Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Clarkeprops t1_jbfu8zq wrote

Is this suggesting that objective truth is impossible? I understand that some things are unknowable but I think that there can be objective truths in the universe. The Sun projects light and heat. Is that not an objective, unarguable truth?

0

Giggalo_Joe t1_jbg5bod wrote

I would postulate that 'can be' is the wrong language, and insert instead 'must be'.

To me its a closed and rather boring question of whether there are objective truths, yes there are. Instead the more fun question is can we ever know them.

1

Clarkeprops t1_jbg6g9u wrote

I guess that’s what I’m asking. Can we ever know I single objective truth. I thought yes. I don’t understand why not. Certain things are absolute. Caesar is dead, the sun is hot, and earth has water on it. How are these not absolutely knowable?

1

Giggalo_Joe t1_jbg92ye wrote

Well...let's start with for Caesar to be dead, he must have first been alive. For him to have been alive, he must exist. Can you prove that he existed beyond your belief? Can you prove that death is the end? Can you prove that you are having this conversation right now?

The sun. To an ice cube, rain is hot. To a human, Death Valley is hot. But relative to the sun, Death Valley is a quaint nice place to live. Our sun is 5,778 Kelvin generally. However, there are stars that are 210,000 Kelvin. The sun doesn't seem so hot anymore. And theoretically, there is no max temperature in the universe so hot gets very relative very quickly.

1

Clarkeprops t1_jbga4hu wrote

I’m not talking about relativity.

But if you want to argue semantics… While I can’t confirm that Caesar ever existed, we can be sure that without time travel, he’s not currently alive. Whether or not death is the end is irrelevant to him being currently alive as we all know the term to mean.

The sun not being hot… ok. Let’s move the goalpost for the sake of the point.

The sun is plenty hot enough to melt an ice cube if it touched the ice cube, yes?

Is that not an objective truth? Maybe I’m using bad points, or you’re not arguing on good faith. Please explain how we can’t have objective truths.

1

Giggalo_Joe t1_jbgemks wrote

How can you be sure he isn't currently alive? Are you aware of all the states of existence? Before you can determine that Caesar is dead you must first define it. And then you must acknowledge that it could all be a dream. The point being almost all reality and truth is unprovable by it's nature.

And yes, I'm suggesting you stick with Caesar because hot is a relative term in all contexts. In that sense, there is no hot, there is no cold, there is only relative to X.

And I'm not saying that we can't have objective truths, they are all around us. I am saying hot and cold are not among them. Temperature is among them, but temperature is not hot or cold, it just is.

If you want to follow this down a 10 year exploration, all you can prove as an objective truth at the moment is "I think therefore I am." Nothing beyond that.

2

Clarkeprops t1_jbik0nn wrote

I’m just saying that humans can’t have a corporeal form alive in the medical sense over 2000 years later. A different state of existence isn’t “Alive”. I’m saying alive with a body and a heartbeat.

So don’t ignore my example. Objective truth: The sun can melt an ice cube if it gets close enough, yea?

1

Giggalo_Joe t1_jbjmvj7 wrote

Salt can melt a snail, does that make it hot? Ice cream will melt if you do nothing, the world you live in is hot to the ice cream. I'm not ignoring your example, I'm trying to help you think differently. Your current method won't lead where you want it to go.

1

Clarkeprops t1_jbku2wf wrote

Salt doesn’t melt a snail. No.

1

Giggalo_Joe t1_jbl0d5e wrote

Ok, deydrate but...you kinda missed the point. Not trying to be your adversary here. Trying to help you learn how to think.

Let's look at it a different way.

The conversation started as one about 'objective truth'. That's a fairly high standard of truth and very little can be proven under it. You are thinking of truth in a different way, for lack of a better description let's call it 'practical truth'. In this we will essentially accept the world around us exists, and the data we receive from our perceptions in generally real (excepting things like hallucinations, mind playing tricks, etc.). So, with this frame of reference, you can start to look at things and say stuff like this table is X inches high, this table is made of cherry wood. But you can't say things like this table is brown because color is much like hot and cold. Color is subject to the lighting conditions. You may think, wait a minute "I can see that the table is brown." And that is a true observation, but not a true statement of the table itself. If the table is in a room, you can simply turn off the light and the table is no longer brown. Your brain thinks, "wait a minute, if I shine a light on it, I can see it is brown again." But in order to achieve that color you have to shine the light. And if you shine a light of a different color, the table changes color. You may want to say, "no that is the color of the light making it seem as if the table is different color." Nope, you only think the table is brown because of the color temperature of light you normally shine on it. If you lived on planet with a red sun, everything would look different and that would be the 'natural' color of the table instead, and if you shined a 2700K white light on it, that would be the same to them as you shining a red light on the 'brown' table. The point being, all color is subjective to the lighting conditions available. So while you may want to say something as simple as an orange is orange, that's not accurate. It is called an orange and that would be a practical truth, but to say an orange is orange is all dependent upon the lighting. So, the truth you are looking for doesn't exist. You can bring things down to another level and take things like lighting out of the equation and maybe get to something you might want to call 'everyday truth' but that's a simplification of a grand number of events and conditions happening all around you at all times. To sum it up, using the idea of 'objective truth': If a man is standing in the middle of a road, you must ask what evidence is there that he is a man? What evidence is there that he exists? How can you show he or the road even exist? Using the idea of 'practical truth': What road is he standing on? Is he on Earth? Then calculations come into play regarding how fast the Earth is moving as well as the galaxy. Technically, even the universe but that's a bit harder number to calculate so it can be ignored. But the conclusion is that a man standing on a object without moving is in fact moving. And then using the idea of 'everyday truth' yes, you can have what you are starting to think of as truth, the man is standing in the road because you can see him standing in the road. But this is a philosophy subreddit, and concepts of physics and existentialism are part of much of the conversation. Yeah it's a headache, but that's philosophy.

1

GetPsily t1_jbk5xmt wrote

It's true in the context of our idea about what we call the physical world, but really there's no way for you to find out the truth or reality of anything. Only through the help of knowledge passed down generation to generation do you experience anything.

So technically that statement is true, but actually it depends on what you mean by "sun", "ice cube", "close enough", and "melt".

One could argue the sun itself doesn't do anything to the ice cube. Do you define the sun as an entity that has heat separate from itself and applies it to the ice cube? Or is the sun itself heat? Etc....

What do you mean by ice cube? An ice cube 1000x the size of the sun will probably not melt.

What do you mean by close enough? An ice cube left out in the sun can melt on earth, but also the earth has huge ice caps that haven't melted. Etc

I think you get the point. For all intents and purposes that we would use, yes it is true. But it ain't necessarily so, or not objectively true without specific context. I think it was George Box that said "all models are wrong, but some are useful."

But at the same time the statement is false because an ice cube will likely sublimate in the vacuum of space before it came close enough to melt.

1

Clarkeprops t1_jbktybf wrote

This just seems like semantics. I’m not following you. Sorry.

1

GetPsily t1_jbm595x wrote

No that's actually what I'm saying. It's ALL semantics. Actual truth/reality is not words, only theories and concepts.

" A tree has leaves" is false because "tree" is a word, nothing like an actual, tangible tree. How can a word have leaves? The statement is true in the linguistic, semantic sense only.

Basically all truths experienced by us have to be translated into words before they can be spoken to ourselves or others. So anytime we communicate, the recipient gets the words, not the true, actual things.

EDIT: TL;DR: There is objective truth, but you can't tell anyone, including yourself.

2

Clarkeprops t1_jbrda91 wrote

Every time I talk philosophy with someone versed in it, I leave more confused than before.

1

velezs t1_jbjc42d wrote

>And I'm not saying that we can't have objective truths, they are all around us. I am saying hot and cold are not among them. Temperature is among them, but temperature is not hot or cold, it just is.

>If you want to follow this down a 10 year exploration, all you can prove as an objective truth at the moment is "I think therefore I am." Nothing beyond that.

Doesn't this first quote contradict the second? The temperature of an object is measurable and objective and is defined as the average kinetic energy of the molecules of the substance/material. That is not subjective or relative to the surrounding objects.

Why is this not provable to be objective in the 2nd quote but in the 1st "Temperature is among them" when referring to objective truths?

1

Giggalo_Joe t1_jbjndss wrote

Because even if you determine that the temperature of X is Y, you still can't prove that X exists beyond your mind.

If you accept that the object is there, regardless of the availability of proof, you can get as far as proving the object has a temperature. But you will never be able to determine if the object is hot or cold, because hot and cold are always subjective to what you're measuring it against.

1