Truth is Subjectivity

See this is where I get confused. It sounds like you're saying

>X is true under all circumstances
>But X isn't objectively true

which looks self-contradictory, since being 'true under all circumstances' is a pretty robust example of objective truth. But if you really mean , then fair enough.

based bitter stemfag

However, if "Truth is always subjective," then that statement would be subjective, too. So it wouldn't happen in every case, independent of the subject.
And if that statement is objective, independent of the subject, then you've proven there is at least one case with Objective Truth, the statement, but that would be paradoxical.

I do think that we can only prove things subjectively, but this logical flaw keeps me awake at night.

I'm saying our frame of reference is far too limited to make assertions on the objective world. I don't mean like I mean it closer to the kantian sense. There can be objective truth, but I think it's unlikely any of us have said truth. So I don't want to assert there can't be objective truth moreso we wouldn't possibly know if we had it or not. The world of appearances has patterns and we can have knowledge over those patterns, but understanding of of it is inherently relativistic. I don't think knowing something will occur under circumstances means you have objective knowledge, because again it's only the world of appearances.

This is patently untrue. Draw some venn diagrams if you want to be sure. You're alleging the existence of a category that is unnecessary for your system to be complete.

Either way, anyone who interprets Kierkegaard as an argument pro subjectivity and relativism is completely missing the point. I mean ffs the man spent his career writing about absolute morality.

Never read the guy, but you are all stupid.
I am sure the guy meant this^

The guy simply said that

X is always true
Y(X) our perception of X, Y(X) is not always X

Do you understand now?
Now, fuck off.

But I wouldn't assert truth is always subjective, maybe our understanding of truth is subjective, but I don't think that defeats the argument. Because for me it's very possible that world of appearances is exactly as it seems and our subjective knowledge randomly turned out to be objective, but we can't assert we have said knowledge so our lens is subjective.

I'm not claiming to argue for kierkegaard I'm arguing the initial claim, but am using more of a kantian perspective

In
>X is always true
>Y(X) our perception of X, Y(X) is not always X
what's X? If it's anything like
>All truth is subjective
then
>'All truth is subjective' is always true
sounds pretty fucking silly unless you're using a bespoke definition of 'subjective' that can also mean the same as objective.

Jesus, what a bunch of fags.

First you admit truth exists,
yes or no?
No?
Then saying it does not exist, it would lead logically to think your statement is also false.
If you admit logic does not exist too, then there is nothing to talk about because there is no logic.

Now that that is sorted out,
Truth exist,

so, without the X and Y

YourPerception(Truth) is not always Truth

YourPerception( ) is different from Truth
and therefore to get to

YourPerception(Truth) = Truth

You have to put a lot of effort into YourPerception

If you break the fundamental condition of truth not existing in the first place, because everything revolves around you, then why keep saying it?
It makes no sense, nothing is there to argue.
Like any other paradox, contradiction leads to everything being true or anything being false,

even though tautologies do not exist in language which need continuous change to fight Entropy,

They do exist in physics as everything IS certainly.
Because NOT(is) is an application of NOT( )
upon the object is, which means that logic is an effort in language to share understanding of is

now, stop reading what you can't understand and get into math or physics and follow a professor or something

Sorry chief, that read like bullshit.

Are you saying
>All truth is subjectivity
is a contradiction or aren't you?

>he doesn't understand a basic logical formula

Actually according to Sextus Empiricus, truth is impossible

hold on hold on hold on you stupid irascible
fuckhead

the argument in OP was that "truth is subjectivity," not that "truth does not exist."

>YourPerception(Truth) is not always Truth
you did not clarify this. OP's argument affirms the possibility of facts about an external world as incoherent. in other words, what is knowable is that which coheres with extant canons of justification. knowledge is possible insofar as there are human beings who can know it; appeals to "independent reality" or "facts" remain those within canons of justification.

retard

Not the way you do 'em.

Truth is objective but it is known subjectively.

People don't mention the silent second half "except for this statement" because it's assumed the reader isn't retarded.

>empirical evidence, rationality, mind-independent facts
read Kant

Kierkegaard did read Kant

I feel like it's "subjectivity" insofar as "objectivity" never meant anything

The issue is whether you can consider an external anything, because all you can ever reference are your subjective impressions

And yet the overwhelming impression we experience is that we are an experiencing an independent and consistent external world

The problem is simple: There is no real subject/object distinction, it's all atman and atman is brahman baby

Attached: 2010201.png (1332x1242, 887K)

protip

Truth( YourPerception(Truth) is not always Truth)

I am always glad see idiots die or shut them up
(OP)

Attached: Here.jpg (927x521, 71K)

50% chance

and i suppose you think that when you cease to observe something it ceases to exist?

have fun inside you nutshell, shakespear.

In case you are curious about the checkmate and why no one replies anymore.

I don't see how the no means that the wall exists.

>People don't mention the silent second half "except for this statement" because it's assumed the reader isn't retarded.
isnt there a term for that in philosophy?

x

Esse is percipi, my dudes.

that doesn't signify an external reality. you also have not indicated if you mean truth as correspondence to an independent world or truth as coherence to canons of justification.

this is a really poorly organized chart. you have not derived "wall existing independently of me..." from "no 50% chance of smashing my head against it." nonetheless, "probability," "walls," and "smashing heads" are all experiences had by subjects; they are meaningless in a world without minds.
this

>that grammar
>that picture

The absolute state of Empiricists.

bumping for a response from this intelligent fellow

thoughts?

Attached: image.jpg (4032x3024, 2.8M)

bruh

wyd

Yeah, OP's statement is more in line with Nietzsche than Kierk.

Knowledge is familiarity, intimacy, love

Truth is objective, and your claim. How can my truth and your truth co-exist? You are contradicted, but I am not.

>your claim is wrong

Extremely boring point desu