I am pretty sure that no-one would wish to explain the difference between objectivity and subjectivity to you when you are perfectly capable of researching the question for yourself. As for an example of a normal question, here it is: Are you a hindrance or a help to the discussion at hand?
Strictly speaking, no. The truth of a statement depends on its proof. Proofs are either axiomatic, based in circular logic (truths by definition) or regressive, proofs stacked down ad infinitum. With the axiomatic, our axioms may be wrong, and we could ask for a proof of them, but if we allow that, the proof becomes regressive. With circular logic, the statements which logically be consequences of each other, but might not be true. If we try to prove their truth, the argument becomes regressive. Regressive arguments are ultimately unprovable, as they rely, each one, on a deeper proof, which may not exist. Pragmatically speaking, it is a fair approximation to say in some areas there is objective truth.
but it seems that's not always be true, depending on whether the truth is subjective or objective.
If I went to the store today, the fact that I went to the store would be both objective truth and reality. So they would be the same in that scenario.
But...let's say I leave said store with a bag of food. Someone sees me and asks if the food I bought is healthy. "Healthy" is a conceptual word, so the answer to the question is subject to the individual unless further clarification is given, which in this case it's not. Therefore, reality doesn't apply. Only subjective truth exists in the situation. So, it seems that there is objective truth, but it can only apply to the clear-cut, physical world.
No, truth is correspondence with reality. A proposition about reality has a truth value depending on whether it corresponds with reality or not. Reality by itself is neither true nor false; it simply is.
From the OED definition of 'reality': 1 the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. 2 a thing that is actually experienced or seen. 3 the quality of being lifelike. 4 the state or quality of having existence or substance.
That our perceptions are the only things we can directly apprehend does not justify declaring them to be all that exists. Maybe we see a world be cause there really is a world. Even if it isn't there, it is still a meaningful concept.
From my observations I have concluded that, yes, there is an objective reality, but our ability and willingness to perceive it varies.
Firstly, when considering why things seem the way they do, Occam's Razor would suggest that the simplest and most likely explanation is that things are the way they seem, barring human error. In other words, it is most likely that this reality is "really" real, and not the Matrix or something.
Thus, when I see a universe governed by such complex and highly consistent rules that provide abundant explanation for everything we perceive, I'm inclined to believe that it is the genuine reality, and not some elaborate smokescreen.
Of course, the physical world is all I'm prepared to say is objectively existant. In the words of Democritus, "All that exists is atoms and empty space. Everything else is just opinion." People sometimes try to claim objective truth for abstract human social constructs, like morality or religion. Neither of those things have any basis in the physical universe, so I don't believe they have any objective truth to them.
I have observed how remarkably gifted humans are in only seeing what they want to see. Including myself, of course.
I agree, this is a trait common to all humans, but surely it is subject to degrees of severity. To use a less offensive example than the one that springs to mind, I think I'm much more logical and perceptive than some nut camping out in a crop circle with a camera.
If reality were some kind of Matrix-like construct, I don't think it would make any difference.
Indeed. I've often said that even if it were a delusion, it wouldn't matter, for this is a consistent delusion. Any consistent system can be exploited.
If you say, the physical world is objectively existant, how can you be sure that something still exists when you don't look at it?
I have two reasons for this. Firstly, Occam's Razor again. Which explanation makes fewer assumptions? That reality appears or disappears subject to whether or not someone is looking at it, or that reality is persistent, and human perception is just a part of it? The act of disappearing and reappearing complicates things tremendously, and also attributes absurd importance to human perception. If reality was dependent on human perception, how can it be that there was a reality prior to humans (as astronomical and geological evidence implies), and why should the universe be so vastly larger than what human beings can readily perceive?
The second reason is due in part to its consistency. Through peer-reviewed scientific inquiry, we can verify that two different humans in two different times or places can observe the same phenomenon exactly. If reality were dependent upon conscious observation, wouldn't it be affected by the individuals consciousness? It isn't. We can all generally experience the same stimuli, but the only thing that varies is our interpretation of them.
There's objective truth, but the truth we see is always filtered through a subjective lens. There's all sorts of filters and biases working against us, so while what we see might be objectively true, what we perceive, isn't. The danger lies in not being able to distinguish the two. As well as not realising that an objective truth might not be the complete truth.
I would add that the subjective part deals with what, who, and where; definitions and goals are set. (Inputs can vary by each individual.) The objective part deals with how and why; processes are carried out and implications are played out. (Mathematical and logical operators are very good examples.)
Truth is the correspondence between a proposition and what is the case. That's the formal definition of it. Truth is literally objective by definition. The truth value of a proposition is independent of what any mind thinks about it.
There is subjectivity in determining whether something is true, and what we hold to be true (belief), but not in truth itself. "Objective truth" is redundant, and misleading in that it implies there is such a thing as "subjective truth"
Yes, this thread actually is about the concept of subjective truth. Different people can hold different things to be true, but as every perception is "filtered" by both our senses and our mind, we can't check how it "really" is, and thus we can't just say that one of both beliefs, as you call it, are closer to the real truth than the other, as we have no access to the "real truth". I was thinking about completely denying the concept of an "objective" truth that is independent of a subject, as the world we live in is constructed by our minds based on input from our senses. Then "what is the case" is different for everyone.
No "what is the case" is the actual state of reality. It's a formal term from epistemology. By definition it does not vary from person to person.
Truth is an idea about reality which matches reality.
Belief is an idea about reality that a mind thinks matches reality.
Calling them "objective truth" and "subjective truth" accomplishes nothing but causing confusion. Belief is not a kind of truth.
Either the world exists, in which case our ideas about it are either true or false, regardless of whether we believe them, or the world does not exist, and all that exists is my mind, in which case any ideas about the world are false (Except the idea of its non-existence), regardless of whether I believe them or not.