You must log in or # to comment.
Some say we live in a post-truth world. I say we live in a post-realism world. It’s not that objective reality vanished once this massive scale in ideological separation happened, it’s just that people stopped giving a fuck once it happened. Objective truth didn’t vanish though, most people just live without letting it inconvinience them.
Truth can be subjective, in one scenario: when it’s not the complete truth.
However an incomplete truth is via omission, thus making it a lie.
Therefore lies are subjective
However an incomplete truth is via omission, thus making it a lie.
Can an incomplete truth be not a lie if it’s incomplete, because the speaking person just doesn’t know the whole truth?
When you say something fully believing it, it is not a lie, regardless of factual/objective correctness.
It’s not a lie, it’s a projection.
It’s rather curious how those people who claim truth is subjective never do it for gravity, jumping off a high building while claiming “gravity is false for me”. Because guess what, odds are they know it’s bullshit.
Personally, I don’t believe in football.
In Einstein’s general relativity, different observers can disagree about the order of timed events, so long as their individual stories don’t violate causality. This is broadly known as the Relativity of Simultaneity.
[Warning: bar philosophy. Might include ramblings, booze, chain smoking, and fried snacks.]
And yet, gravity is still there.
Even if simultaneity is relative, the phenomenon is still there, you know? You can claim something fell before or after another event, but you can’t really claim it didn’t fall. And you can’t claim two simultaneous events stopped being simultaneous if they’re stationary for you, so it’s less of a “truth is relative to ME! ME! ME!” and more of a “truth is relative to that speed”. It’s still an objective matter, not a subjective one.
Genuinely though, English seems to lack the distinction between truth (the absolute state of something being universally true), truth (something that is correct from some point of view) and truth (an idea someone is dedicated to).
Some other languages have different words for these “truths”. You could say that first is truth, second is perspective, and third is an idea, but all three can be named “truth”, which can easily spark a debate over simple misunderstanding of what you mean, exactly.
Truth opinion and belief
The obsession to have dedicated words when one would rarely bother to specify and just use the generic term anyway will forever elude me.
There is very little difference to me between saying two 1 syllable words and one two syllable words. And English is a very packed language. Most english wordy things already have meaning and reserving a 1 syllable thing that is sufficiently different to be distinguishable is just not realistic.
I would argue that the first and third are perversions of the word. A truth that is universal should be called a law. Like the law of entropy. Unfortunately the word “law” has also ben twisted to mean legal policy. The third should be “belief,” as it is what you hold inside you. Religion call their beliefs “truth” to push their agenda.
truth isn’t subjective, but perspective changes how you see something.
Truth is entirely subjective because all observations are subjective.
What about a thermometer?
Gogo gadget boltzmann brain
Gödel , Escher, Bach, an eternal golden braid
Depending on the light source or sources, there should be a gradient on the top and bottom parts of the first projection.
I’m sure you can work out the kinks with right lenses.
I think people that say things like that are attempting to take up an analytic position akin to Wittgenstein or one of the other early linguistic philosophers, but they simply don’t understand the work they’re reading. Otherwise I genuinely do not know what they’re trying to argue or prove. Wittgenstein and others like him have flaws even when argued perfectly, so it’s kind of a null position to argue.
The product? so the projections created the product?
Now do that with non-commutative (quantum) geometry and try to make the same claim.
