'trust', and ultimately, 'love'? Those 'sentimental' values are actually part of that philosophy of how Religion seeks the Truth.

Putting it all together, the philosophy of Religion is one of a subjective 'sentiments' based method in search for that Truth, which in terms of Religion, is Subjective (in macro view) and Objective (in individual respect). Note that while Religion paints a more wholistic picture than Science that the Truth is both Objective and Subjective at the same time, it's methods are still greatly subjective to the perceptions and beliefs of the individual. (in comparison, the Scientific method is more objective in seeking out the Truth because it's much more logical and rational)

Integrating Science and Religion would have definitely complimented both Objective and Subjective methods in an attempt to understand the Truth. This approach is definitely 'wholesome', for Truth itself comprises of both factors. Yet both methods have yet to pinpoint the exact definition of Truth today. I believe this is owing to the imperfections of the human 'Knowledge'- uncertainty from both Science and Religion. I shall discuss this issue of the uncertain in the next chapter under 'causality determinism and free-will', and I personally hope that by then, when we have defined the unknown, can we finally get started to understand the applications of Truth in our lives.

Science as a Philosophy of Truth

Some preliminary issues before I continue with these really deranged posts of mine. You guys really have well-sounding opinions about this topic, and I really thank you all for stepping up and sharing upon this blog. Many people also think about such topics, but never found the conviction to actually stand up and make their views known. Some people even live a lifetime thinking they are alone with these thoughts and give up thinking altogether in an attempt to live a normal life. Please do continue with the responses, as we attempt to think what the others have labelled as the 'cheem stuff'



As noted, Science and Religion, and their philosophies in an attempt to explain the truth, would be next on the topic list now that we have made some sort of acknowledgement to the it's existence. Indeed, deep within- many people (realists) regard in varying degrees the existence of the truth. Yet, it is unique that Truth is a subject that we have to assume it's existence before seeking methods to re-affirm and define it. We shall now assume it's existence, and bearing in mind that we have yet to define it, attempt to further understand it from the Scientific point of view.



Science assumes the Truth, and hence all theories formulated the field of science tends to be true, or approximately true.



Indeed. We cannot say that a scientific theory- say Newton's first law of motion, is true unless we find ways to prove that this little statement is indeed co-related (or corresponding) to the actual Truth that "all lying or running dogs let live unless provoked by some insolent kid" (LOL). Indeed, this little truth cannot be the Truth unless proven by the theory of correspondence, held not to be false for a sitting period over the years- and backed up by sufficient amounts of evidence for it's cause. Yet it is notable that all scientific laws or 'truths' cannot even exist unless some form of hypothesis (an assumption of the existence of the truth) precedes it. Should Newton despaired in his attempts to seek the Truth of this law, then we would not have ever understood this truth of Truth.



This can also be evident in mathematics especially in the topic of Mathematical Induction, where we actually try to prove a certain mathematical truth from scratch and assumption. And in an attempt to prove that the given mathematical equation holds true for all values of N and X, we have to assume P(1) to be true and 'induce' further numerical substitutions until the assumption holds True. Should we not even assume P(1) to be true, there would be no need to prove the equation ( or in this time the Truth) to be True, wouldn't we?



From the to above examples, we can see how science assumes the truth before it proves it. However, it is even more notable regarding the methods Science tries to confirm the truth after the initial assumption and hypothesis. Thought processes and conclusions are derived logically from the initial speculation- (and ref. to the article 'There is a conflict between Science and Religion') The logic of natural science definitely denies the supernatural, spiritual, realities, values, or any form of values that appeal to illusory matters. In other words, cause and effect are the only explanations that link from thought to thought: from the initial assumption of the truth to the final 'Law' that the truth is indeed True.



Now, in this respect- certain problems and issues may arise. Cases of logic failure ( or what we call making geographical experiments on top of a giant magnet) may hamper, or 'warp' truth, especially when the knowledge of the Truth is still incomplete at this age. Just imagine a kid's game of 'passing the message' from the front to the back row. Certain 'Truths' of the information that was told to the first child may be lost in the chain of 'thought' and ' logical rephrasing', and the outcome message given by the last child at the back may be very different to the initial words. Logical linking may let two thoughts be similar or logical, but perhaps owing from the imperfections of the Human knowledge, just like the imperfections of the child, may lead logic to go 'awry' and lead to a conclusion that is very contrasting to the Objective Truth.



Moreover, it is evident from human history that science, being knowledge, may be warped owing to the society we live in. Ancient Greek philosophers had indeed made a costly mistake of assuming the Earth as the centre of the universe and regarding it as a Scientific Truth given by the observations and 'evidence' collected at that point of time, which actually points to it. They are indeed perfect in their chain of logical thoughts, but somehow their society, and philosophy, had 'warped' the logic away from the objective truth.



In these cases Science may seem to be imperfect in it's method on finding the truth.



Indeed, science has proven a formidable method in search to this truth- not only truth in terms of scientific theories, but also the bigger Truth that may deal with our lives and purpose. I believe there ought to be another method, not to be opposing to the Scientific method, but rather, complimentary to Science, to perfect the quest for the Truth. I think this method could be identified in the next topic I'll be addressing. It's most loyal advocate is Religion, and hence we'll consider Religion as a philosophy of Truth, and hopefully, integrate both theories and methods to piece together this undefined picture of the truth of Truth.

Does Truth Exist?

Simple question today. Does Truth exist? This is a Yes or No question, and the only other option you you can say is 'You cannot say, because it's subjective'.

So, Yes, No, or 'You cannot say'?

I have touched in the last excerpt that there are two types of Truth. There is an absolute objective truth, and a subjective relativistic truth. The first concept is something we can associate with the words: 'fact, truth, actually', the second concept is more associated with: 'Beliefs, opinions, arguments, stands.' Both truths are essential to humanity and can correspond with each other, and when they don't its usually why people say 'you're thinking is wrong'.

Many people consciously or subconsciously acknowledge the existence of Truth. They may be complete atheists, psychotic scientists, cloistered nuns or a deranged philosopher living in Lala Land, and they can say 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, but as long as they have a definite stand in life and are realists, it can be said that they are advocates of Truth. For as much as Science advocating the existence of Truth (objectively via logic, as I said last time), Religion too advocates the Truth, although in a much more subjective and metaphysical method method. (Note that I had capitalized the T in both Science and Religion, I will explain why in the Moderation Doctrine next time)

So in other words, There is no such thing as 'No'. Because to say 'no', some form of logic or belief has to be worked out to substantiate the answer, and neither logic or belief can work out if there is no conclusion- or 'true' answer to the question of truth I had placed to you in the first place. So if you said 'no' I can say that you are contradicting yourself, so- go suck your thumb eh? LOL.

As for those who said 'You cannot say, because it is subjective' and REALLY maintain that things are absolutely relativists (a.k.a. they are the opposite of realists). have they not fallen into the Relativist Fallacy themselves? For on what grounds can they REALLY maintain that "the truth is subjective" when it is everything is relative as according to them? They cannot counter-argue this statement, for they cannot even have a conviction in the first place. So- if you said 'You cannot say, because it is subjective' and really maintain it that way, you can't do anything either. So- go suck you thumb too eh? LOL

So, can I say that there be it Objective or Subjective (please don't confuse this Subjective with the subjective I had associated with the relativists- because a Subjective truth, being a conviction, is also a Truth), there is at least a truth out there? I believe that we can safely say 'yes' to the above question. I have proven the existence of truth today via logic, and some illiterate old man could have come out with the same answer by looking simply believing it's true. Either way, we are realists- and advocates of truth.

On Truth

The aim of science (by realists) is the truth. It is this fundamental aim that leads to the fact why all scientific theories are, or are approximately, true.



When I say two plus two equals four, you say that I am stating a truth. Is it because there is a truth out there that two plus two does indeed equate to four? Or is it true because someone created that idea and everybody had the same perception (or belief) to it? So is there an objective truth out there or is it just a matter of perception?

Then and again, how would the universe come about if there is no objective truth? It had definitely existed before us based on the logic and truth of mathematics and physics. So in a way truth cannot be created by human perception because it existed before human perception. And hence the only logical explanation is that the human perception that two plus two equals four corresponds to the objective truth that two plus two equals four.

And so if I were to follow this logic, I would end up stating that it is indeed true that there is an objective truth that two plus two equals four. So, if you say my reasoning is true or false, is it because there is indeed an objective truth for this problem? Or is it just because of our similar or differing perceptions (beliefs) in play?






Notes:
<<Metaphysical subjectivism holds that the truth or falsity of all propositions depends, at least partly, on what we believe. In contrast, metaphysical objectivism holds that truths are independent of our beliefs. Except for propositions that are actually about our beliefs or sensations, what is true or false is independent of what we think is true or false.>>





Now hold on a minute- if you were to take the above statement as the objective true answer to the earlier thought experiment, then it is objectively true that two plus two equals four. But in doing that wouldn’t you have just made this problem be a believe-sensation proposition now? Then wouldn’t this make it now… subjective?