The metaphysical concept that all truth is subjective is fun to muse on, with it we can be skeptics and question what we know. With that said, we build bridges and machines all the time. If there was no objective truth, our technologies wouldn’t work. Figuring out what is true isn’t always easy, but that is what it is, truth often exists without our ability to determine it with certainty (but that is a complexity, not a rebuttal to this longstanding debate).
There is No Such Thing as Objective Truth myth
The Idea that All Truth is Subjective; That there is No Objective Truth:
Is Truth Objective or Subjective? Is All Truth Subjective? Is There Objective Truth?
The idea that all truth is subjective, that there is no objective truth, is a myth. Everything either has an absolute truth value (even if we can’t know it) or is an opinion or belief.[1][2][3]
This doesn’t mean we can know every truth, this doesn’t mean that what is true for the observer isn’t unique to the observer. It just means that ultimately, underling that, “that which is the case, is the case, independent of our ability to confirm it” and “statements phrased correctly have an absolute truth value.”
To get this argument you need to understand our terms, so let’s define them:
- Objectivity: That which is confirmable as true. The state or quality of being true even outside of a subject’s individual biases, perspectives, interpretations, feelings, imaginings, and/or opinions. True for everyone (or confirmable as true, despite the subjectivity, opinion, and belief of some); truth based on empirical evidence or formal logic. Ex. “Water is wet” or “1+1=2.” This type of truth is necessarily and certainly true. It has an absolute truth-value independent of subjectivity.
- Subjectivity: That which we perceive. Knowledge-based on individual biases, perspectives, interpretations, feelings, imaginings, and/or opinions. True for a specific individual; truth based on perspective. Ex. “The water feels cold to me.” This is a type of truth that is subjective but has an absolute truth value to the observer that relates back to their perception of absolute truth.
- Truth: Something that is the case, without a doubt. Can be either objectively true for everyone, or subjectively true for us, depending on context. When no context is given, it means that which is “objectively true.”
NOTES: Objectivity is a subject of philosophy and thus there is room to debate its meaning in different contexts. In a general sense, a proposition (a statement) is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc. While some might claim only empirical truth is objective, generally speaking, we can say any claim, be it purely rational, empirical, or a mix of both ultimately has an absolute truth value. “Water is wet” (empirical), 1+1=2 (rational), and “gravity is affecting the man in the chair” (mix).
TIP: Context matters. If I say “1+1=2” you could pick that apart by being clever (just like you could pick apart any claim), and come up with instances where “1+1 does not equal 2 under specific conditions.” For this reason it helps to speak in descriptive terms to better state the claim we are making. For example, when we say “1+1=2” we mean “in terms of standard mathematics, 1+1=2; meaning if I have one unit and then consider another together I’m considering two units total.” It isn’t necessary to say that every time, but it is a good fall back if needed in debate. That said, phrasing what we mean and dealing with semantics is a slightly different subject than the subject of objective vs. subjective truth. With that said, we could condense this idea to the following phrase all, “statements phrased correctly have an absolute truth value.”
FACT: Not everything that is true can be proven (just ask Gödel). That is just the nature of the universe we live in. Thus, there is a lot of room for subjectivity, opinion, debate, philosophy, hypothesis, theory, etc. There is a lot we don’t know for sure, which is “why philosophy natural and moral.”
Why The Idea That all Truth is Subjective is Absurd
So the question here is, “since all human knowledge is based on perception and rationalization, then isn’t all truth therefore subjective?”
The simple answer to the question is, “no…” Consider, if all truth was subjective, the none of our technology would work (as much of it is dependent on constant truth values.”)
If we both look at a red ball, and you think it is red, and I think it is blue, then subjectively for me it is blue, and subjectively for you it is red, but objectively… it is red. There is no grey area here.
The fact is, all statements phrased correctly have an absolute truth value, or have a degree of truth that can be agreed on objectively (our whole website is based on this premise).
If we say, “aliens exist,” we can’t say whether it is true or not (it has an objective truth value that we don’t know for sure). However, if we say “it is likely given X data that the existence of aliens is highly likely,” that statement is easier to objectively rate true or false. The topic didn’t change, but the structure of our statement did.
Of course, with that said, some fields lend themselves to truth more than others (like mathematics and physics), and some field lend themselves to subjectivity (like metaphysics and speculation on aliens).
With that said, even metaphysics tends to ask questions that do ultimately have a truth value, the only caveat there is that we often can’t know it for sure.
For another example of objectivity, 1+1=2 is an objective truth, and so is is E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 (a more complete version of E=mc2) that can be used when discussing mass energy conservation. Sure we can skeptically ask, “well can we imagine a case where 1+1 does not equal 2?” This however does not change the fundamentals, one way to respond to that is to clarify the statement. So we could say, “in general in mathematics, 1+1=2.”
The laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, the laws of all many formal rule-sets empirical and rational. These things are object realities, and we can be pretty darn certain of it because they always work, every time, without fail when put to the test.
If you and I both watch the dog eat the steak, if we have the dog on camera eating the steak, if we test the crime science and find his DNA on the steak, if we watch for it in the yard the next day, we look, we see, we confirm, etc, etc we can conclude that it is objectively true that the dog ate the steak.
Did aliens come down to earth and plant this scene here? Well, let’s say they did. In that case, that is what is true and our senses were fooling us. Either the dog ate the steak or didn’t, whichever is true is true. Only one thing happened, there is only one truth, and that one truth is objectively true.
This is to say, truth exists as an absolute, it is only our ability to prove it with certainty that is tricky. Meanwhile, those who deny object truths (while free to do so), are often demonstrably wrong (if not with certainty, then with such a high degree on probability that the “subjectivity” argument becomes rather fringe and absurd).
In other words, catchy phrases like “all truth is subjective” or “there is no objective truth” are just that, catchy phrases with no meaning. They are… objectively false. Knowing something is objectively false is itself, an objective truth.
Above I used an Einstein quote that speaks to relativity to show that there was objective truth. This quote has a dual meaning, it also tells us about relativity and subjectivity. If we change our frame of reference, we can see object truths from a different perspective, this can change our perception, but not the constant truth values behind our perception.
If you and a twin are speeding away from each other in rockets, lots of zany stuff happens (in terms of perception and physics), but what is happening is constant and governed by the laws of physics. There is subjectiveness in the perception, but not in the physics (there is only one objective truth).
Simply, all truth is objective, not subjective. However, how we view truth can be subjective, and our opinions, perceptions of feelings, and beliefs are subjective. A subject truth is what is true for us, an objective truth is what is actually true.
TIP: Many philosophers accept the idea of “a priori” truths, that is, those are truths that are true independently of experience, including mathematical truths and scientific truths. Now, people like to break out the old “all truths are subjective” card when we get to theology and moral philosophy, that is fine… but even there, at the end of the day, there is only one truth (the rest is just belief and opinion).[4]
Elon 2015 Spring Convocation: Neil deGrasse Tyson on objective and subjective truth.FACT: In a related note, the saying “you can’t prove a negative” isn’t accurate either. Proving negatives is a foundational aspect of logic. Learn more about proving negatives.
Article Citations
Conclusion
Author: Thomas DeMichele
Thomas DeMichele is the content creator behind ObamaCareFacts.com, FactMyth.com, CryptocurrencyFacts.com, and other DogMediaSolutions.com and Massive Dog properties. He also contributes to MakerDAO and other cryptocurrency-based projects. Tom's focus in all...
Thomas DeMichele's Full Bio
Brandon Kuyrkendall Doesn't beleive this myth.
There is no objective truth because whether or not something is true to someone is a judgement. Objects are no imbued with judgement, subjects are.
The sources in this article ignore continental (contemporary western philosophy) and phenomenology (foundation of physics) entirely, except for passive mentioning in a Wikipedia article, which would fail a college research paper. There’s a biased focus on ancient Greeks (analytical philosophy) which has been left to antiquity because it’s concepts aren’t tenable. There isn’t some mystical dimension where a perfect horse exist, and that horse is the ideal we all look to when we judge a horse.
Your examples of objective truth, are only examples of inter-subjectivity. There are no perfectly straight lines evident in natural phenomena, days of the week are not a natural phenomena (humans create calendars to describe nature inter-subjectively) , and 2 + 2 = 4 doesn’t accurately quantify any natural phenomena either. This is why PI is an irrational number, there are no perfect circles. Math is like the calendar, an inherently reductionist, inter-subjective system for explaining natural phenomena. We can always measure in smaller units, until we can’t. Math is beholden to our perceptions and our judgements, in that it is satisfactory, truth, when it suits us for our purposes.
Objects, are natural phenomena we can observe together, with our senses. The qualities we observe via those senses are objective. However, judgements, valuations, the meaning of that data, and even its units being deemed satisfactory, are all applied by inter-subjectively, not by the inanimate object that we can never perfectly quantify.
So there is truth, but truth being a metaphysical (beyond physical) concept (not something you can hold in your hand, not an object), it will never be of the object.
Otto Forde Supports this as a Fact.
Operationalize what you mean by ‘objective truth’ and then we might
have common ground for a real discussion.
And then you will realize you have put out a simplistic statement
pretending to be truth.
.
everything eventually is subjective –
without knowing/observing subjects
we know nothing
‘objective’ is just a term for public
events that we observe subjectively,
but agree about and confirm
each other’s observations
Cryo Did not vote.
TThe whole article is dead wrong on so many issues, I don’t know where to even begin…
“Everything either has an absolute truth value (even if we can’t know it) or is an opinion or belief.”
Truth is an abstract quality, assigned to statements within the framework of epistemic system, not a thing that exists. Since there’s no such thing as “objective truth evaluation process” and there are many different epistemic systems, all truth assignments are subjective and “objective truth” is effectively an oxymoron. External reality is objective and truth is subjective.
“Truth: Something that is the case, without a doubt. Can be either objectively true for everyone, or subjectively true for us, depending on context…”
The only way a statement can be objectively true, is if there exists an objective epistemology, a set of objective rules for how to assign truth to propositions. And since all epistemologies are subjective, there can’t be statements, that must be necessarily evaluated as “objectively true.”
“Water is wet” (empirical)”
This statement is true, because you’ve deisided to call the substance “water” and assign the property of “wetness” to it, based on your subjective sensory perception. Since everybody is free to use any language definitions, any epistemology and any vocabulary they like, the truth of the propositon “water is wet” can range from true to false or even incoherent. In other words, it is true only for people who speak your language and share your experiences.
“1+1=2”
The same thing here. It is only true by convention, within the context of made-up arbitrary axiomatic rules of arithmetic. There’s nothing objective about it, unless people agree to follow these arbitrary rules.
“gravity is affecting the man in the chair”
What kind of a cognitive barier would prevent me from assigning “false” value to this claim? -Maybe I am a solipsist and I chose to believe, that all synthetic (mixed) propositions are false just for the fun of it.
Hence, none of the examples represent any kind of objective truth. They are only true within the context of the epistemology the author of the article is using.
“Consider, if all truth was subjective, the none of our technology would work (as much of it is dependent on constant truth values.”)”
Non sequitur. The subjectivity of truth doesn’t imply that all epistemologies are equally useless.
“If we both look at a red ball, and you think it is red, and I think it is blue, then subjectively for me it is blue, and subjectively for you it is red, but objectively… it is red.”
Facepalm. If two people see a ball and both of them percieve it to be different color, how can you know, that it is objectively red to begin with?
“The fact is, all statements phrased correctly have an absolute truth value, or have a degree of truth that can be agreed on objectively”
Agreed on objectively… do you hear yourself? Consensus only implies popular opinion, at no point this opinion becomes objective. All opinions are, by definition, subjective.
_”This is to say, truth exists as an absolute, it is only our ability to prove it with certainty that is tricky. “_
Truth doesn’t exist period, since it’s an abstract concept. Reality does. Looks like you’re defending platonic realism, which is 2000 years out of date. Concepts don’t exist objectively, they’re defined into existence by minds.
Thomas DeMicheleThe Author Did not vote.
Can’t say you don’t provide compelling arguments. Also can’t say I don’t appreciate them, I do.
I think we both generally agree on a core “truth”/”reality” (expressed in the fallible language form) here.
That is, what you call “reality” and I called “truth” (in both cases, that which is the case) is the case. Or, in other words, “that which is reality, is reality, despite our ability to perceive it, know it for sure, or speak of it accurately.”
That is the core of my argument, which I do think is correct, even to the extent I may have to toss out some of the specific words and examples I’m trying to use to explain it.
Maybe it isn’t that core we are disagreeing on, but instead you are then taking issue with the idea that I am extending this concept to say “therefore, extending from the reality that there is an objective reality, there are also objective truths.?
To speak to that, I actually don’t disagree with the core of what you say in terms of things like “consensus only implies popular opinion,” although I would argue that popular opinion could by happenstance be correct in terms of reality and therefore be objectively true.
Likewise, I don’t disagree that 1+1=2 only within certain rule sets, although within that rule set, it does become objectively true within that rule set.
Likewise, with water, we call a state wetness and from within that frame water is wet. However, we could call it anything the the reality of the properties of water and its effects would be the same. The reality is objective, the way we speak about it is only true within a framework.
I’ll think over how I presented the article and your comments and see if I can’t better describe what I mean. And who knows, maybe I will even have to concede that “truth” is a concept that only exists in a subject realm and I’ll have to use the term “reality” instead? Not going to toss out that idea without careful thought.
Ultimately though, I wonder to what degree we truly disagree or that I would change my mind?
Consider this:
I would say that if in reality the ball is on the table (accepting the object we call a ball is on the object we call a table), then it is true that the ball is on the table, and anyone who says, “the ball is on the table” is speaking objective truth, and anyone who claims, “the ball is not on the table” is making an objectively false statement. I would also say that if a person does not see the ball, and thus says, “from what I can tell the ball is not on the table,” then it is objectively true that this is their perception of reality.
Reality is what it is (that which is the case, is the case as I say), the rest is an aside or needs to be discussed within its frame. The truth is the ball is on the table because the reality is the ball is on the table. However, one must perceive and conceptualize the situation and then one may discuss the situation. Each level I would say has objective truths, but they are all dependent on reality and need to be discussed within their frame.
In other words, while I would assert that the language part and the conception part are of a lesser degree than reality, I would argue there is still objective truth within frames and rule-sets related to language and conception.
That said, to be clear, I don’t believe that there are concepts floating around in a void casting shadows on the world or anything magical like that and I do fully get the ways in which subjectivity is invited in when we start talking about perception and the expression of perception and reality using language 🙂
Anyway, thanks again for your counterarguments. I’ll think them over and I’m sure other people will find them helpful.
otto f Supports this as a Fact.
Oh good — it isn’t just me who sees the original article
as something pulled out of thin air
.
every observation eventually is subjective –
without knowing/observing subjects
we know nothing
‘objective’ is just a term for public events
that we observe subjectively,
but we say it is ‘objective’ when we compare, agree about and confirm
each other’s observations
Jeffrey Levine Did not vote.
“Water is wet” (empirical)”
This statement is true, because you’ve deisided [sic] to call the substance “water” and assign the property of “wetness” to it, based on your subjective sensory perception. Since everybody is free to use any language definitions, any epistemology and any vocabulary they like, the truth of the propositon [sic] “water is wet” can range from true to false or even incoherent. In other words, it is true only for people who speak your language and share your experiences.
This seems like a reasonable place to start to address your points. We have a word in English, “water” that corresponds to a molecule comprised of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Different languages have different words for “water”, but they all refer to the same substance. Water has been detected on exoplanets elsewhere in the galaxy based on its spectral signature. If there is advanced civilization on other planets in the universe, they will have their own “placeholder” term to refer to what we call “water”.
Owing to it’s molecular configuration, water is a polar substance…. meaning that it has a fixed dipole moment. (Each water molecule behaves like a nanoscale magnet.) Owing to the attractive forces between water molecules (termed “hydrogen bonding”), water condenses to form liquid and solid phases at MUCH higher temperature than other low molecular weight molecules, such as CH4, N2, O2, etc. We can plot “phase diagrams” to show where each phase of water (liquid water, solid water (a.k.a. “ice”), and gaseous (a.k.a. “water vapor”) are thermodynamically stable.
We use the word “wetness” to describe the physical properties of water when it is in the liquid phase. There is also a term “wettability” that describes the tendency of a substance to disrupt the internal physical structure of water to form hydrogen bonds with the water molecules themselves. A hydrophilic (“water loving”) material is one that is easily wetted by water, whereas a hydrophobic (“water ‘fearing’ “) material does not tend to disrupt the internal structure of water. (That is, water “beads up” on the surface, as with waxes.)
Are you asserting that none of these statements is objectively true in China, despite their having entirely different pictographic characters to represent these phenomena? Or that they weren’t true when the pyramids were being built in Ancient Egypt? Or that they weren’t true during the Paleozoic Era 300 million years ago? Or that they weren’t true on, when Mars used to have water on its surface? Or that they are not true at present on Planet Claire today, or that they weren’t true when the light that is presently reaching the Webb Space Telescope left the surface of Planet Claire…. 500 years ago?
So let’s just start with that, and you can explain to me how these statements do not accurately describe a singular external objective reality that we all share? (Even with a space alien who comes from Planet Claire)?
SenseExistentialism Did not vote.
What if subjective and objective are incomplete ways of looking at things?
Thomas DeMicheleThe Author Did not vote.
That is a cool thought. Maybe it is the case.
River Heralitus Did not vote.
I agree that your statement;
“A subjective truth is what is true for us, an objective truth is what is actually true.”
is true but that it is a trivial conclusion.
Humans are representational (intentional) beings and as such cannot access whether anything is objectively true or not (even the fact that there is an objective reality)
There may well be a Universe of objective truths
(that is what I actually really believe)
but the only objective truth that I really KNOW is that I am conscious
Everything else is inference
Thomas DeMicheleThe Author Did not vote.
That of course is the problem. 🙂
Petter Did not vote.
The statement “everything is relative” and the statement “there is no such thing as objective truth” are synonymous.
The argumentation in this article is absolutely correct EXCEPT for the fundamental mistake of ignoring the subjective nature of all contexts. Every fact depends on other facts for their existence.
For example, the statement 1 + 1 = 2 in standard mathematics is only true if you first presume standard mathematics to be true. But mathematics is only true if you divide reality into pieces. If you instead see reality as homogenous, mathematics has no meaning anymore.
Returning to the statement “everything is relative”. Everything is interlinked which is a good argument for seeing reality as homogenous. The only place where divisions exist is in your interpretation of reality.
Nothing can be expressed that is not subjective. Reality can only (theoretically?) be experienced in “the now” when interpretation (division) does not take place
Thomas DeMicheleThe Author Did not vote.
Interesting take on things. I like that line of thinking. If there is no division between things, then everything is relative only to itself. Hmmm. Hello rabbit hole.
I guess the point of the above article would be however, “metaphysics aside, for practical purposes… [insert argument]”
Jeffrey Levine Did not vote.
Excellent comments. This is why coherentism is (in my view) the most reasonable theory of epistemology. If there is a single external objective reality that we all share, then reality must be coherent with itself. Therefore, valid measurements or assessments of reality should be internally coherent as well.
This provides a powerful tool for assessing truth in the context of evidence. Evidence that is incoherent, or arguments that are incoherent (mutually incompatible) are very likely false. This principle provides the foundation for the rule of law, and the scientific process.
Vernon McVety Jr. Doesn't beleive this myth.
This is a little irrelevant but worth mentioning. There is another term for those truths regarded as absolute. And that is “Eternal Principles.” I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING POSTED CONCERNING THE RELATIVITY OF TRUTH.
Thomas DeMicheleThe Author Did not vote.
You can see my take on it here:
http://factmyth.com/factoids/there-is-no-such-thing-as-objective-truth/
Vernon McVety Jr. Doesn't beleive this myth.
Yes. My oversight. However, I left out the word “else” in that reply, i.e. something else posted on the relativity of truth. I type too fast at times without self correcting. To be specific something poetic perhaps involving the mystical traditions other than philosophical prose. The creative imaginative areas here are very limited and obscure. MC Escher did a magnificent illustration for the Relativity of perception in “Relativity.” BTW I think the adage “Man is the measure of all things” by Protagoras can be seen as a true and great principle. Thanks again.
macsnafu Supports this as a Fact.
In a related idea, I like to say that there is an objective reality, however subjectively and variably we may perceive and understand that reality.
Jeffrey Levine Did not vote.
You said, “In a related idea, I like to say that there is an objective reality, however subjectively and variably we may perceive and understand that reality.”
Great! I agree with you… but I think you kinda missed the point. It’s not merely “a related idea”. Objective reality is essential and fundamental to the very concept of truth. In fact, the concept of “truth” has no significance–no meaning at all–other than as a measure of correspondence between our perception/representations/beliefs and objective reality. I simply cannot conceive of “truth” as representing anything else. If you can define truth in some other way, please help me to understand it.
Using this as a background, we can then progress to the question of whether we have the ability/capacity to determine how closely, how accurately, and how precisely our perceptions/models/beliefs correspond to objective reality. Of course we do. All of us do this all the time, every day. Sometimes we err…. But our sensory systems and processes of cognition are sufficiently functional and useful that they generally provide us with reasonably accurate beliefs, most of the time. (The entire system seems to break down, however, when emotions are involved. One of the primary functions of emotions is to assist in social interactions with other members of our species. Our cognitive processes often (if not indeed usually, according to David Hume) take precedence over objective, evidence-based reasoning. This does not prove that objective truth doesn’t exist… only that our ability to perceive it may be flawed.
The known fact that our perceptions of reality are limited and flawed, and that our beliefs are shaped by emotions that distort our perceptions, or that we rely on heuristics to quickly process information in a useful way, often at the sacrifice of accuracy, does not imply that we have no capacity to approximate, or to incrementally approach an accurate understanding of objective reality. The entire enterprise of “knowledge” relies not only on objective reality being real, but on our ability to approximate it as closely as possible. Most notably, science and technology are utterly dependent on this ability. Anyone voting “FACT” on this question who is typing their answer on a computer, and sending it out across the internet, is either greatly in error, or simply being a “crank”. Anyone voting “FACT” on this question is essentially claiming that there is no such thing as knowledge…. that we know nothing, because there is no possibility of knowing anything. They are claiming that Wikipedia is full of unsubstantiated, and unjustified nonsense. Useless ramblings. Do you believe that?
I find this theory of epistemology (solipsism) to be cynical and from a pragmatic standpoint, utterly useless. I actually have some emotional feelings about solipsism as well. I find it offensive and repugnant. I feel that solipsism is not merely objectively wrong (that is to say “untrue”), but that it’s morally wrong as well. Solipsism gives us a world where we have no capacity to claim that 1+1=2 when we are counting votes in an election, where it’s possible to claim that Covid vaccines are harmful when data show them to be beneficial, that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring, when an overwhelming body of evidence shows that it is.
The question of whether or not objective truth exists is not merely a frivolous intellectual exercise. It is a matter of immense importance to the future of human civilization. We owe it to ourselves, and to all living species on this planet to do better than to claim that we have no ability to ascertain objective truth.
I understand that people are generally fascinated with the notion that our beliefs are necessarily subjective, and that things we believe to be true may be false… but this does not demonstrate that objective truth does not exist…. only that our means of discovering it may be flawed. Nor does it imply that we have no ability to discover objective truth…. even if our best effort is a statistical approximation. As long as we are making an honest effort to reveal truth as fully and accurately as possible, we will continue to make progress.
Unfortunately, tragically, a substantial fraction of the population of the United States has embraced the cynicism of solipsism. I believe it is the proper role of philosophers to help to address this problem…. not to capitulate.
Visign3d Supports this as a Fact.
The problem is whit 1+1 eqatation that its tru only in special cases. For exaplme if u take a spermium cell adds to it a gamete u get not two but one cell. So your equatation dont works everywhere – only in mathematic conceptions.
Thomas DeMicheleThe Author Did not vote.
That is objectively true. Truths should be stayed like this, “in terms of mathematics, 1+1=2.” Context matters of course.
Visign3d Did not vote.
But how we can say somthing is objective that is subject of a context?
Thomas DeMicheleThe Author Did not vote.
I think we can say simply: something being objectively true means being objectively true within the context of that which we are speaking.
If we want to go tortoise and Achilles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles) and ask “just because I think, does this really prove I am?” Then yes, we can argue the line of thought that says things like “we don’t know everything for sure, so everything might be subjective at its core, so all objective knowledge underlying that might be built upon a foundation of uncertainty, and thus nothing is objective.” <— something like that
If we want however to discuss practical knowledge and we want our words to be useful, we really have to speak in context and consider that which is constantly true in practice. When we program a computer, we need strict rules, 1+1 must equal 2 under normal circumstances, that must be objectively true. What is true within that context isn't subjective.
So on a metaphysical level of deep questions about the nature of reality, we can argue for all truth being subjective on some level. I am all for that.
I frankly also found your questioning interesting.
But I would argue that we none-the-less live in a world where all truth is ultimately objective, and subjectivity comes only from things like our sentiments, opinions, impressions, lack of understanding, and inability to phrase things properly.
Even things that exist in probability and uncertainty are governed by objectively true rules (like in particle physics).
For your example, for example, the problem isn't with the concept of 1+1 being true or untrue, it was with how we were phrasing it and applying it. For math, we need to speak in terms of math. For cytology, we need to speak in terms of cytology. What is true is. While, to the degree we fail at expressing it, that is on us.
Those are though, my opinions on a matter that ultimately has an objective truth. I might not be stating it correctly, but outside of me, you, and Plato's ability to say it, none-the-less, at the core, there is an objective truth to the discussion of truth and objectivity.
Consider this statement:
To the best of our knowledge, the physical universe is not filled with visible pink Unicorns named Henry. That is objectively true. It may not be useful truth, but it is an example of objective truth. Or at least, that is a very strong theory since there has never been any evidence to disprove it, and thus we can consider it objectively true to the best of our knowledge. Even if we are wrong, then it was, at its core, simply objectively false. Still objective.
macsnafu Did not vote.
“I think we can say simply: something being objectively true means being objectively true within the context of that which we are speaking.”
I have to agree with this. Context is very important when talking about truth (or Truth). A certain type of absolutism applied to everything is usually absurd and meaningless, and it is this absurdity that seems to lead many to subjectivity concerning truth.
joseph Did not vote.
1 + 1 = 2 is only valid using base 10 mathematics. In binary code (base 2) this is incorrect.
Ergo, subjective and based upon assumptions.
Thomas DeMicheleThe Author Did not vote.
My rebuttal is that “1+1=2 using base 10 mathematics” is an objective truth. Most if not all truth is objective in general if framed correctly, it is only subjective from alternative frames. Which frame do we use, I guess we could argue that is subjective, but if we are saying 1+1=2, I would suggest we are implying a base 10 frame and we are being tricky if we choose another frame like base 2.
Yomammaa Did not vote.
If a person claims that there are no objective truths than in fact they are believing in an objective truth by making said statement, ergo while they argue that objective truth does not exist they must first do so by using objective truth, hence they contradict themselves by illustrating one must first believe in an objective truth.
Thomas DeMicheleThe Author Did not vote.
A very good point.
Keziah ha'Kodeshi Did not vote.
Just like saying “the world is flat.” The Objective Truth is
NO!