I’ve made myself miserable trying to pin down the objective truth–I used to think I could somehow quantify it and impose it on others. But then I realized what worked for me didn’t work for others, what called to me didn’t call to others, what drove and energized me was not universal.
Perhaps the objective truth is we must subjectively experience it; quantification and description only seem to go so far. Maybe we just have to live it and be it.
Truth is a perception for each of us, and all of our perceptions are 100% wrong 100% of the time, so no one really KNOWS anything…we believe things to be true or perceive things to be true, but the “objective truth” is beyond our physical ability to comprehend or understand.
Experiencing something for yourself is the best teacher, because what works for one person doesn’t work for another. So to quantify it all and sum it all up, live it do it rinse and repeat and then live it and do it again even better. Because if you rely on the sum of your experiences each time you go to live it and do it, you will accomplish more than the time before.
If we just think for a moment, ‘objective’ truth must be true for the whole universe. And yet it’s evidently a wildly complex ‘whole’ when you get down to the ‘parts’ like us. And we’re not even the the ‘base’: there’s multiple levels of complexity below the level of intelligent beings. And all that complexity means there’s an infinity of subjective viewpoints. They’re still valid in their locality, but of course there’s every possible flavour and colour. While objective truth can perhaps ‘explain’ every different subjective variation – and even predict the existence of all that variation – it isn’t going to be able to predict every nuance. Objective truth is ‘grand pattern’: the day-to-day reality is always going to be subjective. What works for one person won’t work for everyone. Hell, it’s a miracle when it works for just one other person, but that doesn’t matter. Celebrate the diversity. And if you look at it long enough – allowing it to be diverse (because it is, anyway) – you’ll maybe start to see the common threads that allude to the grand pattern. In the meantime, celebrate the fact that you don’t need to fix anything.
Yes, I believe our perspectives are congruent. My requirements for objective truth means that it must not only explain fundamental questions about perceptual reality–eliminate or validate solipsism, as well as simulation theory–but it must also do the same for the concept of the multiverse, account for all of quantum energy exchange, and thus be able to predict all outcomes with 100% reliability. It must also definitively answer if there is free will (or how much there is, if any), and all variations of causality, including physics pre big bang, as well as yet unexplained capabilities from ufo/uap. My personal opinion is that it is an endless rabbit hole of ever-changing, ever-expanding, causality and data that leads back to the seemingly reductive advice of living in the moment, engaging in our subjective experiences with as much appreciation and joy as possible, without an endless slew of justifications.
No objective truth is ever going to tick those boxes in a way our minds could understand it, as they currently handle the input. Living in the moment as you said does bring me a great deal of peace, and sometimes, dare I say it – joy. But I do love letting it wander/wonder and pondering the big stuff. After all, if we all sat around in blissful meditation we wouldn’t have platforms like this on which to discuss fascinating thoughts like this 😂
Indeed. That’s the premise behind a mystically structured existence, where a nondual omnipotence is limited due to its abidance in omnipotence-presence-science and must break from its native state because it can’t go anywhere or experience anything like progress, motion, or choice. I like to think of it as music–you need more than one note to make a song.
Man you’re a fast reader! I’m at 34% on yours, I’ll step on the gas! My review will show up as John Salwer, will happily reciprocate! Also, seems like you have a grasp of the esoteric (pyramids) and Jungian symbolism/archetypes (beginning where he is afraid to go in the water). Nice!
I get ya. I’ve thought about it a lot too, and realized your subjective reality is your own.
I wrote a novella that touches on this theme quote lot actually. Check it out if you’ve got time buddy.
Objective truths are just that – truths. Gravity says that if you jump off a 100-story building on this planet you are going to go splat. That is a truth. Someone may say he can fly but he won’t, well maybe Nemo can get away with that but he’s fictional and you’re not.
I believe what you are saying aligns closer to existentialism with an emphasis on the individual experience and your uniqueness of experience and existence. You are unique, objective truths are not. Objective truths apply to everyone regardless of individual perspectives or beliefs.
Be yourself, be happy.
I believe you and I have different requirements for objective truth. We can probably find common ground in the idea that the examples you’ve stated are human-centric and empirically valid. In order for me to accept something as an objective truth, it must be true throughout all of time and space and greater reality–our current physics may not be valid pre big bang, or in the very early stages of universal expansion. There are other questions I would need answers to in order to build the case for an objective truth, to include validation or invalidation of simulation theory, existence of the multiverse, truth or falsity of solipsism, an explanation for radar data gathered on ufo/uap, validation or invalidation of free will (or how much there is, if it’s partial), an accounting for all energy at the quantum level, an explanation for the one-way arrow of time, definitive (not just empirical) proof on whether consciousness is localized in matter or whether physicality originates in consciousness, etc. etc. But I do think you and I can agree on your final statement, in that I am of the opinion that all that pales in comparison to being yourself and being happy.
LikeLike
The objective truth is… there is no objective truth. Philosophy makes us question reality. Why does 1 + 1 = 2? Because humans created the numbers and addition. (Also the concept of truth.) Science makes us objectify reality. Why does 1 + 1 = 2? Because all sorts of experiments can prove the hypothesis. (Is proof equal to truth?) Musings make us remember we’re in control of what we experience. Live it and be it indeed.
As always, thanks for sharing!
Yes, I agree! Unprovable though it may be, I believe if there is an objective truth that applies to us humans, it is we are meant to appreciate and enjoy our temporary journey through physical life.
LikeLike
Apparently, there is an objective truth that applies to our numbers: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-square-root-of-2-became-a-number-20240621/
Interesting! Yes, I would say that’s objective in the context of empirical functional validity! Unfortunately, I’m very picky when it comes to objectivity–one of my first requirements would be to ensure it’s valid through pre big bang physics, moments after the big bang when our physics were still in flux, then also a verdict on whether or not the multiverse exists, and how causality operates in other universes if they do in fact exist. I could pile on a ton of other stuff too, but that’s a good starting point for me.
LikeLike
Good point! I think it’s important for people to understand the distinction between theory and hypothesis, and how evidence does not necessarily guarantee a conclusion. Also, how our reasoning is based on one-way linear causality, which may not be applicable throughout all of existence…
LikeLike
You might wish to read Hoffman’s book “The Case against Reality.” It dusts off the assumed meta behind cultural and philosophical materialism.
Thanks for recommending this book! I’m about halfway through it now. I like Hoffman’s writing style, very easy to read and understand. To the point of the post, the book seems to suggest there is an objective truth, but we can’t perceive it with the brains we evolved. But we don’t need to perceive it in order to survive and reproduce. (And that’s ultimately what our DNA programs us to do, so objective truth be damned.)
No problem at all. Glad you are enjoying it. Just doing my job as a brainwashed Hoffman follower. Yeah, Hoffman is saying that successful agents who survive the world are true believers in pay-off strategies, and those that select the “Truth” don’t live long. This reminds me of your Atriya who adapts to the hard conditions of his world, while the other Crusaders drink it up. I hope you enjoy the rest of the book.
Great connection! I’ve listened to Hoffman on a few podcasts and I love what he has to say, particularly in the fact that he can bring expertise to bear on the 2022 physics Nobel prize where existence is is not locally real. Atriya does eventually get some mystical blowouts, but I’ll leave that to the reader as to whether they interpret that as Truth with a capital T or not.
Well, this is just my opinion, but I don’t think there’s one huge objective truth or standard we are going to be judged by, given that there are so many different schools of thought and none of them confirmed by a source of authoritative value significant enough to be recognized/agreed upon as such by everyone on the planet. Doesn’t mean there aren’t some over arching truths about the order of the universe that apply to everyone… Wishing you a wonderful day 😀 Ari
I agree with you! As of now, I’m inclined to believe that objective truth is at the very least, largely subjective, perhaps totally. Also, if physics (causality) changes according to different universal conditions (pre or early big bang), then wouldn’t objective truth change as well? Maybe if there is an objective truth, it might be consistent change, but what if throughout the breadth of existence, certain underlying themes repeat themselves, kind of like themes in a story but with different settings and different characters? That would still qualify as a different variation of the theme, due to the different setting and characters. Personally, I believe that to conclusively define an objective truth, one would have to be omniscient (account for all quantum phenomena, account for all causality in this universe and others, account for free will, etc etc), so unless that happens, it’s kind of pointless to conclude anything as objective truth.
Well, something cannot be objective by definition if it relies in any way on the feelings, perceptions, or interpretations of another. Perhaps the experience of any ultimate objective truths transmutes into something experientially subjective based on the individual experience of it under perceptive conditions and capacities that can vary greatly and that do not fully allow for omnipresence or omniscience in the perceiver…
Respectfully, I disagree with you on your first statement. I think it can’t be objective if it SOLELY relies on feelings, perceptions, interpretations, and other “subjective” measures of an individual, to the exclusion of other individuals. However, in true objectivity, I believe a truth must include and account for all of the subjective, reconciling even seemingly contradictory viewpoints and stances. I do agree with your second statement, though. I believe that’s the case, but also with the caveat that the subjective experience is still included, by default, as part of all-inclusive objectivity.
Funny enough, this was the first thought that came to my mind in my current study of contemporary analytic philosophy. I follow the train of thought of wanting to prove different concepts correct through various ideas, but it’s not a one-size-fits-all. There are some thinkers who look at the concept of language being able to be displayed in logical equations while other debate it’s in the way we use words. Overall, these different perspectives help as a brain development exercise to get us thinking in new ways. I can’t justify stating if one theory is absolutely right over the other as many seem to have components that fit my personal experience.
As “nice” as it would be to have some black and white or concrete definition, actually living life does not have those solid frames. The fluidity is part of the journey and sharing what experiences have shaped our views.
Indeed! I had similar realizations when I poked around in existential philosophy–a lot of those folks just made up words and phrases in an attempt to “fool” their audience into a satori-like experience where they went beyond logical convolutions into a full-being experience. If I had to bet on an objective truth, I would probably veer towards a model of existence similar to the one Alan Watts described, one that allows for infinite possibility and perspectives.
Me trying to be objective: That is a book. The book is red. But It may be that the book is red for ONLY me…
*phones 1000 different people to ask about the colour of Huck Finn’s cover *
Me: There is no objective truth! Only obvious blunders… on my part…
Ergo took-me-10-years-to-figure-out-this-SUBJECTIVITY! so true!
Objectivity also seems to be what Science was made for – Enlightenment reason and all of that. But the issue is when ya find philosophy eating at science and vice versa… ahem, but things are sure getting horny…
Indeed, data starts showing cracks at the edges, with the inherent acceptance of random results in the form of p-values, and it also gets wonky in quantum physics from what little I understand.
Indeed! My requirements for objectivity is that it reconciles and includes the subjective, but that’s just personal. There might be different laws of causality right after the Big Expansion and if there was a Big Bang, definitely before that. Also seems likely on different scales of existence, or if parallel dimensions exist.
… and certainly subjective if the worlds split at alternate quantum particles instead of big-scale events, and roughly speaking oscitey is our return subjective experience – even deaths and births rely on the subjective experience. Actually, I wonder if an alien civilisation – exactly the same with us but without possible armageddons would rely as heavily on the subjective experience. Perhaps our modern conenction to the concept leeches into the lack of freedom of our ancestors or precisely some form of threat – not necissarily the “nasty, brutis and short” overquoted Hobbesian life…
Personally, I believe they would, as the subjective experience is what releases the limit on a theoretical nondual consciousness (if you’re everything everywhere all at once, then there’s nowhere to go, nothing to do, nothing to learn unless you have subjectivity to instantiate a linear individual experience). However, perhaps the subjectivity of this alien civilization may include a more inclusive perspective that incorporates many individualistic perspectives, in such a way that would seem nonsubjective to folks as individualistic as us.
Just curious: which stance would you pick in this thought experiment about identity? [Setup: you are one of three identical twins, are all involved in a huge accident. Your sibling’s brains die i.e. they are dead, but your brain somehow survives even if your body doesn’t. The doctors cut your brain into two hemispheres and transplant one half each into your twins’ bodies. If both of YOU survive, who is actually YOU?]
Ooh interesting! But if both siblings are you… then what actually is identity or is it hopeless to ask oneself (for lack of a better word – also what is ‘self’)? On this stance I think I would kind of lean towards identity being within the way someone subjectively percieves the world – even if they retain different memories.
If we can’t remmeber before a certain age, then did we begin with our first memory? I mean, I can’t remember to when I was 1/2 years old, but there are photographs telling me that I physically existed then. And in the ever fiesty topic of abortion – do the fetuses also begin when 1 week old? 2 weeks? Dizzying.
Obvious Conclusion that was not obvious before I had this conversation: Maybe philosophy and science are for asking questions and producing millions of tree diagrams, not theories or concrete answers.
Well to answer the question, I’d have to start invoking mysticism, in that I believe identity is ego, whose principal purpose is to allow us to have a linear experience, but causes us unnecessary suffering when we “inflame” it, or lean too heavily on the separation/space-time mode of perception. However, through transcendental focuses, I believe we can experience our greater selves, that which is beyond separation/space-time identitity.
+ I guess we’re stuck with preferring the option that 1) makes less assumptions and 2) confirms prior theories and 3) doesn’t end up creating metaphorical earbud wire (seriously, wired earbuds get tangled so easily)… which means adamantly shrugging away the subjectivity behind objectivity at 2am in the morning, with burnt coffee and a billion questions stored… somewhere.
Just came across this one. Totally agree with you. Our perceptions differ based on our experiences.
Your musings and your ads, like earth and outer space 🤭…
Kent Wayne 
Leave a reply to Vetus Animus Cancel reply