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?
11 January 2009
On Truth
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"Metaphysical objectivism holds that truths are independent of our beliefs."
But it doesn't mean that truths are DIFFERENT from our beliefs. Truths may be conjured independently from our beliefs, and even before we have a belief system in place. It's just that we eventually found out, coincidentally or not, that our belief actually corresponds to the truth.
By saying 2+2=4. It's truth. Independently, we found that 2+2 really equals to 4. So in this case, our belief corresponds to the truth.
Truth has been sitting there at square one since day one. But our belief system has been wandering around, and finally we found something concrete enough to back our belief.
And i think many people's belief systems are not as straightforward and accurate as the 2+2=4 case.
(here you go, 1 deranged response!)
'True'...
Indeed, I totally agree that (the objective) Truth has been sitting ard since day 1. Truths are conjured even before we have a belief system in place, and hence are not affected by how we think. I think that is why I had said its independent: Not because it is different (it could be similar), but simply because it is not affected.
When metaphysical objectivism corresponds with our beliefs (which is actually M. subjectivism), it is actually the Correspondence Theory of Truth at work. Hence you are right to say 2+2 equals 4 because it is not only subjectively, but objectively true to you that 2+2=4.
I believe that The Correspondence Theory usually fails when the objective truth is obscured, or when there is no or more than one truth. This gives rise to multiple interpretations and 'beliefs' (M. subjectivism), and hence many people's belief systems are not as straightforward and accurate as the 2+2=4 case esp when dealing with issues pertaining God or Morality.
Well, the least we can do is to acknowledge the existance of the (objective) Truth, and try to sync (correspond) our personal beliefs (subjectivism) to that Objective Truth. Anyway by posting such deranged responses we are actually doing that right now, so ya... Keep the deranged responses coming!
"Well, the least we can do is to acknowledge the existance of the (objective) Truth, and try to sync (correspond) our personal beliefs (subjectivism) to that Objective Truth."
Totally agree with you for that!
Post a Comment