Subjective "truths"?

by Narkissos 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  This is somehow related to my previous topic on "truth and freedom" (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/159428/1.ashx) and to an even more recent exchange with hamilcarr on the issue of "authority" of scripture/writing, on the fringe of another thread (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/159703/2.ashx).

  Truth in the "objective" sense implies a strict and exclusive correspondence of language and fact (or, more modestly, perceived "phenomenon"). The kind of correspondence (whether provable or not, that is still another issue) which is sought in both "scientific" and "fundamentalistic" speech. Once the signifiants (words) and the signifiés (phenomena) are accurately defined, an assertion can be qualified as either "true" or "false" (tertium non datur: there is no "third" option, according to the famous Aristotelic principle). To borrow from a former post by zensim: once you have (conventionally) defined "grass," "green" and "pink," the sentence "the grass is green" is true, "the grass is pink" is false, period. That doesn't depend on your "subjective" point of view.

  "Truth" in that sense requires submission. It is absolute and totalitarian in principle. It is not open to discussion (unless through the slow process of language evolution, which may change the wording of such "truths" but not their meaning or objective character). Inasmuch as religious belief (in the fundamentalistic pattern), like scientific theory, claims to relate to this type of "truth," it is bound to be intolerant and generate strife. (And the same is "true" of political, philosophical, etc. ideologies which are constructed on the same "objective truth" pattern.)

  However, we also refer to "truth(s)" in a very different, subjective sense. Something may be "true" to me at a certain stage of my life. It may not have been so yesterday, it may not be so tomorrow. More importantly, it may not be so to someone else. It may be (also provisionally) true to a "community" and not to another. You can certainly object that this is an improper, ill-defined, use of the word "truth". But we still do call it "subjective truth": it is, ironically, an objective truth -- of language. Anyway I won't fight over this. Let's call them "beliefs," "myths," "fictions," "imaginations," "fantasies" or "ideas".

  Whatever the name we call them, it seems to me that such "subjective truths" are certainly not to be ignored, because their consequences are very real. Actually they can be construed as the true actors of history rather than individuals, ethnic groups or nations. They fashion history, create wars and peace, inspire projects, inventions, art, etc.

  If there is anything changed as far as "subjective truths" are concerned, it's less about their contents than how we relate to them. The so-called "end of ideologies" in the last part of the 20th century hasn't killed "subjective truths". Otoh it forces us to relate to them differently -- not mistaking them for objective truths as has often been the case so far. We are just beginning to think the virtual as virtual. And thinking it better might be one of the most urgent tasks of philosophy. And, like it or not, that will change the nature of religion, too.

  Comments welcome.
• 

  shamus100

  My dogs breath smells like dog food.
• 

  Witness 007

  I believe "the truth will set you free" from "the truth."
• 

  jgnat

  Pink grass.

  I agree that truth is bandied about far too freely. There are very few things that we really know. I am not sure that all truth is subjective. Nature hints at some absolutes.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I like Foucault's phrase "regime of truth" because accepting a certain version as truth does entail submission to some other.

  Language creates truth. A good example often cited is the fact that different languages divide colours up differently. I read somewhere that some languages tend to combine blue and green into one colour for example, whereas others make distinctions between what we in English would normally consider merely shades of a single colour. So who is is right to divide colours in which way and how can we know? The "fact" is that the notion of the different colours as we have them is entirely constructed; not the wavelengths and the different functions and appearances obviously, but the dividing lines that make sense of the complex reality is constructed. And without such constructions we could "know" nothing because we could not speak intelligibly. (This paragraph probably betrays the little I have skim read of poststructuralism, and my poor understanding)

  I tend toward the view these days that the whole world is constructed by language.

  To ask if something is true has either naive or malignant intent. Better questions might be "is it useful/pleasing" and "does it do any harm?" Asking whether something is "true" or not may not simply be misguided, but actually perpetuate injustice and harm. And it is a wild goose chase too.

  For instance: how often would I as a Witnes fall back on the idea that while ignoring disfellowshipped people seemed harsh it was after all the "truth".

  How much better a world it would be if the first question we asked was how a certain view or practice would affect the lives of people, and then decide to call "truth" whichever has the most pleasing/least harmful outcome. But then if such a point were ever reached we might as well dispose of such labels as "truth" altogether.
• 

  hamilcarr

  Nice to devote a thread to this exciting topic

  And, like it or not, that will change the nature of religion, too.

  The shift from objective to subjective religious experience may have happened already as far as mainstream christian churches are concerned. In this light, fundamentalist churches like JWs and LDS could be considered as relics from a not so distant past, the persistence of which has led to a pitiful and somewhat artificial conflict between scientific "truths" and revelation sold as superior truth. It seems that most post-JW theists on this board, on the other hand, have learnt to accept the subjective character of their religious experience, stressing highly individual events as constitutive of their beliefs and pointing to the importance of "anecdotal evidence", as one poster recently did. They probably don't feel the need to submit others to their set of beliefs.

  I think --- and this is highly speculative --- that science, after all, could lead to objective truths or "transcendental objectivity" through "participant objectivation" in Bourdieu's terminology. Of course as long as the participants of the scientific game are willing to submit their own subjectivity to the scientific method, and most particularly to rigorous intersubjective scutiny.
• 

  hamilcarr

  I tend toward the view these days that the whole world is constructed by language.

  I think it's a good idea to involve linguistic relativity in a discussion on "truth".

  I think, though, that your statement may be a too generous application of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

  Most linguists nowadays have left this strong version of linguistic determinism because the relation between language and reality seems more complex than previously thought. Many important cognitive intuitions (geometry, numerical cognition, etc) seem to predate (symbolic) language acquisition. So, to a certain extent, language is constructed by our cognitive schemes, which are, in turn, constructed by "reality".

  I guess this makes the quest for truth a little more hazardous
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Here's some notes from a book I never finished. May one day.

  Webster defines “truth” as:

  (1) being true; specif., a) sincerity; honesty b) conformity with fact c) reality; actual existence d) correctness; accuracy
  (2) that which is true
  (3) an established fact. Wikipedia (online encyclopedia) mentions that “ there is no single definition of truth about which the majority
  of philosophers agree.” In John chapter 18, Jesus told Pontius Pilate that he came into the world to “bear
  witness to the truth,” but when Pilate asked, “What is truth?” there was no answer from Jesus. Even with Webster telling us that truth is “that which is true,” I could make a statement and say that it is a true statement, but that just leads to questions such as these; What is a true statement? Is it different from a statement made truthfully? Some feel that truth is subjective and personal, that one man’s truth comes from his inner feelings and
  thinking, his viewpoint. Many add that truth is relative, only defined by its comparison to something else.This would be similar to the abstract question, “What is beauty?” In subjective truth, different persons would
  have different truths. Outside of philosophy, truth is not generally thought of in subjective terms. Truth is determined by
  existing realities, based on facts independent of the mind. Most people think that truth is objective. Some go
  so far as to say that only absolute truth matters." Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed,
  invariable, unalterable facts. Absolute truth requires an absolute standard. This is the truth of which the
  Watchtower organization refers. If asked, “What is the truth?” Jehovah’s Witnesses will answer most likely like this: “The truth is that
  which is firm, trustworthy, stable, faithful, and established as fact. Jehovah God is truth, in that His judicial
  decisions, law, commandments, and word are truth. Even here, we can run into trouble. If I make the objective statement that “Earth is the third planet out from the sun,” another person could ask, “Whose definition of ‘planet’ are you using?” “Is it possible that there are other undiscovered planets between the earth and sun?” “When you say ‘out from the sun,’ do you mean in distance or a straight line?” With religious doctrine, it is no different. Whose translation are we using, and which ancient Greek or Hebrew meaning are we applying? The Watchtower claims that our perspective on truth should come from the absolute authority of the creator of all things. They teach that the creator determines what is right and what is wrong, and that the absolute truth we seek is knowledge of His will for His creation. This is “the truth” that, unlike beauty, does not lie in the eye of the beholder. It’s just a shame that we need humans to interpret what that absolute truth is, and to tell us what they think God’s will is for us.
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you for playing.

  jgnat: I expected some picture of pink grass to come up. That's why I insisted on definition (in that case, which grass). Btw, I never meant that "all truth is subjective". On the contrary, I suggested that the very notion of "truth" aims at objectivity (verifiable, measurable, repeatablecorrespondence between words and phenomena). I would suggest that the idea of "subjective truth" is actually secondary to that of "objective truth" -- a figurative meaning of "truth," or even a metaphor (if only the metaphor of an abstraction).

  slim, I think you're quite right about the role of language in principle. There is no language-free human cognition. And variation from one language to another is always to be taken into account. A French speaker would never say that "violets are blue" -- to us they are purple, even though your "purple" divides into "violet" and "mauve" depending on the dominance of blue or red. A French (or English?) reader is generally surprised by the sentence "the fields are white" in literal Bible translations, because the Hebrew (and Semitic-influenced Greek) "white" is much broader than ours. Still, the relationship between colour vocabulary in any language and physical colour wavelength is measurable, even though the exact limit where one speaker shifts from one "colour word" to another may vary. Inasmuch as all parameters are defined we're still in the realm of "objective truth," although truth can be more or less accurate.

  I do agree that the "subjective truths" I was referring to have much to do with the notion of pleasure (including interest). The greatest strength of hedonisms (e.g. Epicurism), I feel, is their lucidity (or honesty) on this issue. We believe what we enjoy believing -- as weird or gloomy as it may sound to others. The criterion of "harm" is a bit more complex as it involves an axiomatic moral judgement (harming others is wrong) and a quantitative appraisal (determining the "greater" and "lesser" harm when "harmless" is not an option -- it seldom is). Both depend on culture, education, psychological structure (especially empathy or the lack thereof) and insight about short- and long-range effects.

  hamilcarr, I'd concur that (what is left of) continental European religion has largely moved from the objective to the subjective register -- Pope Benedict XVI's attacks against relativism sound like a last-ditch struggle from here. Whether or how far this is true in the rest of the world is another matter.

  An intersubjective, phenomenological approach of "subjective truths" seems indeed to be the only tool we have for understanding their dynamics. For all people involved it requires a new flexibility -- constantly moving back and forth from the observer's seat to the player's stage. That will certainly change the play -- but the change is part of the play.

  Edit to add @ OTWO.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  I'm of the belief that there is an objective external reality, and so along with that there are many definite hard facts or physical "truths", at least in this backwater of the cosmos. However, our perceptions of different facets of this whole (especially of other people in it) are influenced by so many factors (emotional impact is huge) that I'd say we only have approximations of whats true.

  Now, the closer we can get to actual physical truths, the likelier it'll confer to us more power to manipulate that reality. Also, the more accurately we can "mind-read", the better we can decide how to interact with one another. I'd have to say then that the content of our truths is important if there's to be progress.So I don't think we'll drop the notion of truths any time soon. But who are we kidding? We mess up alot. At least I do.

  So I agree with at least two previous comments that "truths" (regardless of what they're saying) have their greatest impact in how they move us to act. Hence the strong use of emotionally charged content in whatever "truths" some group may want others to swallow. Humanity and civilization would be better of, I believe, if we come to the realization that we're in a dialectic with reality. A reality thats changing depending on when and where we're asking something of it, and we're building an approximate model of it in our minds.