What is Objective Truth
- Thread starter RubySera_Martin
- Start date
jiii
...
Objective truth is a 'truth' that exists independent of observers. This would mean that it is fundamentally seperate from the mind of all individuals in existence, in that it would be a truth first and foremost, whether or not it is acknowledged, or known of or whatever. "Truth", it should be remembered, is really a human idea. We've designed a language which we use to make various statements about the world within its limited scope of description and we then attempt to determine methods of analysing these statements to determine whether or not we can call them 'true' or 'false'. Presumably, when we say a statement is 'false', we mean that it doesn't reconcile with the world as it can be observed. Though, in so far as all of our words are merely symbolic sounds that represent the world as it is observed using name tags, any statement can be considered 'false' in some way. Consider what Master Hui Neng asked of one of his pupils, "Without thinking of good or evil, show me your original face before your mother and father were born." This koan conjurs the same paradoxical implications as a search for objective truth. Hui Neng is asking his student to show him, without any guile whatsoever, precisely who he is...he is demanding proof of the self that the student believes to be objectively true, and that has proven so problematic as to drive him to seeking escape from his unrest.
Can it be objectively true that a keyboard is sitting in front of me now (assuming you could somehow see me sitting in front of my keyboard)? Typically, we consider such obvious statements as this an objective truth for ordinary concerns. Though, because 'keyboard' is a word, either a spoken sound or written transcription of that sound, it is clear that we are trying to find truth in a representation of truth. Those things which we call keyboards are actually completely unique creations when you inspect closely with microscopes. Everything we call a keyboard is really just some unique object for which abstract descriptions point to it fitting the abstract criteria that is a 'keyboard'. The term 'keyboard' is a conceptual object, an 'ideal' object that conveys purpose as something inherent, almost material. But, if I were attacked while typing my post to Comparative-Religion and I had to use my keyboard as an improvised weapon (in self-defense, of course), then indeed this key-covered object would verifiably be a weapon moreso than anything else.
The search for objective truth has and continues to consume philosophers and seekers of all kinds. Though, after literally thousands of years of searching for the objective truth...the big, undeniable, totally irrefutable, universally affirmable, "there it is" truth...we have rarely managed even to penetrate the vast limitations of our spoken and written languages and number systems. Of course, it is not objectively true that objective truth doesn't exist...that would be to establish objective truths for something which is purportedly without objective truth.
Consider that "color", for instance, is something we can point at that would seem to be a factual kind of thing. It would seem to stand, factually, that color is something that exists as an objective truth. But, actually, color is a "conceptual truth". It is an idealized interpretation of concepts that are assumed to be true for convenience or practicality. What I see as red (being color deficient, as I am), is likely much different from what others see as red. Yet, for the purpose of practicality, my red is considered deficient and yours is considered correct. This is inevitably necessary if millions of people are to coexist with eachother...we establish 'conceptual truths' so that we have a frame of reference, a primer, for understanding our social world and being able to communicate therein. Though one musn't forget that even something so simple as the color 'green' is markedly impossible to define in words without utilizing comparisons to other things that are green (many dictionaries refer it as 'the color of grass').
All this talk about various 'types' of truth, though, admittedly cloud the very quintessence of truth. Religious leaders have implored us to see that there is "only one truth" for thousands of years, and yet they have failed miserably in conveying what this mysterious single truth is. Objective truth, a truth that stands outside the unreliable individual, is something that we talk about often. If objective truth does exist, then it would only be made false the moment we tried to utter a single word for it, as we would be suggesting that this objective, impersonal truth can be comprehended by the subjective mind and bundled into an abstract, subjective statement or description. There is a big difference between 'truths' that hold up only in isolated situations, and an objective truth that remains objectively true regardless of circumstance and situation, and somehow independent of nature's randomnality. In closing, I will admit that discussions on the nature of objective truth often end in no objective understanding at all, strangely enough, but a massive series of subjective ideas ABOUT truth. My post is, undeniably, not much different ;-)
Can it be objectively true that a keyboard is sitting in front of me now (assuming you could somehow see me sitting in front of my keyboard)? Typically, we consider such obvious statements as this an objective truth for ordinary concerns. Though, because 'keyboard' is a word, either a spoken sound or written transcription of that sound, it is clear that we are trying to find truth in a representation of truth. Those things which we call keyboards are actually completely unique creations when you inspect closely with microscopes. Everything we call a keyboard is really just some unique object for which abstract descriptions point to it fitting the abstract criteria that is a 'keyboard'. The term 'keyboard' is a conceptual object, an 'ideal' object that conveys purpose as something inherent, almost material. But, if I were attacked while typing my post to Comparative-Religion and I had to use my keyboard as an improvised weapon (in self-defense, of course), then indeed this key-covered object would verifiably be a weapon moreso than anything else.
The search for objective truth has and continues to consume philosophers and seekers of all kinds. Though, after literally thousands of years of searching for the objective truth...the big, undeniable, totally irrefutable, universally affirmable, "there it is" truth...we have rarely managed even to penetrate the vast limitations of our spoken and written languages and number systems. Of course, it is not objectively true that objective truth doesn't exist...that would be to establish objective truths for something which is purportedly without objective truth.
Consider that "color", for instance, is something we can point at that would seem to be a factual kind of thing. It would seem to stand, factually, that color is something that exists as an objective truth. But, actually, color is a "conceptual truth". It is an idealized interpretation of concepts that are assumed to be true for convenience or practicality. What I see as red (being color deficient, as I am), is likely much different from what others see as red. Yet, for the purpose of practicality, my red is considered deficient and yours is considered correct. This is inevitably necessary if millions of people are to coexist with eachother...we establish 'conceptual truths' so that we have a frame of reference, a primer, for understanding our social world and being able to communicate therein. Though one musn't forget that even something so simple as the color 'green' is markedly impossible to define in words without utilizing comparisons to other things that are green (many dictionaries refer it as 'the color of grass').
All this talk about various 'types' of truth, though, admittedly cloud the very quintessence of truth. Religious leaders have implored us to see that there is "only one truth" for thousands of years, and yet they have failed miserably in conveying what this mysterious single truth is. Objective truth, a truth that stands outside the unreliable individual, is something that we talk about often. If objective truth does exist, then it would only be made false the moment we tried to utter a single word for it, as we would be suggesting that this objective, impersonal truth can be comprehended by the subjective mind and bundled into an abstract, subjective statement or description. There is a big difference between 'truths' that hold up only in isolated situations, and an objective truth that remains objectively true regardless of circumstance and situation, and somehow independent of nature's randomnality. In closing, I will admit that discussions on the nature of objective truth often end in no objective understanding at all, strangely enough, but a massive series of subjective ideas ABOUT truth. My post is, undeniably, not much different ;-)
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, jiii!
Haven't seen you around in awhile!
Thanks for the great post!
You make a good argument. Language itself is a barrier as much as a help. It is a help to those who speak the same language (down to and including vernacular, slang and accent), and is an impediment to those who do not speak the same language.
I saw.
Desert.
Even so, there must be one reality that encompasses all. Perhaps it defies explanation, but it does compose the objective truth.
Haven't seen you around in awhile!
Thanks for the great post!
This sounds very Taoist, like "the way that can be named is not the true way."
You make a good argument. Language itself is a barrier as much as a help. It is a help to those who speak the same language (down to and including vernacular, slang and accent), and is an impediment to those who do not speak the same language.
I saw.
Desert.
Even so, there must be one reality that encompasses all. Perhaps it defies explanation, but it does compose the objective truth.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
juantoo3 said:
I agree, but can we touch it or even approach it? Isn't everything colored by our senses of perception, the comparisons, extrapolations, and interpolations we make? Is that coloring really an impediment in personal sense, or is it only a limitation when we try to communicate and preserve knowlege?
Chris
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
I find it really interesting that our drive to know the unknown/unknowable, or to describe the as yet undescribed is what drives us to keep searching, finding, investigating, and progressing. Does this mean that we stop progressing once we think we've found and described objective truth?
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Yes! Seattlegal, I would have to say that this is precisely what happens ... IF we confound our discoveries and recognitions - however subtle and lofty - for that truth Itself (in deference to juantoo3 and jiii's Un-nameable Tao). [Watch, I'll do it in the remainder of this post ...] Highest Truth (the `Dharma') can never be captured, encapsulated, encoded or limited by words, by concepts, or even by Sound Itself (the ultimate Creative Power). For even the latter is but the Servant or Active Principle of any God or Gods that might exist ...seattlegal said:
What then, exactly, is it, that we are Questing to find - driven so, that men would rather survive the horrors of concentration camps (in Nazi Germany), than offer themselves into the welcoming arms of death? Why the Loving Compassion of a Mother Teresa, or the will-to-live of the many, many thousands of Indians to whom she ministered? What is this `Enlightenment' which Buddhist monks pursue?
If I had to sum it all up in one word, I think it would be - the Mystery of Identity. `Mystery' is almost superfluous, because it is redundant. The person who says, "oh, that's no mystery," has essentially sealed the door, and stopped progressing, as you indicate, Seattlegal. But that isn't always a bad thing, if the opposite extreme is an uncertainty and an unsettledness which saps or negates productivity. I've known both extremes, more often the latter ... but we can all relate to the former condition: "Ignorance is bliss," as the saying goes.
Far from it. Ignorance is ignorance. Bliss is a horse of an entirely different color. But knowledge alone, or even worldly wisdom is not the ultimate antidote to ignorance ... nor even, is the Bliss of the Sambhog. `Objective Truth' can perhaps best be approached & known FROM the consciousness of that aspect of Being which eternally abides therein: the Crown Jewel, Dorjesempa, or `Vajrasattva.'
Who, but s/he who is a-sekha would truly understand this? Only in our deepest meditations, our Communion with the Answer to the Mystery, will we catch a glimpse. "The mind is the great slayer of the Real."
Namaskar,
taijasa
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, China Cat!
Perhaps, I don't know. I am thinking our perceptions do color our understanding(s). This is the nature of relative / subjective truth. Perhaps objective truth can only realistically be experienced, if we have any connection to it at all.
I used to have a poster hanging on the wall: "I realize you heard what I said, but how can I know you understand what I really meant?"
Speculating on my part, perhaps this is why there are so many expressions of truth in the world, some even seemingly conflicting with others. Prehistoric humanity had a simple, "base" expression of truth as they understood it. With time, the colors of relative truth were in turn colored again and again, until what we have today are a host of competing truths, none of which are completely objective, but perhaps holding a grain of objective truth.
China Cat Sunflower said:
Perhaps, I don't know. I am thinking our perceptions do color our understanding(s). This is the nature of relative / subjective truth. Perhaps objective truth can only realistically be experienced, if we have any connection to it at all.
I used to have a poster hanging on the wall: "I realize you heard what I said, but how can I know you understand what I really meant?"
Speculating on my part, perhaps this is why there are so many expressions of truth in the world, some even seemingly conflicting with others. Prehistoric humanity had a simple, "base" expression of truth as they understood it. With time, the colors of relative truth were in turn colored again and again, until what we have today are a host of competing truths, none of which are completely objective, but perhaps holding a grain of objective truth.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Seattlegal!
The program displayed the famous "Venus of Willendorf." Which it then compared with a number of other "Venus" figurines from the neolithic period, roughly contemporary, dating around 25 thousand or so years ago. I noticed a couple of pieces from France, one from Russia, one from Eastern Europe (Czechoslovakia?) and another I believe was from Italy. All were remarkably similar. Either our "hunter-gatherer" ancestors were exceptionally mobile in the last gasps of the Ice Age, or there was some intimate communication among various tribes. Or, there remains the possibility that various tribes all reached similar conclusions in their search for the unknown.
I am looking forward to the next installment of this series. In the meantime, the cave paintings in particular caves seem to focus on specific animals, with occasional exceptions. In this regard, there seems to be some minor differences among the tribes, in that one tribe might focus on bison, another on bears, and another on horses. Yet, the common link seems that they all share some degree of overlap. If the focus is on bison, there are also bears, horses and other creatures depicted. If the focus is on bears, there seem to also be bison, horses and others depicted. Etc. It would seem reasonable that a tribe would focus on what animal(s) were "economically" important to them, and the nature of hunting would include "catch as catch can," perhaps explaining the occurance of other creatures.
In one cave was an altar with a cave bear skull carefully laid out upon it. So much is conjecture, we have no way of knowing with any certainty. It just seems peculiar to me that our ancestors spent so much time in the search for the unknowable, and yet shared so much of the same manifestation of the search. Venus figurines, and paintings of (mostly the same) animals on cave walls. This similarity extends across Europe and into Russia, and I hear of sites in Israel and China that I have yet to look into. The aboriginal natives of Hokkaido (sp?) Japan, the Ainu, have a culture that extends back into this period of time. I hear the Laplanders of far Northern Europe have an equally ancient culture.
Our search for the unknowable as humans has gone on for at least 25 thousand years we can pretty well confirm, and perhaps as much as 100 thousand years and more, evidenced by our anthropological finds.
So the "drive" mentioned is an ancient drive, indeed, and it shows no sign of abetting.
I find the drive to understand interesting as well. I watched a rather interesting program last night on PBS, "How Art made the World." Coincidentally, I have been cruising through various Cave Art sites. Seems there is a bit more commonality among the various neolithic groups (generally speaking) than I had first given credit.seattlegal said:
The program displayed the famous "Venus of Willendorf." Which it then compared with a number of other "Venus" figurines from the neolithic period, roughly contemporary, dating around 25 thousand or so years ago. I noticed a couple of pieces from France, one from Russia, one from Eastern Europe (Czechoslovakia?) and another I believe was from Italy. All were remarkably similar. Either our "hunter-gatherer" ancestors were exceptionally mobile in the last gasps of the Ice Age, or there was some intimate communication among various tribes. Or, there remains the possibility that various tribes all reached similar conclusions in their search for the unknown.
I am looking forward to the next installment of this series. In the meantime, the cave paintings in particular caves seem to focus on specific animals, with occasional exceptions. In this regard, there seems to be some minor differences among the tribes, in that one tribe might focus on bison, another on bears, and another on horses. Yet, the common link seems that they all share some degree of overlap. If the focus is on bison, there are also bears, horses and other creatures depicted. If the focus is on bears, there seem to also be bison, horses and others depicted. Etc. It would seem reasonable that a tribe would focus on what animal(s) were "economically" important to them, and the nature of hunting would include "catch as catch can," perhaps explaining the occurance of other creatures.
In one cave was an altar with a cave bear skull carefully laid out upon it. So much is conjecture, we have no way of knowing with any certainty. It just seems peculiar to me that our ancestors spent so much time in the search for the unknowable, and yet shared so much of the same manifestation of the search. Venus figurines, and paintings of (mostly the same) animals on cave walls. This similarity extends across Europe and into Russia, and I hear of sites in Israel and China that I have yet to look into. The aboriginal natives of Hokkaido (sp?) Japan, the Ainu, have a culture that extends back into this period of time. I hear the Laplanders of far Northern Europe have an equally ancient culture.
Our search for the unknowable as humans has gone on for at least 25 thousand years we can pretty well confirm, and perhaps as much as 100 thousand years and more, evidenced by our anthropological finds.
So the "drive" mentioned is an ancient drive, indeed, and it shows no sign of abetting.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Taijasi!
I think Seattlegal might have asked the pertinent question, in that without the drive to know the unknowable, we would fail to progress towards understanding. Perhaps this drive is the opening of the mind, the beginning of consciousness, the separation of humans from other creatures.
taijasi said:
I think Seattlegal might have asked the pertinent question, in that without the drive to know the unknowable, we would fail to progress towards understanding. Perhaps this drive is the opening of the mind, the beginning of consciousness, the separation of humans from other creatures.
I think, for the typical person overwhelmed with day to day concerns, there is a comfort in "knowing," however mistaken that knowledge may be.
Perhaps. This is certainly one brand (style, or type) of teaching. Whether or not it is the way of understanding is as open to question as any other style or type of teaching. What of "vision quest?" And yet, even vision(s) is / are symbolic.
I don't know. I want to believe that objective truth is available to any who seek. I want to believe motivation counts for something, if not method. Otherwise, we are limited in our ability to perceive. Perhaps conveyance is limited by language, perhaps perception is limited by our "rose colored glasses." Yet, the opportunity if not ability, would seem to be available to all by the nature of the creature, that is, reality as objective truth.
I agree, yet the mind is the tool we have available, subject to spirit and intellect. We can use a tool properly, or improperly, or in varying degrees. One cannot drive a nail with a screwdriver, yet one can drive a screw with a hammer.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
juantoo3 said:
Well, if there is an ultimate truth wouldn't it have to be all encompassing? In that sense it would be one truth to be sure, but one all encompassing Truth. In such a Truth all untruths would find their natural position since they are essentially just partial truths, or illusions created by a lack of objective perception.
Or not...
Chris