Objective Truth?

iBrian

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,721
Reaction score
218
Points
63
Location
Scotland
Whatever our perception of Divinity and the Universe, there always remains that idea of there being an objective Truth of some kind - that universal knowledge of everything that describes and explains every action perfectly.

But is there really any role for complacency in the issue? Surely existence is and always will be an objective experience?

Or is the collective experience not only an indicator of Objective Truth, but our only route to illustrating it?

Is there even any such thing as "Truth"?
 
what if the truth is that there is no truth?
i think there is an objective truth, but because it is filtered through our perceptions and perspectives, we can never know it absolutely or certainly. we can only have interpretations of probable approximations.
 
Very interresting questions.

I would tend to think first of all that anything that humans do or look at is by nature subjective. I don't think anyone can get over his or her personnal bias in doing something or in watching something. It is impossible to understand any conflic on this planet without looking at both sides, both of them stating that they have the "truth on their side", and the perspective of the onlooker will be biaised by his or her own vision of the truth.

Good examples of this are the Middle East conflict, or the witch trials. The only thing that can be said is that there is a conflict and that there were witch trials, but why, how, who and for what is not so easy to answer, or I should say is generally easy to answer, but the answers will all be different.

A realted subject that was broached on another board: color. I see "blue" as a certain color because I was taught it's called "blue". Leaving aside vision disorders, does that mean that my neighbor actually sees the same thing as me when he looks at something "blue"? Maybe he sees "blue" the same way as I see "green" but he has been taught all his life that this bas "blue". So a car may be "blue", and both me and my neighbor would say it is, but we would actually be seeing the car differently. As a matter of fact, animals see colors differently that humans, so could it be that humans see colors differently?

My first conclusion from all of this is that, even if there is an objective truth, humans will not be able to grasp it because of their own perception and bias.

One would be tempted to say that scientific methods could help humans find that universal truth. After all, different people looking at a table might disagree about the lenght of the table when they look at it, but if one measures the table then that measurment should be the objective truth as to the lenght of the table, right?

Well, maybe it works for a table, but when one delves into more advanced physics, Mr. Heisenberg found out that it is impossible to know at the same time the location and speed of a quantum particle because the simple fact of measuring it affects it (this is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). So when we weasure something, we affect it and it is not anymore the same as what it was before. And, BTW, this must also be true of the measurement of the table, albeit at such a minuscule level that it is negligible.

So if even scientific methods cannot give us perfectly objective results, I would guess that the objective truth will always stay beyond our reach.

Only gods, maybe, if one considers them to be omniscient, could have an understanding of the objective truth. However, going out on a limb, I would say that gods probably are nearly as biased as humans, certainly if one refers to the gods in the ancients scriptures, including the current main religions. They are shown to be prone to anger or compassion, they gave directives as to what was right and wrong, etc. They have a certain vision of the universe. So maybe the gods know everything, but they probably have their own perception of that everything that makes them less able to understand the objective truth.

Well, that's my two cents anyway...

Baud
 
I, Brian said:
Whatever our perception of Divinity and the Universe, there always remains that idea of there being an objective Truth of some kind - that universal knowledge of everything that describes and explains every action perfectly.
Click to expand...

If a complete state of truth truly does exist, can it be objective, surely it would be its' self, and in this case, surely, it could only be subjective, because there would be nothing outside of it.

My brain hurts.

I think i'll lay down for a while.

:)
 
Actually, Baud's point about even the objective being the subjective experience of a higher power reminds me exactly of what Vajradhara stated elsewhere on the Eastern Thought board - that of the Hindu world view being that existence is merely the dream of Brahma.
 
If all subjectivity (consciousness) were to cease to be, objectivity would still remain.

So there is reality, and there is truth.

But subjectivity does exist, and there are degrees of subjectivity, which means it must be possible to attain to pure objectivity.

In God there is neither subject nor object because God is (subject) what he knows (object) and knows (object) what he is (subject). There is no distinction between the two.

We, being subsistent beings, can know only in a limited sense (either objectively or subjectively) which we call 'self' and which we cherish, and in some cases idolise, above all else. The more we subsist in this lesser self (ego) the less we know, either subjectively or objectively.

The goal then is to unite our subsistency with its ontological source, or rather unite our subsistent being with the totality of being by and in which it subsists. To do so we have to overcome the self - to see that 'self' is nothing in itself other than an expression of the Self.

Eastern traditions do so by insisting that perceived reality does not exist, to the point where the self does not exist, hence nirvana or extinction of self.

Western traditions do so by acknowledging that perceived reality exists as a contingent or subsistent expression and a manifestation of the Real, and aspire to unite the self with the Self in Divine Union.

In the Christian tradition this is theosis - deification by filiation.

"In him we live and move and have our being"
 
I, Brian wrote:
Actually, Baud's point about even the objective being the subjective experience of a higher power (...)
Click to expand...

Something very interesting is happening here. When I read the sentence above, I asked myself "how could he read that in what I wrote?" and started reading and re-reading my post. What I meant to write is that, even if the gods are omniscient, their perception of the objective truth is probably altered by their perceptions and bias.

But then I realized that, if the gods actually created reality, and therefore the objective truth if there is one, then what I wrote about the gods having bias means that they created reality with that bias, therefore creating a reality that is their subjective view and is not really objective. This is a very interesting thought. I, Brian actually took my reasoning one step further.

I would be interested to hear the point of view of learned Christian about my vies that the gods (or God in their case) has a subjective view of the world (see my previous post). I have the feling that this view is not really in accordance with the Christian view of God.

Baud
 
I like the distinction Thomas makes about subjective and objective being indistinct for God.

Yet I can't get Baud's original suggestion out of my head (especially applied in an Eastern/ Indian sense, as expressed by Vajradhara on another thread) of a God dreaming reality.

Is it possible that the same argument is being approached here from different aspects: that Ultimate Reality is effectively the experience of Ultimate Divinity, and ourselves are merely lesser self-organised fractions of that experience?

Or am I being far too presumptious in how these are interpreted?
 
Again, looking at what is known about the gods in the various scriptures, I can't see them being objective. They generally seem to be reacting subjectively, just like human beings, defining what is right or wrong, destroying or punishing the ones they deem unworthy, and lots of other stuff.

On the other hand, one could argue that they do that because they actually know the objective truth and want us to conform to it. Althoug it looks subjective, it is in fact objective... I don't think so, but arguably interesting.

Brian, I am not really familiar with Eastern traditions, but I can tell you that if I had the power of a god, a lot of worlds and people would be created out of my dreams/thoughts. ;) Clearly subjective.

Baud

Note: In the sentences above, the use of the plural is not supposed to exclude monotheistic faiths.
 
Hi Brian -

"Is it possible that the same argument is being approached here from different aspects: that Ultimate Reality is effectively the experience of Ultimate Divinity, and ourselves are merely lesser self-organised fractions of that experience?"

In short - Yes.

Where man went wrong, and continues to go wrong, is in trying to organise Ultimate Reality according to our limited and subjective experience (ie we organise trhe cosmos towards our own benefit and pleasure)

BTW - The western problem with God dreaming reality is if that is so, why suffering, why sin, why pain, why privation? Is God so imperfect that He cannot dream a perfect world? Who dreams of a world full of sorrow?

And if we are nothing but a dream of God, then all human endeavour, in fact the whole cosmos, is essentially pointless.

Then, if God can dream it, why can He not cause it to be?
 
Hi Baud -

"I would be interested to hear the point of view of learned Christian about my vies that the gods (or God in their case) has a subjective view of the world (see my previous post). I have the feling that this view is not really in accordance with the Christian view of God."

I'm 'amateur learned' - hope that's OK.

I appreciate the point you raise, and there are a number of issues that stem from it - I'll try and tackles the ones that come to mind.

The first is, as stated above, there is no distinction in God between the subject - that which knows - and object - that which is known. There is no 'other' at this level, nothing is 'external' to God, so subject and object do not apply.

Eastern traditions tend to the standpoint of objectively, so have no personal god in view, yet their mythologies are as rich (if not actually richer) with gods, demigods, angels and demons. Buddhism, which some posit as neither a religion nor a theism, has upper and lower worlds crowded with demons and divinities.

Western traditions tend to subjectivity, so they identify a personal god. The problem then arises of anthropomorphism - man cannot view a personal god in anything other than human terms, but there is always the danger of imprinting human attributes on the Divine.

Plato observed, for example, of the Greek pantheon of gods, that if they were gods, it's about time they started acting like gods and not spoilt children! (Or words to that effect.) The point he was making is that an exagerated anthropomorphism ends up with gods subject to all the neagtive as well as positive aspects of the human - or rather that humans then 'imprint' negative as well as positive aspects on their gods to explain certain metaphysical aspects.

The nature of God is then determined according to human nature, which is obviously putting the cart before the horse.

The Old Testament, for example, is redolent with phrases such as 'anger', 'jealousy' etc, in reference to God, which led certain schools of Hellenic gnosticism to identify the Jewish God as the gnostic Demiurge who was either mad, or bad, or both. The reason for this is more to do with human psychology - The Divine Revelations address different aspects of humanity, or human nature, in a manner that all humanity can understand. In the case of Judaism it is the will or volitive faculty, hence the volitive language - yet the essential message of the Old Testament is entirely concordant with the deeper or metaphysical aspects of all revelation.

The language of the New Testament, by contrast, is one of Love and Mercy, the Old is Justice and Rigour.

God is not man, furthermore Christian Tradition holds that God is only known in the Divine Powers and Energies. God is ineffible, immutable, unknowable et al., and is therefore not subject to the moods, passions etc that humanity is subject to.

The Christian Speculative or Mystical Theological Tradition, for example, states that God 'in Himself' is boyond all knowing, all comprehensions: "Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness ... most incomprehensible ... where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence" - Dionysius the Areopagite; Later Meister Eckhart was to say "when God and I dwell as one in the ground of being, both God and I cease to exist."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top