[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 17 KB, 161x145, 1329168686707.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2461414 No.2461414 [Reply] [Original]

Truth is Subjective, Facts are Objective. There can be no Objective Truth just as there can be no Subjective Facts.

>> No.2461419

LOL You're SO FANNY!

Also...are you are russian girl?

>> No.2461424

>>2461419
i don't know any are russian girls. are you are comprehending english?

>> No.2461469
File: 226 KB, 1872x796, yes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2461469

Define Truth.

>> No.2461477

>>2461469
Truth is generally the subjective experience of objective facts. It is different for each individual, but generalities do emerge.

>> No.2461479

>>2461477
>objective facts

can you prove their existence.

>> No.2461482

>>2461479
Prove by what method? It is irrelevant to my point as I am only discussing these concepts in the abstract and pointing out a confusion of language the often occurs on /lit/. At any rate, do you think objective facts are unproven?

>> No.2461487

>>2461482
>Prove by what method?

Whichever. I'd prefer it were written in formal logic, but I'll take anything.

>It is irrelevant to my point as I am only discussing these concepts in the abstract

Of what use is talking about something that only exists in the abstract? Are we mathematicians here? And isn't language supposed to map itself to real-world concepts?

>At any rate, do you think objective facts are unproven?

It doesn't matter, it matters if you can prove objectivity exists.

>> No.2461491

>>2461487
Honestly I feel that the burden of proof lies with people who claim that objective facts do not exist. I know that there are probably logical proofs for facts that are done better than I can ever do...but hell does it no appear to you that you are touching the keyboard when you type? Do you actually doubt its existence?

>> No.2461492

They aren't mutually inclusive, but subjective truth can correspond with objective fact--not the other direction.

>> No.2461493

>>2461487
Also when I said I was discussing them abstractly I should have just said I was discussing them in simplicity, with assumptions in tact, but your question is worth consideration.

>> No.2461495

>>2461492
I think they are necessarily related but the objective can alter the subjective and not the other way around. Not only this, but the subjective is not solely for the description of the objective. Truth contains something other than Facts, and that dimension is worth much consideration.

>> No.2461510

>>2461491
>Honestly I feel that the burden of proof lies with people who claim that objective facts do not exist.

I never claimed they didn't exist, and you could rather provide me with a proof on their non-existence if you have that. I am intrigued with your notion that it's not the claimer who carries the burden of proof.

>I know that there are probably logical proofs for facts that are done better than I can ever do...

Can you link them?

>but hell does it no appear to you that you are touching the keyboard when you type? Do you actually doubt its existence?

What does that have to do with the existence of objectivity? But aside from that, I've seen logically impossibilities, should I believe in them as well just because I could have interacted with them?

>> No.2461532

>>2461510
>I've seen logically impossibilities
Either you did not see them or you are lying.

I question why you are asking all of this? You won't deny objectivity but you ask for proof of its existence.

>> No.2461540

>>2461532
>Either you did not see them or you are lying.

Are you unaware of the existence of hallucinations?

>I question why you are asking all of this?

Rigor, mostly. It is required to use it when discussing philosophical concepts, or your discussion is of no more worth than stoner ramblings.

>> No.2461548

>>2461540
Hallucination is not the same as seeing..it may simulate the visual sense, but to say you were seeing it is a falsehood..''seeing something in your head'' is not seeing it; it is thinking it....


>Rigor, mostly. It is required to use it when discussing philosophical concepts, or your discussion is of no more worth than stoner ramblings.

What discussing? You are asking for proof of the existence of facts. I think you are merely suffering from the confusion when people have misused and misunderstood the word to ''exist''..and such a proposition does nothing but impede the discussion..it's ridiculous to demand a logical proof for the existence of facts as logical proofs use facts...I think you are just trying to feel superior.

>> No.2461563

>>2461548
>Hallucination is not the same as seeing..it may simulate the visual sense, but to say you were seeing it is a falsehood..''seeing something in your head'' is not seeing it; it is thinking it....

You need to establish the existence of an objective reality, or at least a reality outside of perception, to create a meaningful difference between seeing it and thinking it. Otherwise there is no way to justify your position, which is my whole point.

>What discussing?

The one in this thread.

>You are asking for proof of the existence of facts.

I'm asking for a proof of the existence of objectivity. It's not the same.

>I think you are merely suffering from the confusion when people have misused and misunderstood the word to ''exist''

State your definition for the purposes of this thread.

>and such a proposition does nothing but impede the discussion..

A non-rigorous discussion is not worth having.

>logical proofs use facts

Of course not, that's ridiculous. They use logic.

>> No.2461573

>>2461563
>You need to establish the existence of an objective reality, or at least a reality outside of perception, to create a meaningful difference between seeing it and thinking it.
Actually no, and of course the difference lies in the actual function of your body in each case, as demonstrable in a clinical setting. There is a difference between seeing with the eye and perceiving with the mind. Your ignorance of psychology and biology is not an argument.

>I'm asking for a proof of the existence of objectivity. It's not the same.
Once again you are just confused by your misunderstanding of the word ''exist'' and this is probably compounded by the influence of others who have influenced you who also misunderstood or intentionally misused it. Once again your ignorance is not an argument.

>State your definition for the purposes of this thread.
The definition of existence assumes objectivity so the question of objectivity's existence is already a ridiculous. Your elementary teacher was wrong--there are stupid questions.

>A non-rigorous discussion is not worth having.
I'm sorry you're going to have to define worth for me.

>Of course not, that's ridiculous. They use logic.
And logic uses facts. Ignorance=/=an argument

>> No.2461586

>>2461573
>Actually no, and of course the difference lies in the actual function of your body in each case, as demonstrable in a clinical setting.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make by assuming the existence of a body. To talk about objectivity you must disprove the notion that reality equals perception.
>The definition of existence

Which definition of existence? You haven't provided any. Existence doesn't necessarily assume objectivity, or reality in any case.

>I'm sorry you're going to have to define worth for me.

It's besides the point, you can use the colloquial meaning.

> logic uses facts.

No, it really doesn't. Repeating it doesn't make it true. Maybe you're thinking of induction or the scientific method? It's provable without any facts that a = a, always and necessarily. Have you ever heard of mathematics? An entire field based on pure logic, not a single fact whatsoever. inb4 axioms = facts

>> No.2461605

>>2461487 written in formal logic

I sure hope that everyone is aware that formal logic can only prove anything based on axioms... which makes it useless for this particular problem.

>> No.2461606

>>2461586
>To talk about objectivity you must disprove the notion that reality equals perception.
Actually that is not a requirement and it would not actually contribute to the value of such a discussion either. You can assume that solipsism is false and move forward.

>Which definition of existence? You haven't provided any. Existence doesn't necessarily assume objectivity, or reality in any case.
You just don't know what the word means. Look it up, you really should not talk about rigorous philosophical discussion if you aren't even willing to know the definition of a word.

>Have you ever heard of mathematics? An entire field based on pure logic, not a single fact whatsoever
you are just attempting a semantic dodge. You don't know the definition of words and you are basically making no sense with everything you say. Just because your mind is unclear on the meaning of words does not mean that the meaning of words are unclear.

>> No.2461607

>>2461548
No, logical proofs definitely do not use facts, they use axioms. Where do you get such silly ideas?

>> No.2461738

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth