The Rabbit Hole

What part of the sentence "Facts are relative" did you not comprehend?

Uh??!

All of it.

Truth might be relative but facts are not

Sam Holland stated what he saw as fact. Prior to the Warren Commission, Nix's statement of fact corroborated Holland's. Based on these and various other readings and whatnot I have decided to form my own truth regarding that event in your country's history. What part of this do you not comprehend?

LOL

This pretty much sums it up.

I can understand that jen. No worries.

There is no truth without facts. So if you claim that truth is relative, facts beyond the natural sciences and mathematics are simply made up.

Well, that only took a week or so.

For Stew Effex.

Actual photo

LOL

"facts beyond the natural sciences and mathematics are simply made up." these are called theories, not facts

Yep, but don't tell anyone.

Haha, but I thought earth was more like a disc.

Let's learn more about Islam!
https://youtu.be/VSpAQCEjycA

Any other religion and he would have been cautioned at least

Dev, I think you will like this :
https://youtu.be/1UoAOmARa58

So these people think that the definition of racist is anything they want it to mean, typical clueless Libtard

[quote=jmn5611;10976372]{quote} You argue that we can all agree that a mountain is a mountain and a horse is horse. What we as humans can never agree on is what mountain and horse are there to do. I wound reiterate that beyond the objective lies the subjective and within the subjective there is no such thing as "truth". Everyone's truth is defined by their life experiences. Here in the USA we have an entire voting bloc of superstitious people called Evangelicals. The Church is still very much in our political business despite the efforts of our founders to not make it so. {quote} Isn't context by definition subjective? If the edifice of truth is based on context, how can truth be universal? {quote}
First, your supposition of “truth doesn’t exist" is a fallacy and is one of many arguments that “post modernists” fail to defend, much like how epistemology failed to defend their arguments, so too does the era of post modernism in its’ regime of contrived realities that eventually will see to it’s own demise. Your argument is both contradicting and circular in logic without a passable conclusion in support thereof. Sort of like the analogy of a dog who chases his or hers own tail to no end can not be satisfied.

“Truth can not by Definition be subjective”

Well, if you subscribe to the belief of “there is no such thing as truth” then how can it have a definition? Or the notion you put forth is your belief, wouldn’t that make it your truth, seeing that is what you believe in, is in essence what makes your own statement subjective? The premise you put forth and are arguing is a paradox, a contradiction.

Mountain is still a Mountain, a Horse is still a Horse and the example you are challenging such as when questioning their purposes is when it becomes subjective is conflated and fragmented for it matters not from it’s objective definition. For the two are separate in their stated discourses. If two or more subjects choose to discuss their purposes, then that is an entirely different matter, and not related to the things in question objective truths.

Here is an example in how I summarize your argument. One from being objective then going to being subjective and a Horse is a perfect example.

“A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course,
That is, of course, unless the horse is the
famous Mr. Ed.

Go right to the source and ask the Horse
He’ll give you the answer that you’ll endorse
He’s already on a steady course
Talk to Mr Ed”

I am sure you are familiar with this song from the 60’s sitcom “Mr Ed, but read carefully the song and you will find examples being made within the language itself that goes from objective to subjective within a lyric of a song. There is a literal translation and a metaphorical one, and thus language within the post modernism construct operates with the same type of discourse.

“Within the subjective there is no such thing as truth” Everyone’s truth is defined by their life experiences”

Again a contradiction. You acknowledge that everyone has a truth, yet you claim that there is no such thing as truth. If there is no such thing as truth then how can anyone have truth based on their life experiences? You either are acknowledging there is truth or acknowledging something else, which doesn’t make any sense based on your line of questioning. Again conflict!

In Homers Odyssey, it is acknowledged that every individual has a perception of what truth is, and are bonded by their own convictions to what that truth is as being their driving force in their life,(even Nietzsche acknowledges this) as well as being unique to each individual as being their own truth. Just because they can not prove or articulate it in a clear succinct definition that would be perceived the same to some one else doesn’t necessary mean that is is not true, but only that aspect of what that truth is as being told by someone as being truth only then does it become subjective, an expression, or an opinion.

To go about in life believing there is no such thing as truth the individual would also have to embrace the idea that their entire life is based on a lie, a fallacy, and if that is indeed what they are doing then another word for that is nihilism, which in of itself is yet another truth they are embracing. Another paradox!

"Isn’t context by definition subjective?"

No! Context only becomes subjective when a conflict arises or it appears as a contradiction.

"If the edifice of Truth is based on context, how can truth be universal”

When or where did I ever say that "Truth is Universal?” In fact I acknowledged there is no universal foundation for all knowledge, but that truth does indeed exist. If you read my other comments (carefully) in response to Simond I was specifically clear about this point, so don’t put words into my mouth please!

Here I can put in a more simpler way of Truth being Subjective and Objective by the responses given. There is no grey area as to what they mean.

"That is a Cat"

response: “Yes, it is!"

"I am happy, therefore you should be too!”

response: “Why?"

My impression that I get from you within the discourse of our conversation, is that you are trying to convince yourself to believe there is no such thing as truth, yet you can not reconcile the fact that you yourself hold on to your own certain beliefs inside your own perceptions as being true, therefore you present your arguments as sort of a paradox, and denying that truth exists furthers your impetus to argue this point without resolution even though it fails on it’s own premise as being a reasonable argument. I insist that it is not!

Well true, but I again argue when these knuckleheads are out in the world contriving their own realities as being true, then the only way to look at it is to realize that such idiots advocating as such is merely a symptom of the post modernism construct. Remember, if there is no such thing as truth or subscribing to moral relativism as they seem fit, then they can simply just make any shit up! This is the world we live in now a days and needs to be challenged!

Ha Ha! I couldn't resist this!

https://youtu.be/pGeODt3xEn8