- Apr 19, 2007
- MBTI Type
- Instinctual Variant
I believe in a world outside of myself. I do not believe "truth," inherent meaning, exists as anything but an interaction between an observer and the world. Therefore, I believe truth can only be subjective. There are no inherent meanings, everything is absurd.
I also do not believe events necessarily happen in a linear, inherently sensical way. I think we tend to edit out whatever doesn't make sense, and so are not creatures very well made to be totally in touch with reality, let alone objective truth.
Your need for objective truth is more a product of your need for the world to make sense than it is a reflection on reality. The world is absurd, and you doubly so.
Would another way to describe the concept in your last two paragraphs is that there's always more outside our conception/perception than we can pick up, so our idea of "truth" is still always a subset smaller than the totality of all truth?
I guess we could agree on the outside world and what it contains... but as to what those things are exactly, and how we describe them, and the value we place in them, and how we communicate about them to others -- all those things are subjective. Even in a physical/temporal sense -- because I am describing something from a certain physical and temporal location that no one else can exactly occupy (as far as 3D and time coordinates go), my viewpoint is unique compared to another's.
Still, there are things that seem to be static in terms of "objective" truth, in a practical every-day sense. For example, there are processes that for all intents and purposes provide the same results for anyone when measured, regardless of who they are. The brick will be, for all practical purposes, the same length regardless of who measures it. And so forth. Are these just "physical properties" in your world, rather than examples of "objective" truth? (Just trying to grasp the concept.)
I do not understand why 'inherent meaning' should be equivocated with 'truth.' In fact, I do not even know what inherent meaning is supposed to be, nevermind whether or not it exists.
In other words, it's really a mistake to equate "[inherent] meaning" with "[objective] truth"?
Well, I'm not sure how we could possibly discover the "inherent meaning" of things, since "meaning" is what value we personally invest in something, which could be different from person to person. Who decides what is an "inherent" meaning of something, a meaning that is always there, except perhaps on a very generalized basis? (For example, the same item might commonly have the same general "meaning" for a majority of people... but this is still a far cry from an "inherent" meaning generated by the object itself.)
Objective truth would seem to describe properties of the object, not the value of it.