Objective Truth? (1 Viewer)

[JoeMama]

So I had a question. Can there be anything in this world that is completely 100% objective?
If not, which I would assume, then one's confronted with a little paradox; the statement: "nothing is objective / everything is subjective" would be a subjective statement in itself.

basically, if you can't know anything -> how do you know that? :doh

Follow me?

 

[idk]

1 + 1 = 2

With humans, or without.

 

[JoeMama]

1 + 1 = 2

With humans, or without.

I should have been clearer, sorry, I was talking about philosophical theories.

 

[other]

1 + 1 = 2

With humans, or without.

I should have been clearer, sorry, I was talking about philosophical theories.

why do you think pythagoras and his cult worshipped mathematical calculations? Their philosophical theories were very useful.

 

[idk]

I should have been clearer, sorry, I was talking about philosophical theories.

Math is the foundation of the observable universe and logical human thinking. It's pretty philosophical.

 

[JoeMama]

why do you think pythagoras and his cult worshipped mathematical calculations? Their philosophical theories were very useful.

Math is the foundation of the observable universe and logical human thinking. It's pretty philosophical.

I got the whole Pythagoras business, I have learned quite a bit about him (though it's been a while, I could probably used a refresher).

What it comes down to though, one can argue that observation by humans is subjective in its nature - I cannot recall the exact philosopher who said such, but it has merit to it.

 

[other]

I got the whole Pythagoras business, I have learned quite a bit about him (though it's been a while, I could probably used a refresher).

What it comes down to though, one can argue that observation by humans is subjective in its nature - I cannot recall the exact philosopher who said such, but it has merit to it.

immanuelle kant.

Things as they are "in themselves" — the thing in itself or das Ding an sich — are unknowable. For something to become an object of knowledge, it must be experienced, and experience is structured by our minds—both space and time as the forms of our intuition or perception, and the unifying, structuring activity of our concepts. These aspects of mind turn things-in-themselves into the world of experience. We are never passive observers or knowers.

<my bold>

from his [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason]Critique of Pure Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[b.larset]

Which Philosophical theories?

 

[JoeMama]

Which Philosophical theories?

any theory at all.

 

[JoeMama]

immanuelle kant.

<my bold>

from his Critique of Pure Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that seemed to reaffirm the OP...

Edit: experiences are subjective.

 

[other]

that seemed to reaffirm the OP...

Edit: experiences are subjective.

yeah, I pretty much agree with you (& kant)...you asked who the philosopher was.

 

[JoeMama]

yeah, I pretty much agree with you (& kant)...you asked who the philosopher was.

I appreciate the clarification.

 

[b.larset]

Its been a long time since I read anything ; but one Philosopher always stood out. Rene Descartes. "I think therefore I am". I think he was given some credit for scientific thought along with analytic geometry. I have read plato, socrates although its been awhile. The main thing I took away from reading of Philosophy was the schools of thought surrounding it.

 

[Goshin]

Truth, itself, can be objective.

People, no.

Therein lies the problem.

 

[John Doe]

1 + 1 = 2

With humans, or without.

I disagree completely. I used to think that, but addition is just a construct we made to relate to numbers together. It rests on axioms; a.k.a faith.

 

[Tsunami]

Cogito, ergo sum.

 

[molten_dragon]

No, I don't believe any true philosophical stand can be objective. The only truths that can be objective are not philosophical ones, they are simple matters of science and mathematics (i.e. 1+1=2, the sky is blue, etc.)

 

[idk]

I disagree completely. I used to think that, but addition is just a construct we made to relate to numbers together. It rests on axioms; a.k.a faith.

We didn't create addition, we discovered it.

 

[John Doe]

We didn't create addition, we discovered it.

What's your reasoning?

 

[idk]

What's your reasoning?

There is one star at the center of our solar system. No amount of bias or philosophy can change that.

Again, 1 + 1 = 2 with or without humans. It's objective and universal.

 

[nonpareil]

1 + 1 = 2

With humans, or without.

Try reading this site:

Less Wrong: Math is Subjunctively Objective

I find this particular comment quite useful:

2+3=5 is an outcome of a set of artificial laws we can imagine. In that sense, it does exist "purely in your imagination", just as any number of hypothetical systems could exist. "2+3=5" doesn't stand alone without defining what it means - ie. the concept of a number, addition etc. It corresponds to the statement that IF addition is defined like so, numbers like this, and such-and-such rules of inference, then 2+2=5 is a true property of the system.

In a counterfactual world where people believe 2+3=6, in asking about addition you're still talking about the same system with the same rules, not the rules that describe whatever goes on in the minds of the people. (Otherwise you would be making a different claim about a different system.)

So yes, 2+3=5 is clearly true and has always been true even before humans because its a statement about a system defined in terms of its own rules. Any claims about it already include the system's presumptions because those are part of the question, and part of what it means to be "true".

2 rocks + 3 rocks is a different matter - you're talking about the observable world rather than a system where you get to define all the rules in advance. To apply mathematical reasoning to the real world, you have to make the additional claim "combining physical items is isomorphic to the rules of addition", and you're now in the realm of justifying this with empirical evidence. (Of which there is plenty)

I think a better phrasing of your final question then is to ask why do physical systems seem to correspond to the rules of *this* particular system, but there is a degree of circularity there - obviously we haven't just made up the rules of mathematics arbitrarily - we've based the lowest levels on recognised concepts, and then found that the same laws seem to apply at very deep levels with very high degrees of congruence with the world. If the universe were somehow different and nothing ever acted in any way corresponding to our model of "addition" or "numbers" though, then we'd not attach any special significance to it. Our "mathematics" would be quite different, and we'd be asking the same question about *that* system.

I don't think there are many people who would argue that mathematical rules are objective truths right? After all it's just another language. But I find it interesting to think about the way human sees number. For people who are not familiar with large number, they can do 1000 + 1000 +........+ 1000 = 100 000 (for example), then when the number becomes too big, they go 100 000 + 1000 = "a lot" or "100 000 and more" etc. Anyone else noticed that?

 

[Mach]

Rand supported your sentiment with the following:

Summary, we'll just look at the third group of axioms

The logical axioms apply to everything that can be true.
The metaphysical axioms apply to everything that is true.
The epistemological axioms apply to everything that is known to be true.

Finally, there are two epistemological axioms. These are the axioms of consciousness and volition. (Though I refer to them as "epistemological," they are just as much assertions about reality as the other axioms. They are not merely statements we are built to believe are true; they are true.)

The axiom of consciousness asserts that it is possible for consciousness (the perception of reality) to exist. This is undeniable and inescapable; he who denies it denies that he is conscious; since he cannot perceive reality, how can he make any assertions about what is possible or not possible? (Cf. Peikoff 1991, 5, 9-10.)

The axiom of volition asserts that free will is possible. Again, this is undeniable and inescapable. He who denies it is claiming that he is a deterministic mechanism; by what means does he establish that he is not merely programmed to deny volition, or indeed to make any other statement? (Cf. Branden 1963.)

The two epistemological axioms are equivalent to the statement (also of course axiomatic) that it is possible to know the truth.

As you point out, denying the capacity to identify reality is....contradictory.

 

[nonpareil]

There is one star at the center of our solar system. No amount of bias or philosophy can change that.

Assuming there's no parallel universe, or anything weird as predicted in some string theory.

Again, 1 + 1 = 2 with or without humans. It's objective and universal.

I think you mean when you put one physical object next to another physical object, you get two physical objects next to each other. I think that's irrefutable too, but I'm not as confident as I was.

 

[Mach]

Can someone provide some clear examples of what subjective is?

 

[Cephus]

I think you mean when you put one physical object next to another physical object, you get two physical objects next to each other. I think that's irrefutable too, but I'm not as confident as I was.

It is irrefutable because it's definitional. One object, physical or not, plus one object, physical or not, is equal to two objects. Confidence has nothing to do with it.