Subjective "truths"?

by Narkissos 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Sad emo

  Hmmm...

  The objective truth that 'grass is green' must have, at some point been somebody's subjective truth. It is only 'grass' because somebody gave it that name, the same with 'green' - and then green was only relatively recently in history further defined with the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum and other 3-D colour definitions (CIELAB etc) when it was given a measured definition. But what if one day we discover that green isn't green after all, its actualy pink?!

  All in all, its a bit like Orwell's 1984 - if the 'powers that be' decide/discover tomorrow that 2+2 actually equals 5, then it would become so...

  I guess I'm not entirely convinced that any objective truth exists!
• 

  Narkissos

  Indirectly following on M-S's comment on the dialectics of truth: I feel that central to the notion of "truth" is our (impossible, and for this very reason, constant) desire to reach "out" of language from "within" language -- which is constitutive of language itself, inasmuch as this is just what "meaning" means. Language is (works) by nostalgically longing after its own extinction into silence -- be it the silence of "being" or "non-being," of "reality" or "imagination". Reaching the "real" would end the possibility of meaningful language just as psychotic "alternate realities" do. The "will to truth" potentially works in many different, even opposite ways.

  Sad Emo: I think language is more "democratic" (although certainly subject to demagogy) than you seem to assume. The meaning of "grass" and "green" can hardly be traced back to an individual decision. Every language constructs itself over generations within a community of speakers, and if the input of every member of the community affects it, it cannot be "changed" at will by anyone -- even a leader. The king has no absolute control over popular speech which will parody, mock or otherwise subvert the official court speech. Professional communication consultants know very well that a neologism cannot be imposed at will. It may work -- or not. The art of communication (and demagogy) lies in studying the current trends of mass speech and see where a slight alteration is likely to take in.
• 

  jgnat

  if the input of every member of the community affects it, it cannot be "changed" at will by anyone -- even a leader

  I read an article that suggested that language develops, organically, by infants and children in play. Case in point, "By BFF Jane." It is their flexibility of mind and play that allows new combinations to develop.
• 

  Earnest

  if the input of every member of the community affects it, it cannot be "changed" at will by anyone -- even a leader

  "I don't know what you mean by 'truth'", Narkissos said.

  Judge Rutherford smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

  "But 'truth' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Narkissos objected.

  "When I use the word," Judge Rutherford said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

  "The question is," said Narkissos, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

  "The question is," said Judge Rutherford, "which is to be master - that's all."

  adapted from 'Through the Looking-Glass' by Lewis Carroll
• 

  whitman

  I started a university course years ago on Formal Logic. I thought it sounded like fun, like a flounce through Lewis Carroll's 'Symbolic Game of Logic'. Alas. In the first lecture we were advised as to how to form propositions and arguments. I was called upon to answer the question at hand but stated that I was more concerned by what was meant by 'truth' in any given statement. After some backward and forward debate between myself and the lecturer I was politely asked not to return. Apparently truth has nothing to do with logic. Who knew?

  While Thomas Hobbes would not normally be the source of my citations, I find this one of interest: 'Truth and False are attributes of speech, not things. And where speech is not, there is neither Truth nor Falsehood.'
• 

  Narkissos

  Great quote Whitman.

  It is somewhat mindblowing that the Athenian "Sophists" were about already there before the long "parenthesis" of mainstream Western metaphysical philosophy (from Plato to Wittgenstein?) even started...
• 

  Terry

  Lockmakers sometimes use an impressionable clay in which they press a key to be copied. A mould is made from the impression and a new key is poured to conform to the "impressed" original.

  The ultimate goal of the key is to open a corresponding lock. Not just any key will do, after all.

  Using the above analogy....

  Our minds correspond to the impressionable clay.

  The pressing of the original into the clay is the act of perception. The senses separate out what is "keyness" from the amorphous "else".

  The mould is the concept which retains the form of "keyness" generally and "original" specifically.

  Pouring the molten metal into the mould is forming an idea around the concept of the original.

  The end result in either case will result in something which takes on the appearance, shape, dimension and precision of "key".

  However! Unless the copy opens the lock----nothing absolute has been accomplished.

  Using the above analogy.....

  Imprecise impressions made in the clay will produce imprecise moulds and the keys which come forth will be imprecise.

  A crack in the mould will produce an imprecision, too.

  Failure to file away the extrusion spillage from the sharply defined edges will result in imprecision as well.

  Therefore?

  We can come very, very, very close to the original and still get it wrong (won't open the lock) UNLESS WE FOCUS our attention, exact high standards of impression making, quality control in mould making and precise follow through in the verismilitude of the final product.

  Conclusion?

  Any key produced which does not open the lock is a subjective truth.

  Any key produced which does open the lock is an objective truth.

  Epilogue?

  Not all the concepts we form are immediately useful on existing locks.. Some of (yea, many of) our concepts open "virtual" locks. Which is to say they represent the form and not the substance of objective reality as yet misunderstood or undiscovered. (fiction, imagination, hybridization, whimsy are counterfeit keys in one sense and useful bridges in another sense to what is yet to come.)

  We can extrapolate from subjective moulds using the "keyness" to invent new kinds of locks.

  KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE is wisdom.

  The most useful concept is the production of a SKELETON KEY (which conforms to the "truth" of all locks to be opened). We call this extrapolated key: PRINCIPLE.

  Charles Darwin and Isaac Newton discovered and wrought skeleton keys which opened the way for a new kind of thinking about the universe. They unlocked hidden facets because they discovered principles.

  Fascinating, no?
• 

  SixofNine

  While Thomas Hobbes would not normally be the source of my citations, I find this one of interest: 'Truth and False are attributes of speech, not things. And where speech is not, there is neither Truth nor Falsehood.'

  Ah yes, the hitman's maxim :P~
• 

  whitman

  The Socratic method remains highly influential; it is certainly evident in Wittgenstein. Of course, before Socrates and the Sophists there was Parmenides; and I would suggest it is with him that the encounter with metaphysical 'truths' were first fully articulated in the western world. I suspect Parmenides would have been most interested in post-modern discussions of the simulacrum, semiology, post-structuralism and deconstruction. However, the deconstructionist's approach to language can be fraught with danger. I know of more than one historian who has followed Derrida's arguments about language to their natural conclusion and found themselves in the middle of a post-modern crisis.

  Let's face it, sometimes language must be abandoned in favour of the interpretative dance.