How is truth possible?

Why do you say it's obvious? I suppose "I think, therefore something exists", could be considered as self-evident. But that isn't what you mean, because you speak of OBJECTIVE truth (ie something which would continue to be true, even if I personally didn't exist.)

"Reality must have non-caused events" - if you sincerely believe this, any textbook of introductory theology will satisfy your needs. If you are commited to the pursuit of truth, however uncomfortable the consequences, enrol in a philosophy 100 course.

Quoting Cidat

It's quite obvious that there is objective truth.

Quoting alan1000

Why do you say it's obvious?

I'm with alan1000. I don't think the existence of objective truth is obvious.

Quoting Cidat

I get the feeling that reality must have existed infinitely long before I came into existence.

Perhaps. Or perhaps reality is timeless, i.e. time is a local phenomenon dependent on where we happen to be standing. No, I don't know what that means.

Quoting Cidat

reality must have non-caused events.

I think this is a reasonable way of seeing things.

Quoting Cidat

It's quite obvious that there is objective truth. But how is it possible? What preceded our existence? And what preceded before that? Reality must have a beginning. I get the feeling that reality must have existed infinitely long before I came into existence. My only answer is that reality must have non-caused events.

Yes, it is self evident and attempts to deny it using it as a stand, is contradictory and admitting of recognizing it. Also, non-objectivity has no applications, so it's useless even if it were somehow correct. We are, in fact, forced to conclude that the universe is self emergent. That is the only direction in which evidence points. Any detractors you come across, you need to demand evidence of non-material reality, and dismiss any conclusions drawn from ignorance of reality. You should be good with that.

Quoting alan1000

Why do you say it's obvious?

Because it is self-evident, interactable, testable, manipulable, and what we're composed of: objective material. A better question would be, why would I deny something that is self-evident, in favor of the idea that that which is obvious is not obvious, even though I'm using obviousness as a standard of objectivity, which indicates the presence of self-evident truth. It's contradictory.

Quoting alan1000

But that isn't what you mean, because you speak of OBJECTIVE truth (ie something which would continue to be true, even if I personally didn't exist.)

Yes, this is the confirmed nature of the world. You did so by typing this message.

Quoting alan1000

f you sincerely believe this, any textbook of introductory theology will satisfy your needs.

It is specifically theology, and its derivatives, that posit the idea of NON-self-generation. That particular legacy began with Epicurus, the institutional philosopher of Empiricism, which also has only shown evidence of self-generation.

Quoting alan1000

If you are commited to the pursuit of truth, however uncomfortable the consequences, enrol in a philosophy 100 course.

Or, you could explain to the good sir why philosophy would help him understand a reality that it hasn't any evidence to demonstrate for the existence of any other assertion than a self-emergent material reality. I would recommend that you turn back to philosophy yourself for such knowledge. I'll wait for any evidence you've got.

Quoting Cidat

Reality must have a beginning.

The idea of no beginning is hard to comprehend but just like the present moment, everything has always been here, only in different forms.

Reply to Cidat

All this talk about "objective truth" is silly. Objectivity and subjectivity are properties that pertain to a mind. None of the literature on the theories of truth (pragmaticism, coherentism, correspondence, semantic, et. cetera) ever seems to actually investigate this isolated pop-culture idea about "objective vs subjective" truth.

Perhaps you mean to speak about a different topic, whether there can be a true proposition known mind-independently, or something of that sort. That topic has to do with epistemology, and you're better off investigating the literature on disputes regarding empiricism, the possibiltiy of apriori knowledge, disputes regarding mind independence, and so on, rather than meddling in truth theory for an entirely unrelated and nonrelevant subject.

Reply to Cidat I honestly don’t know how it’s possible.

If there is objective truth (objective truth is actual), then objective truth is/has to be possible

?p [math]\rightarrow[/math] ?p.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Yes, it is self evident and attempts to deny it using it as a stand, is contradictory and admitting of recognizing it.

You can recognize something and deny it. So denying a self evident objective reality, while knowing how it looks like and admitting it exists, is not problematic.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Also, non-objectivity has no applications, so it's useless even if it were somehow correct.

So what? (Obviously it's not correct. Objective reality exists.)

Quoting Garrett Travers

We are, in fact, forced to conclude that the universe is self emergent.

No, we are not.

Quoting Garrett Travers

That is the only direction in which evidence points.

The evidence points in more directions. There is not one objective reality. There are more.

Quoting Garrett Travers

Any detractors you come across, you need to demand evidence of non-material reality, and dismiss any conclusions drawn from ignorance of reality. You should be good with that.

There is no need for demanding evidence. But if so, a scream suffices as evidence. In full knowledge of reality.

Evidence hasn't pointed anywhere as yet. The truth is, we just (even with our complex brains) just can't comprehend reality from this lowly dimension.

It will only be revealed in eons, tiny increment after tiny increment.

Quoting EugeneW

You can recognize something and deny it. So denying a self evident objective reality, while knowing how it looks like and admitting it exists, is not problematic.

Only problematic for the mind doing such. But, incantations do not negate reality, so it doesn't really matter what you "can" do with your langauge.

Quoting EugeneW

So what?

That's specifically my point. So what? There's no point in the concept of non-objectivity.

Quoting EugeneW

No, we are not.

No, we are. That doesn't mean you're going to. But, there's nothing providing any reason to do otherwise. Meaning, reason will demand it of you when applied long enough.

Quoting EugeneW

The evidence points in more directions. There is not one objective reality. There are more.

This is incoherent.

Quoting EugeneW

There is no need for demanding evidence. But if so, a scream suffices as evidence. In full knowledge of reality.

If you assert something, it will need evidence to be proven. Otherwise, I simply dismiss your claims, and so should everyone else.

Quoting theRiddler

truth is, tiny brains just can't comprehend complex evidence. even tiny increment is Evidence from this lowly dimension.

Reply to Agent Smith I don’t see how B follows from A in this if A then B formulation. Maybe that’s just because I can’t see through the fog of my own or someone else’s bullshit but either way I can’t see how B follows from A in this if A then B formulation. Maybe the hidden premise is that anything that exists is automatically possible but this seems like something that needs to be proven or else it is almost true by definition.

Quoting Kuro

All this talk about "objective truth" is silly. Objectivity and subjectivity are properties that pertain to a mind. None of the literature on the theories of truth (pragmaticism, coherentism, correspondence, semantic, et. cetera) ever seems to actually investigate this isolated pop-culture idea about "objective vs subjective" truth.

Silly is ad hominem name calling and not an argument. It only suggests that you lack familiarity with the subject, therefore you intend to tackle the opponent instead of the claim.

Objective truth is a golden dogma and you can stick to it as you will. No problem. But others are at liberty to question the comfortable surroundings of strict and limiting non-contradiction with excluded middle. They will find other possibilities. By 'literature' you just mean standard dogmatic literature taught to undergraduates. It's OK, but there is much more to logic, and truth is only a value of a logical calculation in whichever logic one might choose.

Reply to magritte

Oh my, this is what I really wanted to avoid. I didn't expect to meet something of this nature on this website, haha, so I will give you one response and you can make what you want out of it.

Quoting magritte

Silly is ad hominem name calling and not an argument

This is not what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is assent to a negative doxastic attitude to a person's claim in virtue of nothing else aside the person's character or credibility: it is an (informal) fallacy because descriptions of the individual have a different truth-maker than their proposition, and even in cases when they coincidence (i.e. someone self-describing), the intensional context would be distinct even if the extension overlaps.

So, an example of an ad hominem is P1: X said "Y" P2: X is silly! C3: Y is false.

A common misconception is that anything that could be interpreted as somewhat insulting, be it to a person or to an argument, is an "ad hominem." Since my characterization of the claim as silly was entirely independent of the argument I provided against it, that literally cannot be ad hominem.

Quoting magritte

It only suggests that you lack familiarity with the subject, therefore you intend to tackle the opponent instead of the claim.

I'm really not sure if this is attempting to characterize /me/ or /my intention/, but in either case I don't think it's worthwhile to address since it seems predicated on something I just refuted.

Quoting magritte

Objective truth is a golden dogma and you can stick to it as you will.

This is a clear strawman of my position. I don't commit to "objective truth" nor do I stick to it, neither do I stick to "subjective truth." Instead, as I clarified very clearly in my initial comment, "objective" vs "subjective" has nothing to do with truth and that OP is meddling in an unnecessarily nonrelated topic, when he should be instead pursuing something more pressing to his concern like the epistemic possibility of mind-independent knowledge.

Quoting magritte

But others are at liberty to question the comfortable surroundings of strict and limiting non-contradiction with excluded middle.

I'm not sure how this at all has anything to do with what you or I said earlier. I do not care if the individual uses a non-explosive/explosive or indeterminate/determinate logic, in fact, little if none of what I said truly addresses or concerns itself with these axioms of LNC & LEM or their capacity to be questioned.

Quoting magritte

By 'literature' you just mean standard dogmatic literature taught to undergraduates.

You can psychoanalyze all day if it makes you feel better. I'm not an undergrad, and this is literally the philosophical literature on the topic nonetheless your perspective WRT this. It might be the case that my description of the literature on the topic isn't congruent with what you want it to be, hence the charged language of "dogmatic" and "undergrads," but I can't stress this enough- 'objective' and 'subjective truth' are pop culture topics that have exactly nothing to do with the various theories of truth proposed and this sort of emotional response doesn't change the facts of the matter or speak to what I said in any way.

Quoting magritte

It's OK, but there is much more to logic, and truth is only a value of a logical calculation in whichever logic one might choose.

This is an awful equivocation... something I could only chalk up to either intentional bad faith or complete unfamiliarity with the topic. Logic, as a discipline, is considered with consequence, which in other words translates to things like truth-preservation and thus fixating the behavior of truth. This does not overlap with the nature of truth that truth theories like correspondence, coherence, and what not attempt to answer. Truth-valuation is not the same as truth, and it is also why you can introduce truth predicates to logics that have truth-valuation but not truth predication (many very prevalent formal systems, like propositional calculus, don't actually have a truth predicate).

Different logics outline different behavior for truth, different theories of truth outline different candidate explanations for what truth /is/. You equivocated the latter with the former.

A combination of both these are known as the axiomatic theories of truth, which introduce truth predicates to base logics (which are still truth-evaluating) to further answer questions about the nature of truth in of itself: that's not the job of normal logics, which are only concerned with the truth of arguments (i.e. how the truth-valuation of propositions can lead to other propositions), which is why First Order Logic can be perfectly used by a correspondence theorist about truth or a pragmaticistic or any other theory. And this holds for the predominant majority of other logics, like Graham Priest's LP.

Nonetheless, I'd like to remind you as I said earlier that I will not bother engaging with this sort of activity any further, so whatever response you send if you choose to give one I will not reply to. If you are okay with this, you are free to respond further. This is just for transparency in your expectations of our communication to save you any potential disappointments, haha.