I hate to start a new topic since I'm still working on my argument in the infinite time topic (which I will continue, sorry for delaying so long), but I've been having discussions about this topic recently in real life, and I wanted to get it started.

Truth - subjective or objective?
My belief is that it is subjective. I will not deeply get into it right now, until I get some replies and possible rebuttals (err..make that definite rebuttals. Here's looking at you, Nate. )

Anyways, my main argument is that truth itself deals with perception, and that perception itself is subjective. Do not confuse truth with knowledge; epistemologically, truth is a value required for something to be considered knowledge, along with justification and belief.

I am making, for the sake of argument, fact synonymous with knowledge, in the sense that you can never know something unless it is fact. In order for something to be fact, you must have the three factors listed above; justification, truth (you perceive it to be true), and a belief that it is, per se, true. If you remove any of those three factors, then you do cannot know.

But fact aside, my main argument is that, since truth itself is what you perceive, it is ostensibly subjective.

Please discuss.

Truth is black and white. We will sometimes see it in shades of grey, but in reality it is black and white.

So you're saying it's objective.
I'm saying that truth can be grey, and in fact, is a lot of the time.

Take this example.

Person A is standing in front of and facing Person B, who is also facing Person A. They are both standing next to person C, who is facing Person A and Person B (but manifestly they are not facing Person C). They form a triangle, as shown in this poorly drawn diagram...

-----------Person A----------
---------------------Person C
-----------Person B----------

Now, remember, Person A and Person B are facing each other. It is irrelevant which way Person C is facing (I'm not sure why I even mentioned which way he was facing earlier, but it doesn't exactly make a difference.)
Anyways, Person A says to Person B, "Person C is to my left."
This statement is true.
Person B says to Person A, "Person C is to my left."
This statement is false.
Person A and Person B made the exact same claim, yet the truth value changed for each person. To say that a statement can have a truth value of both true and false is absurd. The truth value of that statement is correct in correlation with the perception of the one who makes the claim; that is, truth is based upon perception, and it is subjective because one can make the exact same claim yet it would be false.

"Person C is to my left."

This isn't a subjective proposition. It's a relative proposition.

Main Entry: relative
Pronunciation: 're-l&-tiv
Function: noun
1 : a word referring grammatically to an antecedent
2 : a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing
3 a : a person connected with another by blood or affinity b : an animal or plant related to another by common descent
4 : a relative term

That Person C is to Person A's left is relative to the position of both person's. If indeed person C is to the right of Person A, it would be a false statement, because the truth value of the proposition ("Person C is to my left") is dependent on the position of Person A in relation to Person C. If it were a subjective statement, there would be no truth value, because the "truth" of the matter would not depend on anything, and simply be a reflection of the perception, tastes, and biases of Person A. If this were subjective (determined by the subject), it would not truly matter whether or not Person C was truly to Person A's left, imagine Person A, as a subject, had his left and right a bit mixed up. Does that mean it is true that Person C is to Person A's left simply because Person A believes it to be so?

I think what we have here is a very interesting determination. Why use sentient people? Just because they are of sentient quality and capable of subjective propositions? Let's, instead, use comatose patients, dead bodies, manikins!

-----------Manikin A----------
---------------------Manikin C
-----------Manikin B----------

We could say the same things of Manikins A, C, and B. And, these propositions are still entirely relative to the positioning of the other Manikins. Manikins have no perception, but the same results are true. Because, the truth value of the proposition isn't bassed in perception or subjectivity, the truth value is based in relativity.

Truth is that which reflects reality, not what we feel, think, or imagine reality to be.
Objectivity is the truth. The qualities and actual beings of objects without the conscious mind or perception there of.

I refer back to the old saying: "When a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound?"

Of course it makes a sound. Our perception of the sound has nothing to do with the existence of said sound. The sound is an objective reality. It is true that the tree made a sound despite whether or not anyone ever heard it. The truth of that matter is not subject to anything.

Well, it appears our dispute lies within the exposition of the word truth.
You say truth is of reality.
I say truth is what we perceive as a justifiable belief.

In your sense, truth is a higher value than fact, or knowledge, itself. In mine, truth is a lower value. I belief truth is a necessary quality of knowledge, and therefore cannot per se be higher in value than knowledge.

When you think of truth as "of reality," then yes, sentience is irrelevant. Whether we are there to witness something or not does not have an impact on what is. However, I do not consider that to be truth; that is something I consider fact, or knowledge. Although fact and knowledge have a difference; and that is, to me, that knowledge is awareness of fact. That is, the apple is red no matter what. That is a fact. But knowledge is having an awareness of the fact that the apple is red. Truth would be to say "I believe that the apple is red." Whether the apple really is red or not is irrelevant, as long as it is justifiable (even if only intuitively, as is the case usually) and is what you yourself perceive and consequently believe.

We can say that it is true, however, it can be a mistaken truth. Sure, we can also say something is fact, but we do not know it is a fact, mainly because of the lack of the truth quality perception, (truth being one of the three requirements for knowledge, along with justification and belief.)

Well, I'm going to have to say that that is an arbitrary denotation. Utterly useless, and ultimately meaningless.

Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: 'trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th]z, 'trüths/
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

Main Entry: true
Pronunciation: 'trü
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): tru·er; tru·est
Etymology: Middle English trewe, from Old English trEowe faithful; akin to Old High German gitriuwi faithful, Old Irish derb sure, and probably to Sanskrit dAruna hard, dAru wood -- more at TREE
1 a : STEADFAST, LOYAL b : HONEST, JUST c archaic : TRUTHFUL
2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs <true description> (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized or fulfilled <dreams come true> b : IDEAL, ESSENTIAL c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed <the true dimension of the problem> d : CONSISTENT <true to character>
3 a : properly so called <true love> <the true faith> <the true stomach of ruminant mammals> b (1) : possessing the basic characters of and belonging to the same natural group as <a whale is a true but not a typical mammal> (2) : TYPICAL <the true cats>
4 : LEGITIMATE, RIGHTFUL <our true and lawful king>
5 a : that is fitted or formed or that functions accurately b : conformable to a standard or pattern : ACCURATE
6 : determined with reference to the earth's axis rather than the magnetic poles <true north>
7 : logically necessary
8 : NARROW, STRICT <in the truest sense>
9 : corrected for error
- true·ness noun

But, beyond just these definitions, you're moving away - now - from the idea that truth is subjective. If truth were subjective it would be determined by the subject, not by the object. Further, subjective propositions don't usually have a truth value. If a subjective proposition doesn't even hold a truth value itself, how can it be true?

You win, sir.
I guess next time I should do research before I make a claim. The logic of my reasoning is usually pretty flawed.
Until further information emerges, it makes sense that truth is objective. However, I will still be on the lookout. More research is needed to be done. We should plan a trip to the library soon, so we can take those books back, and get some new ones. Ja?

Is that the truth?



Usually flawed? Like a fox!
You just missed this one, I think. Eh, we all make mistakes.
Yes, more research. We never got around to the library, we should do that. I need some books for serious now.

Nate Pwns.

P.S. I blame Luke Christopher Coleman.

I believe that truth is absolute. Some things are relative, and I feel that some things cannot be known. 2+2=4. There is no different answer for that.

When relativity comes into the question it basically eliminates all sense of responsibility. So, morals have a say in truth. What some people see as truth can change over time through knowledge of the studied subject. Such as the flat earth.

Am I right or wrong? Do I need to explain it better or is this fine?