Truth., Subject or objective. Options

[HiTheyCallMejOsh]

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.

[*kryogenix*]

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

[HiTheyCallMejOsh]

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.

[NoSex]

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

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 not true.

"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.