Objective Truth, Subjective Truth and Opinions

[RockHopper]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ben Shapiro responded to to Oprah's use of "your truth" as follows:

Quote

There is no such thing as 'your truth.' There is the truth and your opinion.

So what are your thoughts?  What is the meaning behind currently-popular declarations to "speak your truth?"

Love Ben Shapiro

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I.................................................Ben Shapiro responded to to Oprah's use of "your truth" as follows:

So what are your thoughts?  What is the meaning behind currently-popular declarations to "speak your truth?"........................................

Different strokes for different folks?  Alternative truth?  Truthiness?  Is it all just an effort to be inclusive and tolerant?  Does it say that Donald Trump is entitled to his version of "truth," even if it doesn't jibe with Oprah Winfrey's?  Is Ben Shapiro the ultimate arbiter of "truth"?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have noticed that over the past few years that a phrase has become more popular, particularly in social media.  The phrase is "my truth" (or "your truth").  I'm trying to sort out what this means.  At first blush, it comes across as a re-ordering, a re-defining of "truth" as being somewhat synonymous with "perspective" or "opinion" or "worldview."  So let me break things down a bit.  First, I think we need to understand some basic terms/concepts:

A. "Subjective Truth"

As a Latter-day Saint, I have a set of values and beliefs that I have accepted and utilize as a matter of faith.  I believe the "truth" is that God lives, that He has a relationship with us, that He communicates through revelation and through prophets and apostles, and so on.  But although I accept these things as "truth," my acceptance is a matter of faith.  Of belief.  Hope.  They are, I suppose, subjective truths.  At least for now.  We are told that at some point the Spirit "will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."  (John 16:13).  But for now, I think we need to give each other room to disagree about things that are necessarily categorized, for the time being, as "subjective truths."  Whether God exists or not is a "truth," but not one we can immediately and definitively discern.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (2 Cor. 5:7).

B. Opinion / Taste / Preference

We also need to allow for differences of opinion and preference and taste.  For example, the debate between In-n-Out versus Five Guys is not a matter of "truth."

There is a Latin maxim that merits some passing attention: "De gustibus non disputandum est":

C. "Objective Truth"

In contrast to A and B above, there is what we may call "Objective Truth," which I would generally define as follows:

 In other words, 2+2=4.  We live on planet which is spherical in shape (and oblate spheroid, to be precise).  James Stewart starred in It's a Wonderful Life.  These are all objective truths.  There is no room for principled or reasoned disagreement about such things.  They just are.

Now, coming back to the "speak your truth" phenomenon, consider this article critiquing Oprah Winfrey's recent utilization of this phrase:

So is that all it is?  A coded "call to activism?"

Ben Shapiro responded to to Oprah's use of "your truth" as follows:

So what are your thoughts?  What is the meaning behind currently-popular declarations to "speak your truth?"

Thanks,

-Smac

I have written extensively on this board regarding theories of truth.

If you are actually looking for a rigorous philosophical definition which will hold up to scrutiny, I would suggest you start with this article which also shows strengths and weaknesses of different theories from the past.  I would say that the "deflationary theory" is perhaps the one most widely held today.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

I would rather listen to professional philosophers rather than celebrities when it comes to discussing truth.

Such an approach would be kind of like asking Brittany Spears about jurisprudence.

Edited January 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That said, as I have been saying for years, Postmodernism has simply finally become the gospel for the ordinary woman in the street, like Oprah, but not yet "true" for folks like Ben Shapiro who are at least 75 years behind the times.

But if we are looking for a view which will support a religious outlook on life, I think "pragmatic romanticism" will eventually triumph and have it's day probably catching on in 30 years or so and it will reign for another hundred after that and then something else will replace it.

What we are seeing now is just the usual action-reaction to philosophical reasoning.  The pendulum never stops swinging.  We have been over-saturated with scientific absolutism so now folks have swung to the other side with complete relativism.  Pragmatic romanticism is somewhere in the middle - allowing for a kind of "truth" which works for a while then changes as circumstances change.

If you believe in an open canon, and that religion may be considered "true" in a legitimate way which is justifiable even in the eyes of the strongest postmodernist, you must believe in neither the truth of Oprah nor of Ben but pragmatic romanticism.  Yes polygamy had its place in God's plan, but no longer does.  That is precisely what an open canon is for.

Shortest statement for pragmatic romanticism:  it is ok to see religion and morals as "true" if those "truths" make your life better, yet there ARE principles which ALWAYS make society better- like "Thou shalt not kill" or the Golden Rule.

The mere fact that such rules, though not objectively true by any measure ALWAYS work as maxims within which all can live their lives peacefully and happily, allows them to be seen philosophically as "justified" and one would therefore be "justified" in calling them "true".

We know what truth is when we see it, but like obscenity, it is impossible to define in a single coherent way.   But that's fine.   In court we know what "Joe pulled the trigger" means and can be seen as true or false- and such cases are typically the most important use of the terms anyway.  Juries define truth in a sense as being the triers of facts- it is their job to interpret the evidence and come up with a pragmatic judgement of "what really happened" which otherwise might be debatable.   But debatable or not- the system works and THAT is what counts in the realm of "truth"

Pragmatic romanticism offers the only solution as I see it, and the best part imo is that it places religion in a place of honor among human disciplines, instead of relegated to the dust bin of history as scientism does.

Such a definition supplants the need for categories of truth like "subjective" or "objective" truth all together.   Either the statement causes a real difference in my life or in the world or it does not, it is as they say, a distinction without a difference.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/****stein-pragmatism.html

 

Edited January 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

......................................................

I would rather listen to professional philosophers rather than celebrities when it comes to discussing truth.

Such an approach would be kind of like asking Brittany Spears about jurisprudence.

[Exiled]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nobody can presently declare that they "know" what is "objectively true" regarding God.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (2 Cor. 5:7).

Nevertheless, I can "boldly claim" that my wife loves me, right?  Even though that is not necessarily "objectively true?"  I can claim it because I believe.  Strongly.  

The same goes for the existence of God.  And His character, attributes and perfections.  And the divine sonship of Jesus Christ.  And the Plan of Salvation.  

Such assumptions are part of life, are they not?  I think we actually operate far more on faith than we generally are willing to concede.

And maybe not.  There's no way to "know" that, right?  You can't predict the future, after all.  So let's preach what we believe/know to be true and good, and trust that God will sort things out in the end.

Thanks,

-Smac

There is no way to know for sure, so isn't it a little presumptuous to tell a muslim or orthodox jew or hindu, etc. to leave his/her family and join mormonism? Leaving ones social group to join another group is a big step and I would hope the person inviting change was a little more sure of the "truth" as they see it. One may love their wife and be seemingly sure she loves in return, but one's wife is for that person and maybe not for others? Even the church didn't practice that type of polyandry. 

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

There is no way to know for sure, so isn't it a little presumptuous to tell a muslim or orthodox jew or hindu, etc. to leave his/her family and join mormonism? Leaving ones social group to join another group is a big step and I would hope the person inviting change was a little more sure of the "truth" as they see it. One may love their wife and be seemingly sure she loves in return, but one's wife is for that person and maybe not for others? Even the church didn't practice that type of polyandry. 

Is it presumptuous to let people decide for themselves after sampling the different fruits?

[Exiled]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is it presumptuous to let people decide for themselves after sampling the different fruits?

I think it is when religion is involved and how the missionaries sell it to the world at large.  We cannot know for sure what is truth and so we can be wrong.  Missionaries don't put the question of joining the church in those terms, however.  They want the potential to believe that the church is what God wants the potential to do.  They sell the church as objective truth, right?

[Exiled]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is it presumptuous to let people decide for themselves after sampling the different fruits?

Let me ask you this as well: We cannot know what "truth" is but we know that same sex marriage is wrong?

[CV75]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I would say that the "deflationary theory" is perhaps the one most widely held today.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

In the case of the deflationary theory, if you were to “to speak your truth” per the OP, would you say something like, “I am [fill in the blank]” and never something like “You are [fill in the blank]”? In other words, you always own your perspective but never another person’s?

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Pragmatic romanticism offers the only solution as I see it, and the best part imo is that it places religion in a place of honor among human disciplines, instead of relegated to the dust bin of history as scientism does.

Does romantic pragmatism carry the idea of “intersubjective” truth, wherein people communicate and cooperate according to a shared belief, whether that belief is invented or measurable?

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Let me ask you this as well: We cannot know what "truth" is but we know that same sex marriage is wrong?

Yep.

How do you know murder is wrong?  Is "Murder is wrong" a true sentence?

Is any statement about morality "true"?

Or then are you immoral and do whatever you like to people?

Statements about morality and religion are not true or false in a conventional scientific way, they are true in other ways.

[Exiled]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep.

How do you know murder is wrong?  Is "Murder is wrong" a true sentence?

Is any statement about morality "true"?

Or then are you immoral and do whatever you like to people?

Statements about morality and religion are not true or false in a conventional scientific way, they are true in other ways.

If science determines that same sex attraction is biologically determined, then does the religious injunction have the same weight?  Would you support President Nelson if he proclaimed gravity to be of the devil or would you think he had alzheimers or some other malady?

How is the same sex marriage ban true in other ways?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I think it is when religion is involved...

Freedom of religion is presumptuous?  Letting people decide what they want to believe is presumptuous?  I think you are being rather presumptuous actually.

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

...and how the missionaries sell it to the world at large.  

The missionaries ALWAYS counsel investigators to sample the fruit and find out for themselves.  What is wrong with that?  Are you suggesting that we somehow restrict the freedoms of people to believe as they wish?

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

We cannot know for sure what is truth and so we can be wrong.  Missionaries don't put the question of joining the church in those terms, however.  They want the potential to believe that the church is what God wants the potential to do.  They sell the church as objective truth, right?

Experience is real, whether or not it corresponds perfectly with our interpretations is another story.   I never once used the term "objective truth" on my mission.  It was not part of the discussions.  People need to find out what truth means for themselves, and we are simply offering our version of it.  How is that any different from anything else? Science and secularism for example.  No, missionaries don't sell the church as "objective" truth...but even if some do, is that not their right to believe as they choose, and to allow others to believe whatever they want?

You seriously have a problem with the church because it is "selling" objective truth when we can't know objectivity for certainty? Take a long hard look at science and tell me how that is any different.  

What the church is really inviting investigators to have is spiritual experiences.  Some may call that "objective" truth, other may disagree.  Those are just different words to describe the same experience.  It is the experience that matters.  It is the fruit that people convert for...not for imperfect definitions of truth.   

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Let me ask you this as well: We cannot know what "truth" is but we know that same sex marriage is wrong?

Spiritual experiences are as real for me as is the experience of striking my keyboard keys at this very moment.  I can know spiritual truth as well as I can know the experience of striking my keyboard keys.  Should I doubt my experience with my keyboard, because I can't know it objectively for certainty?  Don't overstate what I mean by we can't know objective truth.  That should not cause us to doubt all of our experiences.  To do so would lead to madness.  I trust what works. 

Edited January 13, 2018 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In the case of the deflationary theory, if you were to “to speak your truth” per the OP, would you say something like, “I am [fill in the blank]” and never something like “You are [fill in the blank]”? In other words, you always own your perspective but never another person’s?

Does romantic pragmatism carry the idea of “intersubjective” truth, wherein people communicate and cooperate according to a shared belief, whether that belief is invented or measurable?

Not sure what you mean in the first sentence, but I will take a stab at it.  Usually one just speaks normally and the audience knows what is being said. I give my testimony all the time as "I know the church is true" because 1- I do, and 2- that is what the audience understands in the context.  How can a "church" be "true" when only sentences are true or false?

We know what that means.  Perhaps an approximation would be - "I have lived the principles of the church and have found that living this way will truly change your lives for the better as living them has changed my life.  I have prayed about it and received my answer that I know with certainty that God wants me on this path. "  That to me, in the context of standing before an LDS audience and saying "I know the church is true" is what that sentence means.

The problem is that we can know some statement is true and another not know it is true in questions of religion and morality and opinion.  There is room for disagreement there so yes we use the words "right" or "wrong" all the time but there is no method to show the other that they are right or wrong- so using those terms is counter productive.

So just ethically I think we should respond AS IF they also are right- it is the only polite thing to do- while inside we know there are irreconcilable differences between our perceptions and their perceptions, about which we cannot communicate.  So the language of "your truth" and "my truth" is simply a social nicety when we have no basis for communication or no shared data which could settle the question

It is really a question of shared evidence we both accept.  That the world is round- I think we all have shared evidence that that is the case.  In some question about string theory, say, some physicists may have evidence for one view which other physicists do not accept as "evidence" so there is no basis for discussing truth or falsity.

Those are simple cases with observable data.  Either you accept the evidence or you don't

Really the issue is the same with the spirit though.  My evidence of what the spirit tells me may not coincide with your evidence, almost like the physicists discussing the nature of reality.  So what IS "real" or "true" if we do not have a shared "evidence" we both accept AS evidence?   Abortion is murder vs Abortion is removal of an unwanted growth.  There is no shared evidence there which we both accept as evidence.

So in many ways truth or falsity in matters of physics, other sciences, and religion and morals are similar.  The key is shared evidence we both accept AS evidence.

So yes, different disciplines have different types of evidence they accept which other disciplines may not accept.  That is the difference between sociology and physics- inductive and deductive reasoning.

So yes we can go off totally confident, and that is a state of mind, that we are right and the other guy is wrong in string theory or in politics, while agreeing fully with our tribe that the guys in the other tribe just don't see the obvious truth of our position.

And if we do not have a common agreement on what "evidence" counts we will never agree.  Never.

So because language itself is a social convention, and because "truth" is not a state of reality (true atoms?  false molecules?  true pencils? false tables?) but a social convention between folks who accept the same evidence for it, the USE OF THE WORD "true" must be limited between social groups, and to make nice nice, we need to say "your truth" unless we want an endless debate which will get us nowhere.

We see it here all the time- how do you know what the spirit tells YOU is not "false" when the spirit tells me something else?

Impasse.  No further discussion possible.  It comes down to a neener neener discussion

So to come up with an acceptable linguistic convention in the use of the word "truth" one ultimately must acknowledge that deflation is the only thing that works with the loaded word "true" IN THE CASE where there is no shared convention for what counts as "evidence"

In other words, as Rorty says, "There is not much we can say about "truth" - it is like talking about "God"- it is ineffable and not representable in language, it's not relevant to anything we can discuss.  We know how to use the word when we need it- as in court, say, or when asking which child had his hand in the cookie jar, but otherwise there is not much to be said about the word."

And so then the philosophers come up with the idea of the "Deflationary Theory of Truth" which essentially means that when you really really get down to it, "truth" is a useful word only in simple cases upon which we can all agree, and that means within a given social group of Democrats or LDS or physicists of a certain stripe etc.

Our group knows what truth is, but them other guys- they be the dummies. 

Does that help?

 

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

If science determines that same sex attraction is biologically determined, then does the religious injunction have the same weight?  Would you support President Nelson if he proclaimed gravity to be of the devil or would you think he had alzheimers or some other malady?

How is the same sex marriage ban true in other ways?

Moral judgments have nothing to do with science.  Moral judgments have nothing to do with biology.  You are not presenting a coherent argument showing what the link is.

If you want to get into the whole free will vs determinism thing while taking on the notion of natural law simultaneously with the truth value of moral statements then you would have an argument.

You are missing a few steps there I think.  Back to the drawing board.  False analogy.  It is hard to see how a "ban" could be true or false for that matter.   Is stopping on a red light true or false?  And yet it is "banned" to drive through a red light.

You got some splainin to do there bro!

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Freedom of religion is presumptuous?  Letting people decide what they want to believe is presumptuous?  I think you are being rather presumptuous actually.

The missionaries ALWAYS counsel investigators to sample the fruit and find out for themselves.  What is wrong with that?  Are you suggesting that we somehow restrict the freedoms of people to believe as they wish?

Experience is real, whether or not it corresponds perfectly with our interpretations is another story.   I never once used the term "objective truth" on my mission.  It was not part of the discussions.  People need to find out what truth means for themselves, and we are simply offering our version of it.  How is that any different from anything else? Science and secularism for example.  No, missionaries don't sell the church as "objective" truth...but even if some do, is that not their right to believe as they choose, and to allow others to believe whatever they want?

You seriously have a problem with the church because it is "selling" objective truth when we can't know objectivity for certainty? Take a long hard look at science and tell me how that is any different.  

What the church is really inviting investigators to have is spiritual experiences.  Some may call that "objective" truth, other may disagree.  Those are just different words to describe the same experience.  It is the experience that matters.  It is the fruit that people convert for...not for imperfect definitions of truth.   

Spiritual experiences are as real for me as is the experience of striking my keyboard keys at this very moment.  I can know spiritual truth as well as I can know the experience of striking my keyboard keys.  Should I doubt my experience with my keyboard, because I can't know it objectively for certainty?  Don't overstate what I mean by we can't know objective truth.  That should not cause us to doubt all of our experiences.  To do so would lead to madness.  I trust what works. 

It's not wrong to give someone a choice.  The presumption is where missionaries think their worldview is better than others, their "objective" truth is better than others.  The church claims that God doesn't like same sex marriage.  This seems to be an "objectve" truth that the church is proclaiming and trying to impose on the rest of us for political gain, yet objective truth is impossible to find?

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, Exiled said:

If science determines that same sex attraction is biologically determined, then does the religious injunction have the same weight?  Would you support President Nelson if he proclaimed gravity to be of the devil or would you think he had alzheimers or some other malady?

How is the same sex marriage ban true in other ways?

Antisocial personality disorder is biologically determined.  These people are inclined to antagonize, manipulate, break the law, treat other people harshly, and even murder.  Does the religious injunction in these cases cary the same weight?  Of course.  The religious injunction is to teach morality, regardless of biological tendencies.  God, in his perfect mercy and justice will judge as he sees fit, but for us it is to uphold morality. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I think it is when religion is involved and how the missionaries sell it to the world at large.  We cannot know for sure what is truth and so we can be wrong.  Missionaries don't put the question of joining the church in those terms, however.  They want the potential to believe that the church is what God wants the potential to do.  They sell the church as objective truth, right?

I would hope not.

Hopefully they are teaching investigators to find and follow the spirit.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Antisocial personality disorder is biologically determined.  These people are inclined to antagonize, manipulate, break the law, treat other people harshly, and even murder.  Does the religious injunction in these cases cary the same weight?  Of course.  The religious injunction is to teach morality, regardless of biological tendencies.  God, in his perfect mercy and justice will judge as he sees fit, but for us it is to uphold morality. 

And courts also hopefully deal justly with such people, putting them in prison as needed or ideally getting them hospitalized etc.

And of course now the thread is about being gay.  After all what ELSE is there to discuss today except being gay?

Edited January 13, 2018 by mfbukowski
politically incorrectness

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Moral judgments have nothing to do with science.  Moral judgments have nothing to do with biology.  You are not presenting a coherent argument showing what the link is.

If you want to get into the whole free will vs determinism thing while taking on the notion of natural law simultaneously with the truth value of moral statements then you would have an argument.

You are missing a few steps there I think.  Back to the drawing board.  False analogy.  It is hard to see how a "ban" could be true or false for that matter.   Is stopping on a red light true or false?  And yet it is "banned" to drive through a red light.

You got some splainin to do there bro!

While I am doing the "splainin" to the presumptive professor, why doesn't the professor tell us why Mormonism would presume to force an Emerson to be a Wesley as James says in "The Varieties of Religious Experience?"  Mormonism and its missionary program preach it is the one true religion when perhaps a variety is better, dude or bro or whatever?  

[Exiled]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I would hope not.

Hopefully they are teaching investigators to find and follow the spirit.

How do you explain the evangelical that told me he had a religious experience from the spirit that told him that Mormonism was wrong?  Should he then not follow mormonism or was he himself deluded?

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The presumption is where missionaries think their worldview is better than others, their "objective" truth is better than others. 

I see, and you don't presume that your worldview is better than mine?  That your truth is better than mine?  You don't feel a desire to share your superior worldview with me?  Because it sure feels like that is what you are doing here.  Hello pot...

Again, how is this different from science or anyone else sharing their beliefs?  We all believe that our worldview is better than others, or we wouldn't hold them.  That seems obvious. We all share what we believe to be true, better, or best.  You call that "presumptuous" I call it human nature. 

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I see, and you don't presume that your worldview is better than mine?  That your truth is better than mine?  You don't feel a desire to share your superior worldview with me?  Because it sure feels like that is what you are doing here.  Hello pot...

Again, how is this different from science or anyone else sharing their beliefs?  We all believe that our worldview is better than others, or we wouldn't hold them.  That seems obvious. We all share what we believe to be true, better, or best.  You call that "presumptuous" I call it human nature. 

I'm not trying to convert you to anything, merely saying that for someone who believes that objective truth cannot be found, it seems odd to support a missionary effort that bases its work on the false assumption of having objective truth.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

While I am doing the "splainin" to the presumptive professor, why doesn't the professor tell us why Mormonism would presume to force an Emerson to be a Wesley as James says in "The Varieties of Religious Experience?"  Mormonism and its missionary program preach it is the one true religion when perhaps a variety is better, dude or bro or whatever?  

Why quote James at all then dude bro? I mean I would not want to force James on you- why have variety then?   Why believe anything?   Is YOUR position TRUE??

 How is that on topic?  

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

I'm not trying to convert you to anything, merely saying that for someone who believes that objective truth cannot be found, it seems odd to support a missionary effort that bases its work on the false assumption of having objective truth.

But yours is objectively true, right?