What is truth? The Ultimate Truth? Can someone truly lie all the time?
I was listening to someone today talking about how Post Modernists seek to eliminate the concept of objectivity. The person speaking indicated they view truth as subjective.
I get what they are saying. I have said truth is subjective as well. It is. Before you freak out I'll explain, because they also miss some very important things.
There are really two perspectives:
- Truth / Subjective.
- Facts / Objective.
People will say there is an ultimate Truth. I contend there is an ultimate fact. There is an objective state of reality that is real regardless of our opinions, and interpretations. It simply is. When people talk about the ultimate truth it is this which I believe they are actually referring to.
So why is truth subjective?
You have learned things in your life. You have seen things with your eyes. You have heard things with your ears. You have received input from your other senses. These things have combined in your mind. They are the only thing that you have to operate on. You do not have access to the minds of others, the information you have never encountered, the things you have never interacted with your senses, etc. Thus, there are aspects about this ULTIMATE TRUTH that YOU will never know. Thus, the truth as you refer to it is limited by what YOU know. You form your truth from all the information you have encountered. There is still a vast amount you have not encountered. Thus, the truth is subjective. It is your interpretation of the things you have encountered in your life.
This truth should be a moving target. As you encounter new things those things should change that ultimate image of truth as you incorporate them into your personal knowledge. Your subjective truth changes.
Guess what? This is a FACT about all of us. Each of us can only be expected to operate with the information and experiences we have had in our life. We cannot be expected to incorporate knowledge we have never encountered within our beliefs about reality.
There are points where FACTS and TRUTH overlap. When the amount of variables involved are small in number it is possible to know an outcome. We use this with mathematics for example. You can know the ultimate outcome of a mathematical process provided you have all the variables. As more variables are added this becomes increasingly difficult.
If variables are not known but we know they exist then we can try to give probabilities or know a range of possible answers, but we cannot know certainty. Even that though becomes much more difficult to comprehend as the amount of variables increase in number.
If you look around you at reality there are a vast number of variables about how it works, what it is, why it is, etc. Even the full scope of variables in the room around you is so vast that there are things you likely don't even realize you cannot know. The dust motes, the microbial life forms moving about, the minute changes in air currents around these small changes, and more.
That is just a single room.
Move into the next room and the variables expand. Move outside and they become vast.
The truly amazing thing is when you start realizing all the variables you don't even know about. When you consider that each piece of knowledge you lack is another variable that is not present in your model of the ultimate truth.
Truth is subjective. That is all it can be. We are not gods, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. We would need to be to even consider it not subjective. Even then it might be debateable.
That does not mean there is no objective ultimate fact about reality. There is. Yet all we can do is strive to guess at what that is as we gather more and more information in our lifetime.
Now this post was intended to refer to the BIG PICTURE truth, but I want to touch upon one other aspect that is often wielded like a weapon. Very often it is done so in an act of injustice.
"X is a liar", "X lies all the time", etc.
A lie is the act of INTENTIONALLY speaking what a person knows not to be true.
For example: If I know I was at a restaurant yesterday, but I say I wasn't then that is a lie.
However, if I am asked six months from now if I was at a restaurant yesterday and I say "I don't know", or "I don't think so" it is only a LIE if I remember that I was there then and I am just covering. If I can't remember exactly then it is not a lie. There is no intent.
You see there is a big difference between being WRONG and telling a LIE.
We are all wrong frequently and about a great many things. This is life. Hopefully we learn from it and grow as people from the opportunity to learn that being wrong affords us. Being wrong is not the same as lying.
People frequently form opinions and speak about things they lack the facts about. To someone who knows some of those facts to them it may appear a LIE. If they were the one speaking it then yes it would be a lie as they would know what they were speaking was false and that indicates intent. If a person believes what they are saying even if they are wrong then that is not lying or a lie. To them it is the truth.
"Speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
A person can agree to that. They can speak the truth. They can still be wrong.
If a person was told...
"Speak the facts, the entire facts, and nothing but the facts."
That would be very difficult and almost impossible to do.
"Just the facts ma'am."
Tell me the details beyond dispute, that do not require opinion, or interpretation.
Here is a fact about reality.
It doesn't care about our opinions.
One mans pain is the next mans pleasure, one mans trash is the next mans treasure.
In my book, assuming that there is one absolute truth, it can only be found by viewing at everything with an absolute objective outlook. To have a good and wide view on things while also remaining or enhancing objectively, someone has to distance oneself both emotionally and physically.
I actually apply that in my day to day life and it helped me solve a lot of problems I as well as others have. Or would have if people would listen to me more.
Of course, most people don't want to be objective. They don't want to distance themselves. And they certainly don't want the truth.
You can't be objective about everything. Many things we do in life we instead are operating on probabilities. We might trip if we take a certain path, but odds are that we do not. Perhaps if we move slower or with a specific gait we can change the probabilities to be more in our favor.
We cannot objectively know a great many things. We can try to know as many things as we can objectively and that is a GOOD practice. Yet the reality is there are so many things to know that to simply survive a lot of our life is a balancing games of probabilities based upon informed guesses that rely upon the input we have received.
If we were purely objective we'd likely be stationary and not do anything, as the act of moving and interacting with so many other moving things that are not subject to our will moves us into a realm beyond what we can purely be objective about.
We are both subjective, and objective.
Being subjective is fine and natural. It is only bad when people push something subjective as FACT.
That is the point I was trying to make.
We, regular people living regular lives, can't distance ourselves enough from life itself to truly get a glimpse at said truth if it actually exists.
I consider myself to be much more objective than others if I must, but I am objective enough to understand that I am not objective enough to even have a glimpse of an idea of being able to comprehend everything objectively.
It is a fascinating topic, really.
nice job thanks
Very good essay. I was just thinking about the "lie" v. "falsehood" example you cited while listening to the IG report authors bloviate before the Senate hearings about why, despite all the evidence of bias found during their investigations of the investigations, that no one was thought to be guilty of not doing their job honestly despite all their blatant bias. I don't buy it, but I can understand the argument. A liberal simply sees things differently than a conservative, and v.v.
In fact, the "truth" as viewed by the disparate elements of our society has never been so different since the immediate Civil War period.
"The melting pot" sure seems to be developing some pretty serious cracks.
Important investigation. The nature of reality, oddly enough, is a topic few people consider in earnest.
There’s no debating that man is a wholly subjective being. There is no possibility of him knowing the objective as such. That being the case, the term “objective” is moot, if taken to mean existing independent of subjective perception.
Nevertheless, this does not obviate the notion of de facto objectivity in the form of subjective consistency and consensus. Since the former concept is entirely absurd from a human perspective, we may redefine the context of the word to always and only mean the latter, with indistinguishable practical effect.
If you define objective knowledge as you do, I must agree with you. But I define it differently.
This is how I understand...
... subjective knowledge: "I see/hear/etc. xyz"
... and truth: "There is xyz"
Now the two can be combined: "I know xyz"
This would be objective knowledge.
If you define objective knowledge as you do, I must agree with you. But I define it differently.
This is how I understand...
... subjective knowledge: "I see/hear/etc. xyz"
... and truth: "There is xyz"
Now the two can be combined: "I know xyz"
This would be objective knowledge.
There is an objective truth. The more variables that are involved in what one considers the increasing likelihood that we'll only ever be able to have subjective views about it.
That doesn't mean there are not things we can know completely objectively.
The things that are simple and focused we can actually know all the variables and those we can be purely objective about.
The big questions, and mysteries though. Yes, those things we'll always have to be subjective.
This is why I think it is so important to understand the difference between TRUTH and FACTS.
A person can be telling the truth to the best of their knowledge.
Someone will still call them a liar, because they know something that person that was speaking did not.
They are not a liar. They may be misinformed, wrong, etc. That is not lying. If it is lying then we are all liars.
Lying requires intent to misinform.
The reason why I qualify objectivity is because all information must past through our subjective perception to reach our consciousness, and therefore can never be pure. But this only matters if one wants to assert that things exist outside their own perception, and there’s really no reason to do so.
In my experience, I perceive that the sun is in the sky. There is 100% consistency to this perception, and I also have the experience of nearly 100% consensus from what I perceive to be “other beings” (allowing for a negligible number of dissenters for whatever reason).
This provides the highest level of objectivity possible for a subjective being, so we can use the word objective for convenience, but I’ll never know whether there is really a fireball in the sky, or if we are merely all deceived in some way. It really doesn’t matter, since there’s no practical difference.
As to liars, there is one lie that counts, even if the person is honest in their belief - the lie of not acknowledging a difference between certain knowledge and best guesses. It is impossible to be telling the truth and be wrong. I know I perceive a phone in my hands right now - that is truth; I cannot be wrong about that. I do not know that this phone (or anything else) exists independent of my perception.
If I said I did, I would be lying even if I believed it, because I am not acknowledging the fact that I can’t possibly know that. It’s not just being wrong; it’s asserting truth when you have no rightful claim to it. It’s an act of lying to yourself because the information is available to you by 5 minutes of logical reflection, but you are willingly ignoring it. That makes it deliberate.
Promulgating an uninvestigated claim is a lie by default. We don’t get to cover our eyes and claim innocent ignorance. We have a duty to truth.
Truth exists. There is no such thing as “your truth” and “my truth”. These terms should not be uttered (except in rebuke) by anyone wishing to preserve the integrity of the concept of truth.
Incorrect knowledge is an oxymoron, not a type of knowledge. Being wrong isn’t any kind of truth, “yours” or otherwise. If we are strict with what we claim as truth, we will only cite that which we know with certainty. Logic is a tool for just such a purpose. All cats are mammals, Lucy is a cat, so Lucy is a mammal. This is true.
Subjective perception is also known with certainty, but that to which it refers is not. I see a tree - true. There is a tree - hmm... no. This you can never cite as certain knowledge. However, as per my other comment, subjective consensus can provide justification for using the word “truth” with some latitude, though only between people who know that when push comes to shove, it is not truth proper. This point should be established before allowing the word to be used for convenience in this way.
Truth is that which has undergone the formality of actually existing. That’s all.
In addition to consensus, by which I take it you to mean either in belief or through fundamental logic, there is scientific reasoning that also may form knowledge that also is to a degree viable beyond subjective experience. Don't forget that source of "objective" knowledge.
Hi esk! Yes, I agree... I include science in “consensus”, as it hinges on the repeatability of experimentation; meaning that others will come to the same conclusion, and via the agreement of our individual subjective experience, we deem it “objective”.
You are limited by your own knowledge. I know things you do not. You know things I do not.
If we both describe something that has parts of our knowledge we will both be telling the TRUTH as far as we know it. Though our truth will differ.
Truth is SUBJECTIVE.
FACTS are not.
There is a difference. A big one.
You are treating them as a synonym. They are not.
That is a fact. When you say there is a tree and you are referring to one you observed that is still a fact. If you are referring to one you did not observe then that is subjective.
Facts are the immutable bits of information. A tree would be such a thing. A human would be another. Unless you contend we have aliens walking among us and if that is the reality then it may no longer be factual, but subjective. If it cannot be interpreted another way then it is a fact, and is objective.
Subjective requires opinion and interpretation.
maybe you see a tree, but I see a house.. is the tree a lie? is the house a lie? who can judge if it really is a tree? perception always differs from person to person :P
Your perception is what it is, and the fact that you see it as you see it is definitively true and certain. The nature of the object seen is a matter we are not equipped to address, as per our wholly subjective nature.
For this reason, I define objectivity by consistency and consensus of subjective experience. A dream you have is not subject to consensus, since no one else has the experience of it, so it is not deemed “objective” and we may therefore call it “subjective” by way of practical distinction.
But really, subjective experience is all we ever have to go on, as even consensus is perceived by each participant subjectively, and there’s no way of knowing if the other people (and their reports) exist outside your own perception.
This is more a language problem than anything else. Yoy’re using the word “truth” to describe honesty, as in “to tell the truth”. This is troublesome because the word “truth” is also often used to describe what you are calling “fact”.
When we say “tell the truth” we mean “do not intentionally decieve”, but this allows for one being wrong, so it’s not indicating reality necessarily, just one’s honest conception of it.
You have made the distinction between truth and fact to resolve this, which would be perfect if not for the fact that it obfuscates the reality due to colloquial use of language. It’s like using the word “God” or “Love”... they are terms already confused and varied in people’s minds. When you say “truth is subjective” many will take this to mean that they are not strictly obliged by reality, that there’s room for interpretation in all matters - a very convenient (and thus popular) quasi-philosophical position - though this is not your intent.
This becomes dangerous as it regards morality (a subject already beset by confusion). If I say “all presidents are immoral”, the relativist says, *”Well, that’s your truth, not mine. I think some are good.” But no, we can’t agree to disagree; we don’t get to have different truths. One of us is wrong, and so our opinion has nothing to do with truth (i.e. fact).
You solved it, but in a perilous way because your terminology is the same as the relativist, though with a different intent. Since they are less philosophically advanced to begin with (as per their belief that “objective” reality doesn’t exist), we can’t expect them to make this subtle distinction. They will hear your words and feel bolstered, seeing you as an ally, and the last thing these people need is encouragement.
Prudence dictates that we insist on the word “truth” being used to describe “that which actually exists and is not subject to interpretation” so as to confront solipsism directly, where it resides, which is in this word “truth”.
FOR READERS' EDIFICATION
Post-modernist subjectivity is arrived at from the post-modernist critique of the dominance of objectivity in public affairs, which concludes that objectivity (unjustly) denies the value of subjectivity and that subjective truth is no less true than objective truth.
Following from those assertions, the argument goes that subjective truth is more valuable, because more essential, to individual experience, and because individual experience is the only reality one can absolutely know, subjective truth is in actual fact true knowledge.
Therefore, objective facts, round which knowledge society once held and organized community, have neither claim to truth except by power's fiat, nor utility for understanding the world that is purely subjective. In this world all subjective truths are equally true, not merely equally valid, and this fact is the only communal truth that must be agreed.
Any other basis for society - common values, shared opinions, friendship, kinship - is unnecessary and becomes relevant only through a preponderance of political power - that is, the weight of numbers or coercive force.
In My View post-modernism uses language unscrupulously to breakdown distinctions and hierarchies which do not accord with believing in the all-around primacy of individuality (not to be confused with the individual) and despising public values and the public sphere. The post-modernist inversion of subjectivity and objectivity is where the argumentation was hammered out theoretically. So it is good to discuss this. Thank you @dwinblood. A suggestion for a future post: It would be worthwhile to examine the words themselves, "subjectivity" and "objectivity," and correct the post-modernist deconstruction by clearly defining the terms "subjective truth" and "objective truth" and distinguishing between factual knowledge and subjective verity, since power-modernism elides these in order to repudiate the superiority and existence, let alone possibility, of objective truth.
Curated for #informationwar (by @truthforce)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 150+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 8
Ways you can help the @informationwar
In a way I think of this like I do the difference between not knowing and being ignorant. Lot of people think a person is being ignorant when they have had the opportunity to learn something and choose not to. If that is the case than we are all ignorant.
To me a person is ignorant when the information is right in front of there face and they choose not to consider it because it disproves a treasured belief. In a very real way this can create a wrong perception and so continuing to believe in there treasure is the proof of ignorance.
There are three religions that practice this kind of ignorance on a moment by moment basis. Stat-ism is the most harmful and supports Atheism and a belief in certain people having a special line of communication with God, like Christianity and such.
The key to these to me is always the claim. You can't prove God exist. You can't prove God doesn't exist or in the case of stat-ism the ability to even question the existence of the state is indoctrinated away. What I notice is that all of these ideas require a belief without evidence. They meaning the practitioners most of the time will admit a lack of evidence for their belief.
Thus the reality is that facts do not create reality. Minds do that.
Basically truth is something that exists objectively, logically and is what takes place logically and is something that is empirical. Whereas facts are facts that occur that are logically acceptable and can be observed manifestly with human senses.
From the description and the two examples above, show that between truth and fact are two sides of the coin that can not be separated from each other. in other words, between facts and truths, and between truth and fact are two very closely related things.