Objective vs Subjective Truth

[Steve3007]

It's ALL loaded....

Yes OK, it's all loaded. For the reasons you go on to give.

I suppose the traditional archetype of the loaded question is "have you stopped beating your wife yet? (yes or no)". Either allowed answer declares or implies that some wife beating has occurred at some point. The answer "the implied premise of the question (that I used to beat my wife) is false" is not allowed but would be the correct one.

I presume something similar to that would be the way to answer the question "True or False: Native Americans are the only real Americans". But in that case there are numerous implied premises, as you've pointed out.

[Steve3007]

Of course, we could simply, truthfully answer "no" to the question "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" and we could intend that answer to be interpreted as:

"No. The word 'stopped' is a word that describes a transition from one state to another. I have not transitioned from the state 'beating my wife' to the state 'not beating my wife' because I was never in the former state."

But we're often not in control of the ways in which the short versions of our answers are interpreted and reported by others, especially if those others have a particular agenda. That's why, when faced with more subtle and difficult examples of loaded questions, politicians being interviewed are often well practised at the art of evading directly answering the question.

[Sculptor1]

It's ALL loaded....

Yes OK, it's all loaded. For the reasons you go on to give.

I suppose the traditional archetype of the loaded question is "have you stopped beating your wife yet? (yes or no)". Either allowed answer declares or implies that some wife beating has occurred at some point. The answer "the implied premise of the question (that I used to beat my wife) is false" is not allowed but would be the correct one.

I presume something similar to that would be the way to answer the question "True or False: Native Americans are the only real Americans". But in that case there are numerous implied premises, as you've pointed out.

Indeed.

[Leibniz1699]

All truth is objective but just not in the way the objectivists think. Two people having two varying opinions about whether or not a piece of artwork is beautiful is itself an objective truth. It's not a matter of whether one person accurately claims the artwork it is objectively beautiful or ugly - because beauty and ugliness are just semantic constructs to convey an organisms internal emotional state in response to seeing a piece of artwork. Saying something is ugly is a statement of objective displeasure towards something whereas saying something is beautiful is a statement of objective attachment towards something - in this example a piece of artwork.

[Steve3007]

All truth is objective but just not in the way the objectivists think. Two people having two varying opinions about whether or not a piece of artwork is beautiful is itself an objective truth....

The proposition "two people have two varying opinions about whether or not a piece of artwork is beautiful" is an objective one.

The proposition "that artwork is beautiful" is a subjective one.

In general, objective propositions propose something about an objectively existing world that they (usually implicitly, not explicitly) propose to exist and to be the potential cause of an indefinitely large number of possible sensations. Subjective propositions say something about the state of mind of a single subject. The means of verification or falsification of objective propositions are proposed to be publicly available. The means to verify or falsify subjective propositions are not.

Saying something is ugly is a statement of objective displeasure towards something whereas saying something is beautiful is a statement of objective attachment towards something - in this example a piece of artwork.

You could say that if you like. Or, conversely, you could take the route taken by the poster called RJG and assert the opposite, that all propositions based on experience are subjective and that the only objective propositions are those that are logically certain (usually known as tautologies). Either way, in my view, you lose a valuable distinction that I described above.

Saying something is ugly/beautiful is saying something about the unique, singular relationship between your mind and that thing. I think it's useful to class that as a subjective proposition.

[GE Morton]

All truth is objective but just not in the way the objectivists think. Two people having two varying opinions about whether or not a piece of artwork is beautiful is itself an objective truth.

Steve3007's answered this pretty well. That there is a difference of opinion is objective; whether either opinion is true or false is subjective.

It's not a matter of whether one person accurately claims the artwork it is objectively beautiful or ugly - because beauty and ugliness are just semantic constructs to convey an organisms internal emotional state in response to seeing a piece of artwork.

Agreed.

Saying something is ugly is a statement of objective displeasure towards something whereas saying something is beautiful is a statement of objective attachment towards something - in this example a piece of artwork.

Propositions asserting that Alfie finds the Mona Lisa beautiful (that it pleases him gives him pleasure), or that Bruno finds it ugly (that it displeases him), are not objective. Only those two individuals can know how they respond emotionally to that painting; the truth conditions for those two propositions are not public. Either may be pretending to be pleased or displeased for some ulterior reason. We can, however, observer their behaviors with respect to the painting over time and perhaps reach a probable conclusion as to their emotional responses to it.

[creation]

If 'objective truth' is just that truth, which is true no matter what, and 'subjective truth' is just truth, which just an individual has or sees but others do not so it may not actually be true at all, then 'objective truth' is really the only one that is really true and really of importance.

But how is 'objective true' ascertained, some might be wondering?

If every individual has or sees the exact same truth, then that would be 'objective truth'. If there is some truth, which there is no one that does not have nor which no one cannot see it, then that truth is true no matter what.

If every one agrees and accepts something is true, then it is obviously true, no matter what.

This 'objective truth' is what only really matters.

'Subjective truth' is of no real importance nor any real significance.

[GE Morton]

If every one agrees and accepts something is true, then it is obviously true, no matter what.

Oh, no. Whether a proposition is true has nothing to do with how many people believe it to be true.

A proposition is objective if its truth conditions are public, testable by all suitably situated observers. It is subjective if the truth conditions can be tested only by the utterer. A proposition with no truth conditions understood by all parties to the conversation has no truth value; it is cognitively meaningless. E.g., "God is love" has no publicly verifiable truth conditions, and hence has no truth value, no matter how many people believe it to be true.

'Subjective truth' is of no real importance nor any real significance.

That's not true either. "I have a headache" is a subjective proposition; its truth conditions are testable only by me. But it may well be true, and significant not only to me but to friends who have invited me to a party, which invitation I decline.

[Sculptor1]

It seems an implied debate about objective vs. subjective truth underlies much of public discourse in political and cultural areas. Some advocate subjectivism - arguing for subjective truth and criticize the validity of things like reason, science, logic, etc. These arguments seem to align with Postmodern Philosophy.

This seems like a cheap caricature. A general rant against cultural logic, and Pm Phil.
But what and where are is this discourse? Where are your examples?

[Jaded Sage]

I believe I have an example of both objective truth and subjective truth: when we have the flu, we run a fever and have the chills. The objective truth is that we are hot, with a temperature of 100 degrees. The subjective truth is that we are cold, with shakes.

[Terrapin Station]

I use the distinction that subjective = mental phenomena, objective = the complement (anything that isn't mental phenomena, or we could say extramental phenomena)

I use the standard analytic philosophy view that truth is a property of propositions.

And I use the standard analytic philosophy view that propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences.

It's also important to keep in mind that I use the standard analytic philosophy view that propositions and facts are different sorts of things, and facts does NOT refer to "true proposition." Facts are states of affairs in the world. Propositions, again, are the meanings of declarative sentences.

So, on my view, which is not the standard view, meanings are mental phenomena only. Meanings do not occur in the extramental world. That means that propositions are mental phenomena. And on my view the truth value property of the mental phenomena in question amounts to a judgment about the way a proposition relates to something else (the something else could be a fact, or the other propositions one assigns truth values to, or a consensus, etc.--it depends on the truth theory one prefers in a given situation).

So on my view, truth value is subjective. The notion of it being objective is a category error.

[RJG]

So on my view, truth value is subjective. The notion of it being objective is a category error.

...does this (subjectivity; non-objectivity) include this statement itself?

[Terrapin Station]

So on my view, truth value is subjective. The notion of it being objective is a category error.

...including the truth value of this statement itself?

Obviously. Why would I have the view I expressed and then have exceptions to it? That would be some ridiculously poor thinking, especially given that I've been doing this stuff (academic philosophy, including epistemology, etc.) for over 40 years.

[RJG]

So on my view, truth value is subjective. The notion of it being objective is a category error.

...does this (subjectivity; non-objectivity) include this statement itself?

Obviously.

...then you defeat the value of your own words. ...you defeat your own argument.

[Terrapin Station]

So on my view, truth value is subjective. The notion of it being objective is a category error.

...does this (subjectivity; non-objectivity) include this statement itself?

Obviously.

...then you defeat the value of your own words. ...you defeat your own argument.

I'd bet anything that you didn't understand, or at least didn't really read, the entirety of what I wrote above.

Otherwise you can explain how I "defeat my own argument." If the explanation ignores stuff I wrote in my explanation above, though, you get the buzzer.