5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 108:
Line 108: + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth? (view source)
Revision as of 04:09, November 4, 2012
, 04:09, November 4, 2012no edit summary
It follows from this definition of objective that there must subjective truth. With regards - Mikael Birket Brilner
It follows from this definition of objective that there must subjective truth. With regards - Mikael Birket Brilner
== Yes and No ==
Isn't it obvious that this question is simply a paradox regarding the objective/subjective?
Truth: "The property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality" - Merriam Webster
Paradox: "An argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises "
So our initial premise indicates that there is no objective truth. For the follow up question, on one hand, we can assert that "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, but this obviously violates our initial premise. If we interpret "there is no objective truth" as a subjective truth, on the other hand, it means that there can be an objective truth from (a) certain perspective(s), which would also violate our initial premise. I would contest that this is a pointless question simply because it is inherently paradoxical. If we intend to have a serious and intelligent debate on objectivity and/or subjectivity, why not just replace this debate topic with any of the much simpler, non-paradoxical alternatives: "Is truth objective or subjective?", "Is reality grounded in subjectivity?", "Is every truth universally true?", etc.? --[[User:JesseA|JesseA]] 00:09, 4 November 2012 (EDT)