twistedrope · 26-30, M
In my experience, people who talk about objectivity aren't worth ascosiating with. They are poor at being emotionally open or supportive and use "objectivity" as an excuse or crutch for their shortcomings.
For me, I acknowledge, I have certain biases and charitability to things I can't help. It is more difficult to judge things objectivly when you are involved. But... How often do you really even need to be judging? Judging, arguing and criticising are poor ways to live.
I would rather be playful with friends than confrontive.
If you want an actual answer to "Ultimate truth". Try reading Viktor Frankls "mans search for meaning". I think something close would be affecting ones own choices personally. The most exhausting thing to do.
For me, I acknowledge, I have certain biases and charitability to things I can't help. It is more difficult to judge things objectivly when you are involved. But... How often do you really even need to be judging? Judging, arguing and criticising are poor ways to live.
I would rather be playful with friends than confrontive.
If you want an actual answer to "Ultimate truth". Try reading Viktor Frankls "mans search for meaning". I think something close would be affecting ones own choices personally. The most exhausting thing to do.
@twistedrope I think you’re answering a different question from the one I asked. I wasn’t asking whether objectivity makes people better judges of others, nor whether arguing and criticizing are good ways to live. I was asking what makes a proposition true independently of our preferences, biases or emotional relationship to it.
Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning is relevant to how a person finds meaning and chooses to live, but that’s still different from establishing whether something is ultimately true. A person can find profound meaning in something without that meaning making the underlying belief objectively true.
So I’m still interested in the question: if truth exists independently of us, what would distinguish actually knowing that truth from simply having a deeply meaningful interpretation of our lives?
Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning is relevant to how a person finds meaning and chooses to live, but that’s still different from establishing whether something is ultimately true. A person can find profound meaning in something without that meaning making the underlying belief objectively true.
So I’m still interested in the question: if truth exists independently of us, what would distinguish actually knowing that truth from simply having a deeply meaningful interpretation of our lives?
As truth is a human concept there is no ultimate truth beyond that which can be proven and can't be disproved. It is objective because it is measurable and can be replicated independently. Truth is an acceptance of consensus, essentially, proven by measurement and replication. It is pretty much redundant to try and frame a human concept outside of human understanding.
@InfoTunaBotTheReturn Hiya, so if truth is ultimately an acceptance of human consensus, what makes a consensus true when the consensus itself turns out to be wrong?
Science always leaves room open for new discovery and understanding.
