But, Royce, if you are convinced of something, then that is subjective truth, is it not?! By definition, something that is subjective has only to hold for one subject. Superb if it holds for many many people, but it already fulfills the definition if only one of us sees it that way and holds it for the truth. So i guess you are talking yourself into a dead-end, my friend
About the objective truth...i guess it depends on how strict you are on your definition. I am saying that we have some fields of knowledge, where there is a clear wrong and right. But it is true that even in the purest, most logical science Mathematics, you have to first make some "assumptions" aka put up Axioms. But from there on out, you can prove everything that follows as true or false.
People who now go "yeah, but you have those axioms and those are made up..." are a bit too hung up on nitpicking...because nothing exists in a Vacuum, right?! So you always have to have a starting point. And let me tell you, those axioms are much more complicated than something you can just make up
This is my position in a nutshell.
In claiming that something is true, you must present a justification. Any justification that you present, I can call into question. You will then have to justify that your previous justification, and so on. Because of this there is no way to prove any claim to truth. The justifications for whatever you believe must ultimately take one of three (in my opinion unsatisfactory) forms. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma :
If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:
-The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
-The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
-The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)
The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.
While this problem obviously doesn't necessarily show that reality itself is relative or that there is no truth out there somewhere, it does make it impossible to prove that one's knowledge is correct.
Further, even the basic tools we use to deal with knowledge can be called into question. The legitimacy of logic and reason can no more be proven than can faith in a holy scripture. The most basic claim on which logic relies, ~(A & ~A) or that something cannot both be true and false simultaneously, is unreliable. If I ask you to justify that claim you cannot. It is an arbitrary axiom. The only reason you accept it is because, in your experience of the world, it appears to hold and is useful to you. But the truth of your experience of the empirical world is itself not solid. You might be mad, or brain in a vat, or a mathematical expression, or logic could not hold and your existence could be beyond reckoning. Ultimately you accept the things you do because they are useful, not because you know them to be true.
We have no reliable compass or anchor by which to navigate the storm of reality, so why assume that their even is a truth out there at all? Again, I get that this does not prove that reality is subjective, but for me, it raises the question.
From their, my relativism is informed by the apparent power of frames. Things are defined by the frames in which they exist and the lenses through which they are viewed. Any insight we might have is based on an appeal to the rules of a frame. The argument I made above was founded on the axioms taken by the logical frame. You know your own experience of the world to be subjective, its nature is ultimately determined by the lenses through which you see it. If we modify the axioms normally used for geometry, we can explore non-Euclidean geometry, an entirely different but apparently internally consistent frame.
My position is the foundationalist response to the trilemma, minus the usual assumption that one frame of reference must be THE frame of reference.
Without an unbiased external frame of reference it is impossible to compare frames or weigh the absolute truth of one over the other. We can only ever see a frame through another frame, and the truth value of a frame is different when viewed from within an alternate frame.
So, while my position cannot be proven, neither can other. As the entirety of my experience indicates that truth is subordinate to frame, I have come to suspect that is the nature of reality. Frame is prime. There is no absolute, true, bedrock. Only shifting frames and lenses.
If anything, I would say that the trilemma might indicate that blind faith based systems of belief are likely to be truer than logically informed ones, as they are not self-invalidating. In its ceaseless questioning, logic eats its own tail. Faith, on the other hand, is generally perfectly consistent. Premise = god is true. Conclusion = god is true. It isn't like its axioms are any less provable than those of logic.
Royce you did a lot of dancing to avoid offending anyone . The whole 'treat all ideas as equal' is nonsense. Truth/facts do exist and/or are generally accepted. They can turn out to be wrong, and then a new truth/fact takes its place, but the ability to correct mistakes or fix errors does not make every possible idea a viable one. Though that, in my observation, is a major difference between science and religion. Science (where most people find there facts, right?) is aware of its fallibility and adapts, whereas religion tends more toward absolute truths that are set in stone.
Science takes axioms, just like any other frame. Empiricism is just as arbitrary as any other way of inquiring into the truth.
if you subscribe to the multi-verse theory and infinite probabilities, there is a universe where every idea in our own universe could be found to be 'objective' in another. Then you beg the questions, what makes it objective then, if it only holds in a limited space-time (albeit a space-time the size of a universe...)
I don't think my position is incompatible with this. In fact, I think they support each other. Perhaps the universes are just better understood as overlapping sets of rules.
Which is probably very considerate of you. However, I do not have patience for that. And I feel that with some fellow humans this course of action is really not feasible. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade - how am I supposed to react to some of my students' blatant xenophobia? Yes, I do tell them then openly, that they are off the mark and their ideas are stupid (not they - but their ideas).
That's fine I guess. I certainly would do the same. I just don't think you should think your positions is truly objective in any sense. Like I said, just because I'm a relativist doesn't mean I don't have moral or philosophical commitments. I just know they are arbitrary. I would never let philosophical relativism prevent me from standing up for something I believed in. That would descend into nihilism and there is no greater sin.
In summation, my relativism is an argument for the primacy of frames over truth. As every truth I have encountered has been subordinate to its frame, it seems unwise to believe in truth before frame.