Is truth objective.......

[peter]

........or relative?

Or can it be both?

(I had examples to cite, but as I considered them they just got more and more tangled so I thought I'd just leave the question as it stands.)

[Avatar]

Truth is subjective, facts are objective. I differentiate between them.

--A

[peter]

Are facts true then - yes, surely they must be.

[SerScot]

It depends upon the nature of the facts being discussed. Personal observations are normally subjective because they are being filtered though our subjective consciousnesses.

However, I do believe some abstratctions, like mathematical observations, can be objective. What is done with those observations can pretty clearly be subjective.

[wayfriend]

Are facts true then - yes, surely they must be.

Well, that's your opinion!

Facts are as true as we are able to ascertain with our senses and our intellect. We have been wrong more times than we can count. So facts purport to be true, but only occasionally are.

[Vraith]

Are facts true then - yes, surely they must be.

Well, that's your opinion!

Facts are as true as we are able to ascertain with our senses and our intellect. We have been wrong more times than we can count. So facts purport to be true, but only occasionally are.

Well, our senses and intellect matter of course...without them you couldn't even "know" things that were wrong.
But, nah, facts don't purport anything. They are or aren't...depending.
We have been wrong, no doubt. But that was US, not the facts.
And it's complicated by the 'truth' that the is-ness/factuality of a fact
is always contextual/relative even IF everything were known objectively.
Even the math someone mentioned---all of it is contextual/definitional/procedural.
I know I've said before that there is no factual value of pi. There is only a factual value of pi in a given space-shape.
Everyone with any memory of the simple math we all learn knows that AxB=BxA. But in many contexts, that equality isn't very useful. It sometimes matters a great deal if you are looking at 10 of something multiplied 5 times compared to 5 of something multiplied 10 times [though 50 is the "answer" in both cases].
[[and there are contexts where multiplication just isn't commutative...different order, different answers]]
A single, absolute facttron can have multiple implications. Can be the initial causal factor for multiple/divergent effects/outcomes.
[[and that's ignoring the possibility---quite a likely one, I think---that any facttron will have companions, the anti-facttron which is its opposite, identically real, and the two will mutually annihilate, and for a left-handed facttron there will be a right-handed one and vice versa]]

Bohr or one of the other big boys of the time [I know it wasn't Einstein, but that's all I'm sure of] said something like:
"The opposite of a simple truth is a falsehood. The opposite of a deep truth is another deep truth."

Given the slipperiness of objective, and an endless array of other problems, I'm not at all sure why subjectivity has such a bad reputation. Anyone can point out the problems/shortcomings of it---but without it, we would "know" far less than we do, not more. I doubt we'd even have a mind or thought---such things would probably be impossible.

[wayfriend]

We have been wrong, no doubt. But that was US, not the facts.

I disagree, mon frère.
A "fact" is not reality, but it is a statement about reality.
Reality is.
A fact may or may not accurately recapitulate it.

This is a confusion between symbol and referent.
Facts are symbols of reality.
Not reality.

We know this is true because reality doesn't care about facts.
It goes about it's merry way,
and doesn't care a wit if it corroborates or refutes anyone's' statements.
We are responsible for facts, not reality.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

We have been wrong, no doubt. But that was US, not the facts.

I disagree, mon frère.
A "fact" is not reality, but it is a statement about reality.
Reality is.
A fact may or may not accurately recapitulate it.

This is a confusion between symbol and referent.
Facts are symbols of reality.
Not reality.

We know this is true because reality doesn't care about facts.
It goes about it's merry way,
and doesn't care a wit if it corroborates or refutes anyone's' statements.
We are responsible for facts, not reality.

+1

[Vraith]

We have been wrong, no doubt. But that was US, not the facts.

I disagree, mon frère.
A "fact" is not reality, but it is a statement about reality.
Reality is.
A fact may or may not accurately recapitulate it.

But then we end up in a whole different argument, an important argument where we probably agree more than not.
But I was trying to keep things on the ground peter was attempting to explore.
Facts do exist---are, in fact, reality. The aboutness is an integral flaw in speaking/communicating etc. on the facts. Something we can't get completely beyond, even if/when we've managed to get beyond other flaws...nevertheless, we can make some distinctions.

The key is that, given the fact of limitations, we must, as far as possible, avoid ARBITRARY distinctions.
And recognize that the particular context, while the only thing that allows us to examine a thing AT ALL, interferes with and modifies examination and result.

[wayfriend]

But I was trying to keep things on the ground peter was attempting to explore.
Facts do exist---are, in fact, reality. The aboutness is an integral flaw in speaking/communicating etc. on the facts.

The "aboutness" is much deeper than communication.
Our intellects do not directly perceive reality.
What we perceive is filtered through senses and interpretation.
All we can do is imagine a model of what we think gives rise to what we perceive.
That is what facts are.
That is why they are a symbol.

Descartes postulated that all we perceive could be an illusion.
He could postulate this because we do not directly perceive reality.
So no one can prove it couldn't all be an illusion.

And that is why it's relevant to the level that peter is attempting to explore.
No one can honestly say for sure that facts-as-reality (in your terms) are true.

[SerScot]

wayfriend,

The possibility of our entire percieptions being false, while an interesting philosphical idea, doesn't really help keep our bellies full and our lungs pumping. Either we are in a solipsistic wonderland or our perciptions are fairly accurate representations of reality. I know which one I'm beting on.

[wayfriend]

SerScot, you'll have to take that up with René -- whom I am sure would tell you he's only engaging in a thought experiment.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

But I was trying to keep things on the ground peter was attempting to explore.
Facts do exist---are, in fact, reality. The aboutness is an integral flaw in speaking/communicating etc. on the facts.

The "aboutness" is much deeper than communication.
Our intellects do not directly perceive reality.
What we perceive is filtered through senses and interpretation.
All we can do is imagine a model of what we think gives rise to what we perceive.
That is what facts are.
That is why they are a symbol.

Descartes postulated that all we perceive could be an illusion.
He could postulate this because we do not directly perceive reality.
So no one can prove it couldn't all be an illusion.

And that is why it's relevant to the level that peter is attempting to explore.
No one can honestly say for sure that facts-as-reality (in your terms) are true.

Sorry, but I can't go along with you quite that far (not a fan of Descartes). I thought that you were defining "fact" differently. I would say that our Intellect does participate directly with Reality as regards Being. I was understanding "facts" as understanding an abstract determination with regards to that Reality.

[Avatar]

It was Bohr, but it was a great truth, not a deep one IIRC.

--A

[Zarathustra]

A "fact" is not reality, but it is a statement about reality.
Reality is.
A fact may or may not accurately recapitulate it.

This is a confusion between symbol and referent.
Facts are symbols of reality.
Not reality.

We know this is true because reality doesn't care about facts.
It goes about it's merry way,
and doesn't care a wit if it corroborates or refutes anyone's' statements.
We are responsible for facts, not reality.

I don't know of a single philosopher who speaks this way or makes this distinction. Facts aren't statements. You can have a statement of a fact, which can be either true or false (depending on the facts), but facts in themselves are objective and separate from statements of facts. You are the one confusing the symbol and referent, here. Facts are most certainly not symbols. They are states of affairs.

If facts weren't real and objective, then there would never be any way to check our statements of facts to see if they're true or false. If the fact is itself a statement/symbol, then our language has no referent!

And yes, facts are objective, even when they are context dependent or dependent upon terms we've defined. Water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level. That's a fact, even though it's relative and dependent upon our definition of "degrees Centigrade." It's not a statement, it's a reality. It's not a symbol, it's the actual state of affairs. The statement which expresses it is also true.

"I live at [assume I've given my address here] Street" would be a statement of fact, but the state of affair of me actually living at that address would be a fact, even though we've made up the names of the streets ourselves. This is not subjective, nor merely a symbol. It's an actual state of affairs. It's reality, just as much as saying, "I live on earth, not mars."

Of course truth is objective. If it weren't, what would be the point? It might as well be false!

And yes, our intellect does reach reality. The fact that it does so through fallible perceptions and interpretations is part of the miracle/mystery of human experience. All we directly experience perceptually is subjective, but through reason we can transcend this subjectivity to reach the "pattern of the Real," the unity of Being, the transcendental world itself. How we do it, exactly, is a wickedly difficult to explain or describe (though I think Husserl did a fine job), but that we do it cannot be seriously doubted (Descartes notwithstanding). None of us are solipsists in practice. We all know the world is real, despite philosophical games we can play within it.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

And yes, facts are objective, even when they are context dependent or dependent upon terms we've defined.

Well, that's true in a sense.

For example, it's a "fact" that, in a Heliocentric context, the Earth revolves around the Sun. The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the Geocentric context.

These are both facts (understood as "abstract determinations" freely made by men) which equally participate in Reality. Thus, these contexts are certainly true, but since they both participate equally in Truth, they are also adiaphora as regards Truth. Only prudence and wisdom can dictate which context is more immediately serviceable or appropriate.

As such, Truth is both Objective and Subjective. Man must be continually open to Truth, servants and stewards of Truth — never its master. Possessing Truth in its pursuit, and pursuing it in its possession.

[wayfriend]

Sorry, but I can't go along with you quite that far (not a fan of Descartes).

What is this hangup with Descartes? I only mentioned it because he caught on to the idea that what we perceive to be true is not necessarily true. And here I mean necessary truth. It is a contingent truth, not a necessary truth, that what we perceive has reality. And every optical illusion ever discovered bears that out.

I would say that our Intellect does participate directly with Reality as regards Being.

I don't know what that means. Everything we know is based on what we sense and what we deduce. Everything we sense is contingent on how our sensory apparatus functions, and how the biological brain interprets it. Everything we deduce has this suspicious data as a foundation. And then the operation of deduction is itself a function of a biological brain, complete with biases and quirks and blind-spots and limitations - we only think in certain ways. What we "know" is separated from reality by these very real barriers.

This isn't saying we can't figure out how reality works. This is saying that the process isn't perfect. There's no guarantee of success. A "fact" is the output of this process, and so a "fact" has no guarantee either.

If by "Being" you mean the notion of knowing we exist, and the quality of that existence, then I have to say that even that is a biological process subject to quirks. Such as the feeling of being the center of the universe.

Our very memories are subject to the biological process of the function of memory.

I was understanding "facts" as understanding an abstract determination with regards to that Reality.

That is pretty much what I am saying, believe it or not. Except I emphasis "understanding". A fact is an understanding of a determination about reality - not reality itself. But I recognize that the process of "understanding" is not magical thinking, but a physical process with inherent imperfections.

Frank Herbert once said: Knowing was a barrier which prevented learning. The foundation of this statement is the willingness to admit the imperfections of understanding and of facts.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Sorry, but I can't go along with you quite that far (not a fan of Descartes).

What is this hangup with Descartes? I only mentioned it because he caught on to the idea that what we perceive to be true is not necessarily true. And here I mean necessary truth. It is a contingent truth, not a necessary truth, that what we perceive has reality. And every optical illusion ever discovered bears that out.

Ah, but recognizing an illusion (a misapprehension or misunderstanding) presumes a firm standard against which it can be judged — a standard which Descartes' unbridgeable separation of Knowing Subject and Known Object (schematically) precludes.

EDIT: As regards the Herbert quote, it is meant to paradoxical — a formally incomprehensible statement meant to provoke wisdom. As such, it is open (see my last post to Z) and indeterminate (or perhaps better put, not fully determinate).

Descartes system (being at the vanguard of Enlightenment reductionism) is not meant to have any indeterminacy. Rather, it is fully closed, determinate and reified. As such, it dissociates rather than distinguishes — conflates rather than relates.

[wayfriend]

Ah, but recognizing an illusion (a misapprehension or misunderstanding) presumes a firm standard against which it can be judged

Precisely. Should we assume that we have recognized all illusions? I do not. That is tantamount to assuming that we understand Everything. We have not achieved a totality of knowledge, therefore firm standards with which we can recognize illusions may yet be out there to discover ... which means we may yet learn that things we consider "facts" are illusions.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Ah, but recognizing an illusion (a misapprehension or misunderstanding) presumes a firm standard against which it can be judged

Precisely. Should we assume that we have recognized all illusions? I do not. That is tantamount to assuming that we understand Everything. We have not achieved a totality of knowledge, therefore firm standards with which we can recognize illusions may yet be out there to discover ... which means we may yet learn that things we consider "facts" are illusions.

That seems like a sort of Idealistic Futurism. I see echoes of Hegel in what you're saying (assuming that I'm reading you aright, of course).

My position in a nutshell is that I'm cool with Paradox — nay, more — I celebrate it. This is precisely what the Enlightenment project sought, by innumerably diverse paths, to expunge.

But I'm not cool with either Contradiction (think: Hegel) or Univocity (think: Nietzsche).

What we need is the Suspended Middle; the locus of the Paradox. And, surprise!, that locus of suspension is precisely where we live. It's been there all the time.