Beware The Printed Word

[HARDCORE]

2-14-2024

“Things may not always be - what they may appear to be?” And truth is often the first victim of apathy, as the liar, one of the most despicable of all creatures alive, appears to be gaining momentum, even among the higher educated and the more politically astute!

And even with the great advancements in education and knowledge these days, many people can still be led-around by their noses like cattle in a stock pen, never realizing their final destination, which is to be neatly nestled within two-buns and smothered in catsup and mustard!

The bottom line here, however, is still simple indeed – believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you actually see!!

On a lighter note, however, it is getting damned difficult these days to determine right from wrong, truth from lies and even political bull-crap from actual facts, especially within a world that prides itself upon modern technology and in particular, the (not so) good nor truthful, mass media and political factions! After all, how can one possibly believe the deluge of misinformation and vested doggerel that invades our homes and minds – twenty-four-seven?!

Is it all truth or could it possibly be just the lies and bootstraps of those who now seek to separate you from your wallet-contents, as well, as splintering your sanity in the process?

Only they and the ’Shadow’ know for sure! And neither one is telling us one damn thing, not anything that is even the slightest bit truthful, or informative for that matter?

So who to really believe these days – your political representation perhaps or maybe even your parish priest or rabbi? We all know or at least suspect, that no politician can ever be totally trusted! And the amount of bull-crap that is spewed out daily by the media would fill “The Great Sea of Japan” several times over – “Oh Woe Is Me” or more accurately – “WOE BE TO US ALL!”

BUT JUST WHO DO WE HAVE TO BLAME FOR THIS GIGANTIC MESS - BUT OUTSELVES?!

Hardcore

[Boats]

Is truth subjective, or is there objective truth?
By: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosop...uth/?rdt=45804

So: Is truth subjective, or is there objective truth? See below:
-
So I'm taking a few philosophy classes that are presenting me with contrasting views which is creating some cognitive dissonance for me.
-
In one class we looked at ways that subjectivism is absurd when taken to its logical conclusions. The statement: "There is no absolute truth" is self-refuting. If it's true that there is no absolute truth, that in itself is an absolute truth statement. The world is either round or flat, it can't be both or neither, relative to your perspective. 4+5 must equal 9, and it can't equal 10 based on subjective preference. There must be certain things that are objectively true or false.
-
On the other hand side of the argument is that human beings are confined to limited perspectives. Truth is perspectival. Humans only experience a tiny fraction of reality, and we are limited by the scope of our mental faculties and our senses. If humans are entirely subjective by nature, the only truth we have access to are subjective truths and not objective/ultimate truths. Everything is true from a particular perspective, and also everything is false from a particular perspective. No view can encapsulate the totality of reality.
-
I'm not sure how to reconcile these two opposing camps of belief because they both seem equally true to me. My thinking may not be totally clear right now because I'm experience too much dissonance between these conflicting perspectives.
-
Does anyone know how to navigate through these terrains?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's another consideration of: subjective or objective situatioins:
By: AGO
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosop...uth/?rdt=45804

You've stumbled upon one of the most difficult topics in philosophy.
To cover this in depth would require many dissertations, and you could wrestle with this topic for your entire life without a satisfactory answer. For this reason, I won't attempt to give you any kind of definite answer.

One thing I would like to point out, however, is the distinction between "absolute" truth and "objective" truth.

"Absolute" truth, as you indicated, means truth that is unchanging, final, and unqualified.

"Objective" truth, on the other hand, means truth that isn't dependent upon a subject's perspective, but upon the object from a disinterested point of view.

Furthermore, one could speak about something as being "universally true" of both an object and a subject. This means it applies to every single particular case.

Although many might argue that an "objective" and "universal" truth is necessarily "absolute," this isn't necessarily the case.

One could make a claim about objects that holds universally, but does not hold without qualification; that is, isn't absolute or ultimate, but depends upon the particular method of inquiry, the subject matter sought after, the current scientific theories, or the particular historical situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another reply from: GWFKegel - By ago;
-
You've gotten nice replies so far. But I want to add something that complicates your question even more: Truth can vary by domain of inquiry. For example, you could totally buy into the idea that logic or math is objective. But this does not entail that you need to think biological facts are objective (such as classification, or definitions of life and death). Moreover, it does not entail that any value--good, bad, beautiful, ugly, just, unjust, simplicity, explanatory power--is objective or absolute. For example, the some Logical Positivists were completely OK with logical truths being objective and absolute, but then they denounced ethical, aesthetic, and political questions as mere illusion and expression of emotions. Unlike logic, ethics, to them, was full of statements that could be neither true nor false. The most popular and widely-read expression of that is A.J. Ayer's, Logic, Truth, and Language.

The other thing you also need to ask is how one grasps truth. Again, I'm pulling from ethics. David Hume, in his Treatise of Human Nature advocates a type of skepticism. (How strong it is is a matter of controversy.) But he ends Book I by reflecting that, even if he can doubt the truth of everything, he can still go on with life. He can take a break, play some backgammon, eat some good food, relate with people, and that reaffirms that the skepticisms or the truths don't negate what he feels. So if you're a sentimentalist about ethics, say, you could say that cognitive and truth-apt claims are the wrong kind of thing to focus on. Instead, you may place more weight on feeling sympathy for others and avoiding as much harm as possible, which you don't necessarily need to prove through logical or truth value analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And a Last one by: demosthenes19125
-
These two views are not mutually exclusive. They coexist rather nicely actually. I think one helpful starting point to wrap your mind around it would be to consider what you are considering for truthiness. "Truth" from my perspective is more of shorthand for "that which is consistent in all cases an observer could theoretically cite based on a set of consistent principles." In this case you have a nice basis for "objective" truth, hence the object part of the word. By citing objectivity the observer is creating a separation between themselves at that which they are observing. From that vantage point it seems possible to use the scientific method to ascertain whether a prediction (or hypothesis or "truth claim") is consistently accurate despite variable activity.

On the other hand, of course there is such a thing as "subjective truth." One only need look at quantum mechanics to see the difference observation makes.

The biggest problem I find with this conversation is exactly what folks are trying to find out the truthiness of. Usually, it's some sort of abstract art like theology, morals, or ethics. Such disciplines cannot by definition have "objective" truth claims because they arise from culture. Furthermore, they arise from human culture and therefore have a cause, effect, and emotional and evolutionary quality to consider.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boats
-
Truth is perspectival. So; If humans are entirely subjective by nature, the only truth we have access to are subjective truths and not objective/ultimate truths.
-
They also say Truth will set you free - not always! Think about it!