Is There Objective Truth? Or Is Reality Subjective, Or a Social Construct? 

The reality is our bodies are subject to nature's laws but our minds are free to create ideas contrary to nature. "Reality" is relative to the receiver of it

Convinced? Definitely not. “All BELIEFS are either TRUE or FALSE” is _not_ something a relativist would endorse so you're basically only preaching to those who are already convinced. Regarding the “The Sequoia is the most MASSIVE tree on Earth” example, the question is not that of whether there exists on Earth a tree more massive than the sequoia, it is that of whether there objectively exist such things as sequoias or trees or the Earth in the first place, and here, the “three orange dots world” objection holds.

So you set out to defend the existence of an objective reality, by starting with the premise that "a belief is true when it says reality is a certain way, and reality is in fact that way". I'm sorry, but that premise assumes the existence of an objective reality... In a world in which there is no objective reality, and where reality is socially constructed, a belief is true when a consensus emerges that this belief is true (consensus theory of truth); or when it works under the particular circumstances of the time, for that particular person or society (pragmatist theory of truth). Thus, from the very beginning of your video, your argument could be summed up as such: there is an objective reality, because I make the assumption that there is an objective reality... For a channel that calls itself "let's get logical", you display a singular lack of logic!

@@nicolasjanvier8617 Thanks for dropping in to the channel. Let me surprise you by granting the point immediately: there is definitely a constant risk of circular reasoning (or begging the question) on these matters! I'd only add in my defense that when it comes to the literature on truth, I think you'll find that it's hard for _all sides_ to get any purchase without coming close to making the mistake you're raising; that is, leaning on premises that are in turn dependent on the truth of the conclusion. In fact, this line of objection raises a lot of questions about what exactly the fallacy of begging the question amounts to. If the conclusion of all valid reasoning is already in a sense embedded in the premises (which is why it can be drawn out through valid reasoning), then what makes the difference between a legitimate valid argument and one that begs the question? As Roderick Chisholm once quipped, "I seem to stand accused of the fallacy of affirming the consequent." There is a rich vein of questions in this vicinity that I've long been interested in. In any case, the video is really more of a critique of a certain kind of argument _against_ objectivity. And although I've granted your point in a sense, I hope it's fair to say the video does a lot more than just blatantly beg the question: there is a whole string of examples and arguments and objections related to the truth and objectivity. I hope at least one or two of them made you think, or helped clarify where you stand. Cheers.

@@LetsGetLogical Hey, first of all let me praise you for being the bigger man here and not rising to my cheap insult (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist it; the relative impersonality of the internet brings out the worse in me). I must confess I stopped watching the video after I got annoyed around the 2 mins mark. So, with your first point (a belief is either true or false), I'm afraid I could not agree with this statement in the absence of an objective reality. The best I could grant you is that a belief may be either logically valid or not (and logical axioms are truth by definition, not objective truths). But in the absence of an objective reality, a belief maybe be true for one person, and false for another... In other words, it may be both true and false. You then carry one with "it's our job as truth seekers to make sure our belief is tethered to reality"... Well, same thing, this also assumes the existence of an objective reality. If I carry on with the video, you go on to make the assertion that "reality is ontologically objective"... Well, all I can say is that this statement comes back to the initial assumption you make: you still have in no way proven it. "If all of us went extinct tomorrow, the vast majority of reality would just keep on being"... same basic assumption. You then carry on with "we use language to describe reality". Same basic assumption, and what is more, to think that language is somehow tethered to some objective reality would raise a lot of objections from most linguists... Words are tethered to other words, not to the things themselves (the old arbitrariness of the sign). If you point out a tree to me and say the word 'tree', how in god's name do I know what you are referring to? You could be meaning a tree trunk, a branch, a leaf, the field behind the tree... etc. You will need to call upon other words (which are equally not tethered to reality) in order to point at the object (and again, assuming there is even an object). The video proceeds like this from what I can see, although I ended up losing patience with it again around the 9 mins mark. Bear in mind I am not saying that it is unreasonable to assume there is an objective reality outside of ourselves, but it remains an assumption which you will struggle to prove. Moreover, why would you give primacy to that objective reality (I am assuming here, you are a materialist; correct me if I am wrong)? The one thing I am sure of (assuming there is even such a thing as 'I'), is my conscious experience... but whether it is a conscious experience of an objective reality, or whether it is a purely subjective phenomenon, that I really cannot affirm. So the interesting question here is: why do you feel this need for an objective reality to even exist (let alone us having access to it!)? Is it really so unsettling and discomforting to stick with the phenomenal?

the observer and the observed are one

I mentioned a few resources in the 'Further Reading' section of the video description. Maybe start there. Good luck in your intellectual pursuits!

Agreed! The terms "objective" and "subjective" often just muddy the waters. Let's take your suggestion and speak in terms of mind-dependence and mind-independence. The problem with truth as _coherence_ is that it leaves truth unrelated to mind-independent reality. On a coherence model, I can believe P and P counts as _true_ as long as it fits my other beliefs without contradiction... even if the actual mind-independent reality _is in fact not-P._ Thanks for the thoughtful comment! I doubt I've answered to your satisfaction but that's roughly how I would go about trying to answer an objection along the lines you presented.

White people cannot deal with reality being subjective I’ve noticed.

Watch out for deep holes and sharp objects! EDIT: In case this needs explanation, there may be a deep hole or a sharp objection in your proximity that _nobody in the world is aware of_ -including you. But that doesn't change the _reality_ of the danger it poses for you. Holes and sharp objects teach hard lessons about the mind-independent world.

@@LetsGetLogical But nevertheless those are ideas, yes they are sustainable to believe so we can quantify experience into categories and forms to use as guides, eg: hole would be, in the context you used, a good idea to use when being cautious of are saftey, but is this hole an essential thing independent of experience/awareness outside our use of the idea in the given context? I dont think it's justified in saying so because it is the activity and context which differentiates the holes' mechanism and function which makes it a hole in the first place, and if we took away the interactive meaning / the function, there would be no differentiation which gave it form in the first place.

@@juliesuegordon Mechanism? Function? Category and form? Look, a hole is just not that complicated. It's a just hole- an empty space in the ground. And empty spaces in the ground existed _way_ before there were conscious creatures around to create language about holes or ideas about holes or imagine the function or context of holes. There are billions of holes out there in the cosmos that literally no conscious being has ever experienced.

You've nicely expressed the philosophical problem of skepticism.

@@LetsGetLogical, thank you I was wondering what’s your take on that skeptical statement above? Not to put labels here, it’s just that my impression is that you lean towards metaphysical realism (based on your path of thoughts in the video), is that so? If yes, I’m curious to hear what place this default subjectivity of our consciousness takes in your objective reality formula? How doesn’t it impede the perception?

​@@nataliak782 I take the more or less common view in contemporary analytic philosophy that we access the objective external world _fallibly_ through our subjective experience. On this view, there's not much at all about the contingent external world that we can know with certainty. But we sometimes have _enough_ justification such that our belief amounts to knowledge. Justification of this sort is a messy affair-experience, inductive reasoning, inference to the best explanation-but it gets the job done. However, an overall stance of epistemic humility is on order, especially when the problem of disagreement is considered. If interested, you can see my video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nxFJCaPJNn0.html.

@@LetsGetLogical, appreciate your detailed explanation 🙏🏻 And it seems I got the wrong impression about your leaning towards mataphysical realism 100% with you on the approach of balancing between the applied knowledge and epistemic humility! All theories that get enough justification to be useful in the determined range of cases are great to use as the frame of reference to get the job done. At the same time, it’s also important to remember of the fallibility to avoid fanatical clinging onto some viewpoint when it fails to explain a phenomenon out of the range of applicable ones. And, of course, epistemic humility is especially constructive and rewarding when it comes to the problem of disagreement Again, enjoyed our conversation and your videos! Looking forward to the new ones ✨

My own view is that the objective truth is this: _there are no tables._ I'm a compositional nihilist. Only elementary particles exists. So it's not a table, it's particles-arranged-table-wise. But you're right to say that, practically, we have to simply call it a "table" to go about our day.

To me objective reality is simply the rules of the game. We must look at a table objectively as particles and as a compositional whole. The interpretation remains entirely subjective though and for that reason subjectivity takes the drivers seat position. Objectivity sits passenger side reading the map to us…if that makes sense.

Three quick things about race/gender: (1) I wasn't sure what to say b/c I'm still working through it myself, so I wasn't hinting in the vid as much as genuinely asking!😄(2) Linguistic ambiguity is often at play in race/gender discussions and I suspect clarity at that level would dissolve a lot of the problems, (3) I raised race/gender _together_ and you and I have literally been typing them together as a single issue, but but of course they're different and don't actually map on to each other very well. They'd need to be treated separately (and probably, in my view, with different results on this question.) As to your deeper worry, about not being able to "step outside" our concepts or language: isn't that just an epistemological problem? Even if that epistemological thesis were true, how would it lead to a metaphysical conclusion about the nature of reality? (If you happen see this and have time, would value hearing your responses! This is an area where I'm learning and reaching conclusions tentatively.)

@@LetsGetLogical yeah the metaphysics of race and gender are definitely...a whole thing. As for the epistemological point...i think at its heart its a skeptical worry, that there are no metaphysical conclusions to be had. It's also one of the reasons why I'm skeptical of "truth" as a component of the JTB account of knowledge. I just don't know how to make sense of a notion of "truth" independent of justification.

@@CasualPhilosophy Fascinating! That probably drives you to something like coherentism... or maybe Williamson's Knowledge First approach? BTW, don't beat me to the punch on a Williamson video... I've got one planned! 😂 Thanks for the brief exchange. You helped me see more clearly where some might be coming from.

_"Does the moon exist when nobody is perceiving it?"_ Yes.

@@LetsGetLogical .obviously u don't not understand the problem

@@ivrz It ain’t obvious what’s obvious.

Is this not impossible to prove? I don't know many metaphysical arguments, but I thought idealism seemed both unprovable and undisprovable.@@LetsGetLogical

Jon D, it's interesting that you put "reality" in scare quotes. I suspect that's because you realize at some level that that perception does not equal reality. Yes, perception is _our_ "reality". But making it relative to _us_ makes it subjective. So, yes, perception provides our subjective "reality". But it's not truly reality. That's why we had to use scare quotes. Reality-the genuine, objective kind-does not depend on us (in the way described in the video.)

One of the points you seem to be making might be put this way: There are objective truths about subjectivity. Which is kind of a cool observation!

@@LetsGetLogical Do I have an understanding of „subjective truth“ that deviates from how most people use it? If I hade to define objective and subjective truth I would make it dependent on if the truthmaker is mind dependent or mind independent. But maybe it deviates to much from how most people use it.

I've wondered if we're better off ditching the notion of subjective truth. Because it's just a confusing way of saying _what seems true from the first person point of view._ But we all know that what _seems_ true isn't always true! Borrowing from your previous example: Person A says, "Mint chocolate chip is the best!“ and person B says, "Person A likes mint chocolate chip the best." We'd typically call the first sentence _subjective_ . What about the second sentence? The truth of the second sentence also depends on Person A's mind (i.e. subjective preference for mint chip).

Further statements of objective reality: Joe's headache started this morning, went away this afternoon, and was caused by stress. P.S. I had a friend in grad school who swore there could be such a thing as an unfelt pain. "The pain is there, you just don't feel it!" he would say. But I'm with you: pain _just is_ the feeling.

Don't disagree that this is difficult ground. What counts as "real" is itself a thorny issue. FWIW, I learned a lot from David Chalmers' recent book _Reality+_ . Highly recommend if you're interested.

“My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense.” -Wittgenstein Heads-up, there's a lot of disguised nonsense out there.

@@LetsGetLogical What exactly constitutes "disguised nonsense?"

​@@israelcastro4366 In the chapter this video is largely based on, van Inwagen gives as an example this sentence he found in a piece of philosophy: "The world is a progressively self-realizing community of interpretation.” If you've seen my video on fact vs. opinion, you'll know that I think a lot of talk about _facts_ and _opinions_ is disguised nonsense. Sometimes a few careful questions is enough to expose the nonsense.

🤙🏼

Some good thoughts here, Georg. Thanks for chiming in. Two things to think about: (1) If you deny the existence of truth, then you can't have any beliefs. Because a belief just is _taking something to be true_ . So you can't _believe_ there is no truth. (2) When you tell me, "There is no such thing as reality," aren't you trying to help me see the way things _really_ are? And isn't "the way things really are" just another way of saying "reality"? On the other hand, if you're _not_ trying to describe the way things really are, then why should anyone care about what you say? 🙂 Thanks for watching.

@@LetsGetLogical Hi :-D It's just a game. I think from your position it's best to say that your philosophy of truth is close to common sense and that my position contradicts it. (1) You point out that i'm contradicting myself. (2) You claim that i'm committing a performative contradiction in "explaining my position". You are right, but a nihilist about truth is also nihilist about logic. You are either believe truth is meaningful or you don't. I didn't ever encounter any approach/method/theory/explanation/definition of truth that would succeed at its own purposes. So personally, i'm a nihilist philosophically. And practically, i restrict myself to "truth" within some limited interpretation that is of course supposed to fail when scrutinized or pushed too far. BTW, there exist paraconsistent logics. It's an active area of philosophy and mathematics. There's a position called Dialetheism that suspects some contradictions could be necessary and advocates to accept them. The motivations for paraconsistency is basically that it is unavoidable for certain goals. "(1) If you deny the existence of truth..." I think you didn't argue from my premiss so that reductio doesn't work. If there is no truth, who cares about "contradictions" Nihilism is ineffable and contradictory (when you still try to analyze it from some framework). But if you spend some time analyzing how every concept and every theory fails, you will realize that we engage in nonsense all the time.

Since first reading this comment several weeks ago, I've come to appreciate some of the points more fully. Thank you!

@@LetsGetLogical Cool! Thanks. Maybe such extreme possitions, even when ultimately rejected, can enrich our perspectives on meaning, truth and knowledge.

Interesting that you chose pain as an example. Because pain is subjective; i.e., without a an internal, first-person point of view- _your_ point of view-their would be no pain. Still, your point is well taken: the world is full of brick walls, cliffs, hammers and other objectively real objects that must be safely navigated in order to live well.

No. Next question?