Yes, this topic is very broad but it has been the question that MANY people have tried to slove, but could not. Let's see who tried and came close... Socrates, Aristotle , and Plato. Plato had is allegory of the cave, but I am putting this debate up here so we could possibly brainstorm what truth might be and how to possibly find it! May the truth be with you :P ~
-Brooke "Alexios I" Curto
^yes Alexios I was the king of Byzantium during the crusades XD
**bad grammar may cause bleeding, narsissem, excessive laughter , unexpected Charlie horses, addiction to Dr. Who, strange affinity to fluffy pillows, seeing water talk to you, think that Kony is your best friend, pains in your neck, bloating, and voices telling you that you are the son of God... Please contact your doctor immediately if you suffer from any of these symptoms !**
Sorry I had to do it!! It was just there!! , now seriously I believe that it's difficult to find an universal truth in a society so divided like ours, the only thing that people can agree as an universal truth is that everybody will die eventually, even Time Lords... that or 42, I'll go with 42, seems like according to the new "rules" Time Lords are almost "immortal" now.
i think this is a question you must answer for yourself.
I agree, but I think others might need to help. After all it is one big job trying to find universal truth.
So then everything is a lie? If there is no universal truth then how can I be sure of anything? Thus there has to be a universal truth,but we haven't found one yet.
so if you can be sure of it is it any different from a truth?
what is the difference?
Wrong. See 2+2=4. No matter your perspective, that will always be true. You might change what the symbols mean, but that doesn't change the fundamental meaning underneath.
One word: WikiLeaks.
I am very interested in what people mean when they say that there is no universal truth but instead subjective truths. How can something be true for one person and not for another? If you advocate ‘subjective truths’ then surely what you mean is opinions; that opinions are facts because no facts can be proven. If facts can be proven, then they are universal.
Take, for example, Holocaust denial. If there is no universal truth, then on what grounds do you oppose that opinion? Would you consider society’s utter rejection and abhorrence to that stance simply bullying a minority opinion?
I am very interested in what people mean when they say that there is no universal truth but instead subjective truths.
By subjective truths, most people mean that it is the persons sense, rationality, or brain that creates a truth. God could be a subjective truth, or an objective truth. If God is an objective truth, it doesn't matter if we don't believe in him or if we do because he exists outside of our beliefs. He is. However if God is a subjective truth, he exists only because of/within our beliefs, yet he exists within each individual differently, thus subjective.
Take, for example, Holocaust denial.
If no one witnessed the Holocaust, objectively it still happened. Subjectively it did not because no one witnessed it, therefore it didn't happen.
This whole objective vs. subjective truth is highly confusing and kind of ridiculous. Why does there have to be a dichotomy of objective/subjective? Why can't a truth be both?
Because exactly for this reason- we are talking about it.
When we try to communicate to each other about what is 'true' we are trying to say what actually is real / happened. It makes absolutely no sense to say to someone else 'this my subjective truth' because if it is only subjective they can never know if you are telling the truth or making it up - As in, what subjective truth means is 'appears true' to one person, but since it cannot be proven to another person, to what extent can it really be true and not just a thought or delusion?
The point of Holocaust denial is exactly one of do we accept subjective truths, because if we do - how do we know it really did happen? Which to me, highlights the importance of knowing whether or not this question matters.
I was going to just post something about Rene Descarts and his exploration that the physical world could be a delusion, leading him to conclude "I think therfore I am." (Or the more beautiful, "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.") Which surely is the biggest subjective truth / reason to believe in subjective truth ever. But it led me to thinking through this whole subjective vs objective idea of truth.
Regardless on one's philosophical beliefs, don't we accept that physical influences can affect our thinking? So it's an objective truth that the physical world exists / affects us. So I mean, to put it crudely, if the objective world can inform the subjective one - You may believe a bullet will not kill you but if it is shot through your skull you appear to die objectively - doesn't that point to objective truth?