Objective Truth, Subjective Truth and Opinions

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes 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.

Uh  we teach Moroni 10 and Alma 32 and DC 93

Hardly objective truth,  Ask God and he will tell you in your heart.  Or not.  Truth exists in spheres.  Truth is when the fruit of the belief is sweet.

You ought to read them.

Argue to the correct position- don't tell people what they believe.

No credibility here whatsoever.

Edited January 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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?

First, Evangelicals uphold sola scriptura, and would never claim an extra biblical source, such as spiritual experience, as a source of truth (they mock us for that).  So I really don't know how to you explain the evangelical that told you that? How do you explain it?  Strange indeed!

I have no problem with someone following the Spirit wherever it takes them.  Line upon line, precept upon precept...  

I uphold the eleventh article of faith which states "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

[mfbukowski]

To others

See the point here is that the notion of variable truth supports our position

We want to argue for objective truth in the gospel but that ARGUMENT doesn't work.  THAT is crystal clear right here on this thread right now

Deflationary Theory is our friend not our enemy.  It fits perfectly with Alma 32, Moroni 10, James 1, and DC 93- truth in "spheres".

We don't know what we have here.  It fits perfectly with contemporary philosophy.  Our truth IS Pragmatic romanticism.

Oh wait

We can't believe the philosophies of men mixed with scripture right? 

Even if the philosophy is true??? And helps our cause??? 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

First, Evangelicals uphold sola scriptura, and would never claim an extra biblical source, such as spiritual experience, as a source of truth (they mock us for that).  So I really don't know how to you explain the evangelical that told you that? How do you explain it?  Strange indeed!

I have no problem with someone following the Spirit wherever it takes them.  Line upon line, precept upon precept...  

I uphold the eleventh article of faith which states "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Yeah.  Pragmatic Romanticism. 

 

[pogi]

6 minutes 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.

You are not trying to convince me of your world view about same sex marriage and the falsity of religion?  

How do you know it is a false assumption?  I never said that it cannot be found, I said that we cannot know it with certainty - until we are like God.  However, I can know it as well as I can know anything else though.  I can have profound spiritual assurances of faith.

[Exiled]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

First, Evangelicals uphold sola scriptura, and would never claim an extra biblical source, such as spiritual experience, as a source of truth (they mock us for that).  So I really don't know how to you explain the evangelical that told you that? How do you explain it?  Strange indeed!

I have no problem with someone following the Spirit wherever it takes them.  Line upon line, precept upon precept...  

I uphold the eleventh article of faith which states "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

I'll go find him and let him know that someone named pogi said he, pogi, didn't believe he, evangelical, had the experience that evangelical said he did because evangelical should believe in sola scriptura.  Who would have thought an evangelical would believe in contradictory things?  Maybe my evangelical friend wouldn't view it that way even when most would?  One wonders.  Nevertheless, you understood my point with your highlighted sentence.  It seems that "and we will try to convince you that worshiping our way is the right way"  should be added to the sentence but maybe it is just me?

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I'll go find him and let him know that someone named pogi said he, pogi, didn't believe he, evangelical, had the experience that evangelical said he did because evangelical should believe in sola scriptura.  Who would have thought an evangelical would believe in contradictory things?  Maybe my evangelical friend wouldn't view it that way even when most would?  One wonders.  Nevertheless, you understood my point with your highlighted sentence.  It seems that "and we will try to convince you that worshiping our way is the right way"  should be added to the sentence but maybe it is just me?

Don't know where you get all this illusion that Mormons are dogmatic.

But I have only been a member for 40 years and in leadership for most of that time, so what do I know?

[smac97]

10 hours 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?

I don't think so.  All religions operate on faith, do they not?  So Mormons are not doing anything out of the ordinary on that point.

Moreover, we are fortunate to live in an era in which religious belief is a matter of individual choice (in much of the world, anyway), rather than something mandated and foisted on communities by the Powers That Be.  This means that religious belief is up for grabs.  There is a marketplace of ideas as regarding which religion to join, or to join no religion at all.  Mormons are simply putting their ideas into that marketplace, and are inviting others to examine them and - if they like - to adopt them and live in accordance with them.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  Do you?

10 hours ago, Exiled said:

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.

How do you propose to quantify a sufficient amount of faith?  

In any event, I think Mormons have plenty of faith.  Consider the millions upon millions of volunteer service hours that Mormons put into their faith as a matter of course.  Consider tithes and offerings.  Consider the Church's extensive humanitarian efforts.  These are all expressions of faith.

I'm not particularly prone to ranking religious devotion, but I think active Latter-day Saints do quite a good job at it.  It's part of the deal.  And it's all done based on . . . faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Exiled]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

You are not trying to convince me of your world view about same sex marriage and the falsity of religion?  

How do you know it is a false assumption?  I never said that it cannot be found, I said that we cannot know it with certainty - until we are like God.  However, I can know it as well as I can know anything else though.  I can have profound spiritual assurances of faith.

I disagree with your worldview, yes, and same sex marriage is just the topic of the day.  If you prefer it could be tithing or temple work or any of the other demands, claims made by mormonism.  It seems that one should be a little more sure about what one is proclaiming prior to trying to convince others of the path?  You say you have assurances of faith but still don't know with certainty, which means that your path could be a wrong road, yet you want to convince others to go down your uncertain path.  Unfortunately this system of "faith" is abused by the unscrupulous to lead people astray. 

Another question I have: planting the seed and seeing if it grows from Alma 32 is a nice sales pitch and I used it a lot when I was on my mission, but how do you really tell if the seed is growing or if it is just group think in action?  It always seemed to me that mormonism heavily depends on others helping the potential convert to interpret what they see.  The convert left to his/her own devices won't get there usually unless helped somehow.  They need to be convinced that what they are feeling is spiritual and not just emotional.  It seems that social pressure is a major part of it.  Do you agree?  Also, this system can be easily manipulated by the unscrupulous like I stated above, why would God have such a system?  Wouldn't a better system be to eliminate the God existing question all together and test on compliance only?  Or maybe God or Gods or none doesn't matter because traveling in the dark, completely and without parental guidance, is how to best give us experience and let us truly become adults?  

[CV75]

On 1/13/2018 at 1:52 PM, mfbukowski said:

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?

Yes, but "Yikes!" I was hoping for a yes or a no… ! ...to see whether the deflationary theory and romantic pragmatism were reflected in my remarks here Posted Friday at 02:02 PM and here Posted Friday at 04:43 PM …

But yes, I understand, and like, what you mean by “speaking your truth” serving as a “social nicety” when folks discuss opposing assertions as to what they hold to be "true." That works whether someone is isolated in his perception or enjoys a more communal belief, and whether the opposing perceptions and beliefs (observations and conclusions) are measurable or not, or the opposing parties are using the same methods and conditions or not.

The same with the idea that truth is appropriately identified by the community that openly shares these perceptions and beliefs, and which I labeled “intersubjective” truth since not all “outsiders” would agree with it as they might, say, with seeing and saying, “The sun is shining.”

So when Oprah and Shapiro are speaking their respective truths for the purpose of influencing others into action, there is a great need for communication and cooperation for them to be effective, though their aims may be as far apart as secret combinations and Zion, which I see as two communities embracing disparate “intersubjective” truths.

[Maidservant]

I'm no expert, but I am often found searching out the etymology of a word.  The English syllable "true" has covered much different ground than it does now.  For example, hundreds of years ago when the syllable first started being used, a PERSON could be true.  That is, he could be loyal and trustworthy and genuine, etc.    That we are using that syllable to cover much different ground . . . not to mention modifiers that are of relatively recent development (objective, subjective, and the way Oprah uses it or whoever).

I would also be curious about what the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew is in the scriptures; not to mention the context of when and where and why it is used.  And why King James, or any, felt that "true" or "truth" was the proper English replacement.

OR we can deal with it the way "true" and "truth" has become today, but realizing that every word/concept has a historical development--they way we talk about it, the way we think about it, the way we order our society around it (or not).  But not under the misunderstanding that Jesus (for example) would have been in the same paradigm when he was speaking in Aramaic in another time and place.  Of course, nowadays, we look to how it is being used in General Conference, yes?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the word "truth" is much like the word "love".  It's holding too much to the degree that it may be holding nothing.  And we still use the word love because how would we change it?  Truth is in the same situation.

For example, truth is often now thought of as "accuracy".  But did Jesus really say, I am the Way, the Accuracy, and the Life?  What does THAT mean?

What about defining truth as those actions, if taken, will lead to a peaceful life?  So that isn't as much about information as it is about behavior.

What else?

But in a discussion, people are rarely on the same page.  Like the people who might say "Love hurts" and those who say "If it hurt, it wasn't love".

I have to admit I have a complete reaction against the use of the word truth for these reasons.  As in, I am not particularly in a search for Truth, as some might characterize their life.  I have chosen for myself a search for peace--I personally find that more meaningful--and so I want to think the thoughts, feel the feelings, craft the paradigms, take actions and use my time in a way that peace is created in my life and that makes it a little easier for others within my influence to experience the same.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I'm no expert, but I am often found searching out the etymology of a word.  The English syllable "true" has covered much different ground than it does now.  For example, hundreds of years ago when the syllable first started being used, a PERSON could be true.  That is, he could be loyal and trustworthy and genuine, etc.    That we are using that syllable to cover much different ground . . . not to mention modifiers that are of relatively recent development (objective, subjective, and the way Oprah uses it or whoever).

I would also be curious about what the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew is in the scriptures; not to mention the context of when and where and why it is used.  And why King James, or any, felt that "true" or "truth" was the proper English replacement.

OR we can deal with it the way "true" and "truth" has become today, but realizing that every word/concept has a historical development--they way we talk about it, the way we think about it, the way we order our society around it (or not).  But not under the misunderstanding that Jesus (for example) would have been in the same paradigm when he was speaking in Aramaic in another time and place.  Of course, nowadays, we look to how it is being used in General Conference, yes?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the word "truth" is much like the word "love".  It's holding too much to the degree that it may be holding nothing.  And we still use the word love because how would we change it?  Truth is in the same situation.

For example, truth is often now thought of as "accuracy".  But did Jesus really say, I am the Way, the Accuracy, and the Life?  What does THAT mean?

What about defining truth as those actions, if taken, will lead to a peaceful life?  So that isn't as much about information as it is about behavior.

What else?

But in a discussion, people are rarely on the same page.  Like the people who might say "Love hurts" and those who say "If it hurt, it wasn't love".

I have to admit I have a complete reaction against the use of the word truth for these reasons.  As in, I am not particularly in a search for Truth, as some might characterize their life.  I have chosen for myself a search for peace--I personally find that more meaningful--and so I want to think the thoughts, feel the feelings, craft the paradigms, take actions and use my time in a way that peace is created in my life and that makes it a little easier for others within my influence to experience the same.

Great post- yes this is exactly the problem.  We forget that language is man made and is altering continually and modified through our culture and we cannot speak without.... language.

That is why philosophers today do not talk about "truth" they talk about how "statements (or propositions)  can be justified" .  "Justified" means no more or less than it is reasonable to believe them.   And William James showed logically that religious and moral statements can be justified merely by the fact that they work in our lives.   How else to you prove that murder is "wrong"?   There is no other evidence other than the fact that we all know it is.

I have sometimes joked that the church is true because I have put a plumb line along a wall and yes it is truly vertical and therefore true. 

I will post this one more time now that some here might know the vocabulary better.  Note that Rorty says that we know what "truth" means- we know how to justifiy a proposition, and what truth means, we just can't define it.  Like the word "God" it is ineffable and there is not much rationally we can say about either.

Yes he's arrogant and hard to listen to, but in most cases he is right. 

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes he's arrogant and hard to listen to, but in most cases he is right.

Isn’t there another level of truth beyond our pragmatic justifications? Could there also be such a thing as God’s truth? This sounds somewhat arrogant:

Quote

11. And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisyand no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.

15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remissionof your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Fatherand the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

On 1/14/2018 at 10:38 AM, Exiled said:

It seems that one should be a little more sure about what one is proclaiming prior to trying to convince others of the path?  You say you have assurances of faith but still don't know with certainty, which means that your path could be a wrong road, yet you want to convince others to go down your uncertain path. 

Exiled, the thing you have to understand about my paradigm is that no one has absolute certainty.  Let that sink in.  You are no different from me in that regard.  You seem to think that because I depend on faith, that my path is somehow untrustworthy.  What you have difficulty accepting is that you too function by, and depend on, faith, and live in a world of uncertainty.  We all do.  It is unavoidable.   But if I had to choose two things that I am most sure of, it would be this: 1) I am on the path that God wants me on, and 2) that God wants me to invite others to try this path.  So, when you tell me that I should be a little "more sure" about what I am proclaiming, it helps me understand that I am completely misunderstood by you.  If mankind had to be certain before speaking, then there would be nothing but silence...  So much for progression! 

Also, I don't profess to "convince" anyone of anything, other than to experiment for themselves upon the word. 

There is no point in discussing any of your other points until we come to an understanding on this point.  What say ye?  Are you going to continue to try and convince me of your path, and thereby remain either 1) hypocritical or 2) deluded into believing that you have absolute certainty in what you are proclaiming to me? 

Edited January 15, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Isn’t there another level of truth beyond our pragmatic justifications? Could there also be such a thing as God’s truth? This sounds somewhat arrogant:

If God does have truth, how can one recognize it except through pragmatic justification?  If it didn't work, then it wouldn't be God's truth. In other words, God's truth is confirmed via spiritual pragmatism.  Conversion happens through testing the seed.  It is an experiment upon the word.  That is the foundation of eternal progression and knowledge.

To point to scripture and say, "see, this is God's truth because the scripture says so.  No need for testing or spiritual confirmation...", is leaning dangerously close to the circular evangelical approach of sola scripture. 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Isn’t there another level of truth beyond our pragmatic justifications? Could there also be such a thing as God’s truth? This sounds somewhat arrogant:

 

Yes of course there is God's truth!!  

The problem is knowing when those particular words reflect it or not, which can only be known  by the Spirit to each of us individually.   Some will not recognize those words  as God's truth and therein lies the problem.

We can just shake our heads and turn away from those folks or use human language- -which was confounded at Babel and is horribly confusing and imprecise so that we needed to learn by faith-- to try to discuss what we mean by "God's truth" so we can teach them what that means if they do not understand it- which is what this thread is about.

[RevTestament]

On 1/12/2018 at 10:58 AM, 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).

Yep, things of faith are subjective. I consider my experiences to be true, as did Joseph Smith, but most people did not believe he really saw the Savior etc, or the work of the Church would be essentially done. Same for my experiences - they are literally "my truths." I know what I have experienced, and will not deny them, yet they remain untrue for others in my life. I believe the God of the Bible exists and is true, yet for a majority of the people in the world, He is not God. I think Clark says it very well:

On 1/12/2018 at 11:19 AM, clarkgoble said:

"My truth" typically means a more phenomenological perspective -- that is the experiences of the person. As experiences they are true even if the interpretation of the experience isn't necessarily correct. Effectively it's just an attempt to reject dismissals of direct experience.

It can be misused of course.... However since often voices are just dismissed, it's really a way of saying to not dismiss people's experiences. And that is a good thing. Effectively what often happens is that we think that because we've not experienced something that it's usual and dismiss people's experiences as not true. That's why the rhetoric takes the form it does.

 

Quote

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 would define Objective truth differently. It is like scientific truth or proof. It can be measured, quantified or verified by other third parties. Every one can observe it or sense it like yourself. 

Just because Ben Shapiro feels subjective truth is merely opinion, doesn't make it so. That is just a defensive tactic he uses. He will turn around and say that God is real, and he believes God truly exists. Now if he wants to call that merely his opinion, I can live with that. Shapiro is trying to stop the left from calling their feelings truths, so imho he goes to far. I think everyone will admit that everyone has feelings and beliefs, and that much is true - it is not just opinion. For the purposes of debate, he just calls objective truths "facts" and everything else opinion. Obviously, I don't quite agree with that, but I like Ben Shapiro's calls for Americans to grow up, and get over identity politics(victimhood) and its childish repercussions such microaggressions used to curb free speech. 

[Raymond Ellis]

When I was about 18 my brother in law said to me: 'Truth/Reality is Subjective'. I came back with 'Infinity is at 90 degrees to your concentration' -- I don't know where I got that from and my brother in law was angry and basically said it was stupid. I guess you could say he had his own truth.

We should not be concerned too much with what Ophrah Winfrey said. To dwell on what is 'your truth' too much will drive us insane. D&C Section 9 verse 8-9 tells us that as we consider an idea our bosom will burn with the Holy Ghost and we will feel that it is true. If it is not true we will have a stupor of thought and will forget the idea.

What about Objective truth like the truths of Mathematics including Calculus? Scientists worship the great power of their Mathematics but Zechariah 4:6 says: 'Not by might nor by Power but by My spirit says the lord'. 1John 15-17: do not love the world, the world and the pride of life and the lust of it is passing away but he who does the will of God lives forever. He who loves the world does not have the love of the Father in him.

To worship power is the original sin and is the cause of all trouble and pain and sorrow and evil and sin -- is this statement true or not? Only God can tell you.

When I was 17 I asked "the universe" the question 'Why do things fall?' I got a reply that I believed to be true: 'Things fall because they [sinners] reject the love-light from above.' I added 'sinners' later in life. To me at that time God was the universe, so I had complete faith that the answer was true. I didn't read the Bible until I was about 30 years of age -- I think I was lucky not to be indoctrinated by growing up with parents of a religious faith. For example I was free to seek the meaning of the number seven in the Bible when I was 32, not having an idea of what it means from any church.

I was baptised by God at 21. I left my room automatically, led by the spirit, and went into the backyard and stood facing east toward a Chinese 'tree of heaven' and a six foot paling fence behind that. Suddenly the world disappeared and I could not sense my body, the tree and fence was replaced by the love-light of God all around. After a while I said in my mind: 'I feel unworthy of the experience because I was not married.' And then the experience ended.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I would define Objective truth differently. It is like scientific truth or proof. It can be measured, quantified or verified by other third parties. Every one can observe it or sense it like yourself. 

Just because Ben Shapiro feels subjective truth is merely opinion, doesn't make it so. That is just a defensive tactic he uses. He will turn around and say that God is real, and he believes God truly exists. Now if he wants to call that merely his opinion, I can live with that. Shapiro is trying to stop the left from calling their feelings truths, so imho he goes to far. I think everyone will admit that everyone has feelings and beliefs, and that much is true - it is not just opinion. For the purposes of debate, he just calls objective truths "facts" and everything else opinion. Obviously, I don't quite agree with that, but I like Ben Shapiro's calls for Americans to grow up, and get over identity politics(victimhood) and its childish repercussions such microaggressions used to curb free speech. 

Science is forever tentative. Even in science there are three main views of science: scientific realism, deflationary or empiricist accounts, and then instrumentalist accounts. The former is more what I suspect you're getting at. However it's actually a more minority view. (I'm a realist myself - although the way scientific realism is usually put is problematic) The deflationary accounts are probably the most popular view and Mark is pushing a Rorty variant of that. Instrumentalism is pretty popular among some groups of scientists. It was popularized in physics by Richard Feynman. It's basically the idea that there is no truth, just tools to give results.

Typically what we distinguish is our experiences from what's behind the experiences or what we converge upon as we reconcile differing experiences. Even the deflationists would agree upon that. So to distinguish what one person believes is true from what the community would given enough research converge upon seems a pretty fair distinction to make. So to use Shapiro he'd distinguish between his belief that God is real from the reality (or non-reality) of God. He fully acknowledges an element of faith in that move.

[cinepro]

Regarding the quote from Oprah in the OP, it should be remembered that Oprah strongly promoted the pop-philosophy fad of "The Secret" back in the day:

Quote

["The Secret" author Rhonda] Byrne re-introduces a pseudo-scientific notion originally popularized by persons such as Madame Blavatsky and Norman Vincent Peale, which suggests that thinking about certain things will make them appear in one's life. Byrne provides alleged examples of historical persons who have achieved this. Byrne cites a three-step process to achieve this: ask, believe, and receive.^[3]This is based on a quotation from the Bible's Matthew 21:22: "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

Byrne highlights the importance of gratitude and visualization in achieving one's desires, along with alleged examples. Later chapters describe how to improve one's prosperity, relationships, and health, with more general thoughts about the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(book)

 

While I am strongly in favor of pre-visualization, goal setting, hard work and gratitude, and that our attitudes and choices can have a profound effect on our lives*, I think believers in "The Secret" stretch that belief into dimensions that aren't quite believable.

So we shouldn't take it as a given that people who talk about "your truth" or "my truth" also believe in an objective reality above and apart from their experience.  Because I'm not sure that's the case, no matter how crazy it would seem.

 

*Many principles of "The Secret" are similar to Covey's 7 Habits, such as "Be Proactive" and "Begin with the End in Mind."

Edited January 16, 2018 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

I ran across this on YouTube. 

It’s a common-sense exposition on why Oprah’s notion of “your truth” is bogus:

 

[Calm]

Not impressed.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not impressed.

Not your truth? 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Brother Bear]

On 1/12/2018 at 10:58 AM, 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 guess I don’t see the difference between what you call “subjective truth” and what Oprah calls “your truth.” It seems you’re both just talking about a system of beliefs. The Truth has nothing to do with it. As your own definition of objective truth suggests, the Truth is outside of the comprehension of any sentient being since any thought you could possibly have is an idea of a sentient being. You cannot have non-personal thoughts or experiences. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Brother Bear

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I ran across this on YouTube. 

It’s a common-sense exposition on why Oprah’s notion of “your truth” is bogus:

 

Although Oprah may not fully realize the implications of what she’s suggesting when she speaks of people in her camp standing up in defense for their version of the truth (“your truth”) I believe the idea she’s espousing is that there is no ultimate immutable truth (the eternal truth of God) and therefore truth is relative thing that can shift like the wind to fit present societal circumstances and exigencies. Because in her worldview truth is a purely human perception (opinion), many dangers lurk because fallen human beings stand in the place of God. After the rejection of the eternal God and his holy word, and the enthronement of fallen man in place of God, it’s not a far leap to get in the habit of cynically inventing “truth” (lying) to undermine one’s enemies and gain the upper hand. After all, if the is no eternal Jugde of the quick and the dead, what does it matter if one manipulates facts for their gain because there is no ultimate punishment for inventing lies as truth to worry about.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Bobbieaware