Is it possible to know anything with absolute certainty? Do we really know that the sun will rise tomorrow? Of course i assume it will, but should i, or is this folly? Are facts always truth? Can they be considered knowledge or would it be better to call them popular beliefs? How do we know gravity or any other physical law will hold constant for eternity? Why are the spirituality and philosophy sub-forums now divided? Is there a true difference between these fields or is this just percieved? It seems that philosophy is associated with logic and knowledge while spirituality is associated with belief and feelings/intuition. Do you think this way? Do you consider yourself a philosopher who is repelled by mystic or spiritual explanations for phenomena? On the other side of the coin do you consider yourself a spiritualist (or just spirit to keep it simple) who finds the field of philosophy to be a dry exchange of conflicting trains of logic that goes nowhere? Where do your tendencies lie in all of this? How do you break it all down?
Are you certain? I am actually inclined to disagree, just because "truth" doesn't seem to hold place, form, or value outside of the human mind, which to me is a subjective lens. What would objective truth look like? A bedazzling complex of interweaving light in intense colours on a scale infinitely beyond us micro cosmically and macro cosmically? How could it be percieved objectively? If there is an ultimate and objective truth does this then imply an intelligent design (to you)? I wonder if other species perceive truth at all... maybe... I think that if truth is objective, then it must mean that truth exists outside of all perception. If all life in the universe vanished, would this "objective truth" be that which remained? Its almost silly to talk about because we obviously don't know.
The lack of precision and accuracy when it comes to philosophical discourse is often rather concerning; and certainly problematic in a number of ways. Unfortunately, the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' are consistently misused and misunderstood, which subsequently leads to even more problems since these terms become cornerstones of premises and theories. Subjective refers to the subject. Individual valuations, opinions, feelings, beliefs, perspectives. Objective refers to the object. Valid, verifiable, and universal properties, qualities, and matters of fact. Objective: Water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. On earth, normal water has a boiling point of 100 degrees C and freezing point of 0 degrees C. Subjective: This water feels luke warm and I think it will taste good. As for some 'ultimate' objective truth, I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean or refer to. As for intelligent design, this remains an unproven theory. Not all truth is objective, nor is all truth subjective. However a truth which is merely subjective tends to only be true to the subject claiming such a truth. That's why both terms exist and are essentially polar opposites of one another.
This should be in the Philosophy category… Objectivity is real, and we can be certain of this, universal subjectivity has been shown time and again to conclusively not be what it around us.
So is sight and thought, but are you blind and dumb? The human mind is a subjective lens, but it's existence is objectively known.
I thoroughly enjoy the first part, but the second qualifying factors of truth not so much. I think people misunderstand and misuse the terms truth and belief. Truth is something that is true all the time for whatever subject that may be. There are truths that seem to change (what we may call a relative truth) and truths that don't (what we may call an unadulterated truth), but all are absolutely true. This next part may sound like an irrelevant tangent, but it is not. It's the best way I can explain this using philosophical concepts and layman terms. Example: It is relatively true that I am sitting on my couch, that will always be true for this moment (imagine time in the form of a timeline). It is relative because at one point in reality I will eventually stand and it is no longer true that I am sitting. However, it is absolute in the sense that you could always reference to this point and always see that I was sitting down for a certain amount of time. In the human perception this truth changes, but in an absolute perspective it does not.
I never said truth couldn't be relative. I think truth often (or perhaps always) is necessarily relative, actually. But relativity =/= subjectivity. In fact, the truth of a statement tends to be measured relative to its accuracy with respect to objective reality. The more accurate a statement is relative to objective reality, the more truthful it tends to be; at least with regard to objective truths. Relative to a 2 year-old child, it is objectively true that I am physically stronger. Relative to a trained professional athlete, it is objectively true that I am physically weaker. As for subjective truths, this can still apply (or at least it should to anyone concerned with accuracy and validity), but it's not as significant due to the subjective nature; and this is where subjectivity tends to fail--i.e. people like to project their subjective 'truths' as objectively true, regardless of their accuracy relative to objective reality. This is a problem which is common to laymen philosophy (particularly ethics and metaphysics).
But what is a couch? It is only a concept you have in your mind. From another perspective, it's a collection of atoms and molecules held in place through certain forces. More accurately, it's mostly empty space. You could say nothing is there at all. Nor are you. Seen from this perspective, there is no couch, there is no you. Where is the truth? Always inside you.
Of course. That part was a little irrelevant from your post. I was mainly trying to differentiate belief and knowledge The couch is not the truth, that would be a relative truth. It will always be true relatively to our minds that it is a couch. However, the couch is quite different than the example I gave.
Let's see. The future can't be known with certainty, but on any given day the odds are decidedly in favor of the sun rising. It's therefore safe to assume it would tomorrow, but if you can stand not to then it might be best to live your life as if it won't, A fact and the truth are related via actuality, and some people don't believe things actually are as they appear. Call them shared observations of actuality. It goes too far to call them beliefs, as beliefs are usually conclusions based on either predicted or observed facts. As for gravity or other physical laws, our models suggest that they were not always as they are, so it might follow that they won't always be as they are. Notice that you are drawing a line between philosophy and spirituality. That we can do that is probably a reason the division was made. In my mind, the topics in this subforum are a mix of philosophy and dogma whereas philosophy can be expressed without the dogmatic element. I'm a philosopher skeptical of mysticism, but I wouldn't say I'm revolted by mysticism or anything. Sometimes "mystics" are obviously hucksters, which should be revolting especially to actual mystics, but that's not always the case.