Dear Sribas,

Truth is objective but its perception is subjective.

Dear Sribas,

Truth is objective but its perception is subjective.

I agree with Andras.

A lecturer of mine once said. "Truth is not leaving the impression of something other than that which is exactly true" I think if someone tells you a truth, it's probably always subjective.

Psychologists will tell you that when we receive a stimulus, our brain first compares that stimulus with our subconscious, decides whether it is a threat, good or neutral and either secretes adrenalin, endorphin or nothing, then projecting our interpretation (a mix of the event, our subconscious and our response) to the conscious. (this is my understanding of it, so better ask someone trained in the how the brain works) Again, what we perceive as truth is mostly our interpretation and experience of it.

On the other hand, 1+1=2 will always be an objective truth, no matter who said it,

In closing, a philosopher once said (I forgot his name) "If there is no such thing as truth then you have just told me a lie"

If truth is by nature subjective, the truth of the proposition "truth is subjective" is subjective, which means it is not necessarily true. However, for it to be false would mean that the proposition "truth is objective" can be true. But for this to be so would entail that truth is necessarily objective, for if the proposition "truth is objective" can be true, it must be true. This is not so of the proposition "truth is objective", which is not self-contradictory. Ergo, either truth is objective, or the question is basically meaningless as for truth to be (by nature) subjective would mean that what is true isn't necessarily true including the statement that what is true isn't necessarily true.

Truth is diffraction with in the conditions of imagination.

The extent of RANK in truth decides whether, it falls under subjective or objective.

The debating questions like -is our universal real- what you feel is real?

How do we know that what we look around us is the real frame or illusion frame, and more importantly a lot of bios around us.,but we are not sensing them ,considering one is existence of aliens .

If truth is objective , the above explanation fails.

The above explanation was proved by scientific efforts, where one can see all existence frames, by means of scientific experiments. This one is true subjective.

All objectives may not be truth ,but subjective must go through truth (with in an imagination boundaries ).

The organic system of body made up with atoms, but works with a organized supreme manner. The same atoms in nature free works different and crack jack (ups and downs).

Dear Andras, David, Andrew and Srikant thanks for your expert opinions.

Foucault put forward the notion of the historical, pure and absolute truth in Western philosophy. He showed that discourses provide the limits to what can and cannot be said or heard. ‘Truth’ is historicized. In 1977, he said, “My aim is not to write the social history of a prohibition but the political history of the production of ‘truth’’’ (Power and Sex’: 1988). Things meant something and were ‘true’ only within a specific historical and discursive context. No form of thought could claim absolute ‘truth’ outside the play of discourse. Foucault’s primary concern is not to discover truth, but to understand how truth is formed. The question is not whether our nation of truth is correct, whether a particular knowledge of us is true or false, whether our thought of truth is authentic; on the contrary, the question is how do we think of truth in a particular way and not in any other way, how do we develop a nation of a correct knowledge, and how do we think at all. He draws our attention to the very process of how our thoughts are formed and take shape, particularly our thoughts of truth. He is interested to think out how we think at all in a definite mode in a specific age. He believes that statements about the social, political or moral world are rarely simple true or false. In ‘Truth and Power’, he said that the problem is to see historically how effects of truth are produced within discourses which in themselves are neither true nor false (1980). Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth: that is, the types of discourse which its accepts and make function as true; the mechanism and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true. He said, “nothing has any meaning outside of discourse”.

Once we leave the question of objective truth and entertain the questions concerning our capacity to access/understand/assert truths, then clearly we enter more "muddy" territory. Foucault was one of the reasons I learned to read French (granted, I could hardly delve into any questions in classical languages, my additional major as an undergrad, without this ability). However, his conception of truth is, like Kuhn's model, bereft of any actual theory of truth, fact, knowledge, etc., except insofar as it relates to the history and theory of knowledge. This is to say that it is dependent upon practice. While any such theory or theories can be invaluable, they cannot be definitive. How social institutions, political systems, etc., distort and/or define "truth" says no more about truth than do the most sensationalist of publications. As for our thought processes, Foucault largely predates the cognitive sciences and is thus almost completely incapable of formulating empirically-based theories of how humans tend to define, conceptualize, and/or treat "truth". I am the first to acknowledge that the cognitive sciences have tended to generalize without merit, but there do exist cognitive processes that characterize human thought, and these include processes independent of any specific socio-cultural theory of "that which is". In other words, while there is truth to the statement that every "society has its regime of truth", even disregarding the fact that this assumes a subjective interpretation of truth, it lacks both empirical and theoretical support. Humans are prone to regular errors when it comes to fallacies of inference, logic, etc. However, they are so in ways that are to a large extent culturally independent. Thus such attempts to relativize truth to specific societies fail on the grounds that they ignore cognitive universals.

It seems to me that truth is often contextual or relational, arising from openness to encountering one's own experience, other individuals, and particular momentary situations with a minimum of preconceived, presumptive, interpretive bias. Suspending preconceived interpretations, and being fully "present" (fully invested, fully engaged, empathically attuned, appropriately responsive) in non-dualistic experiential communion with others facilitates a relatively unmediated, undistorted, more insightful, intuitive, penetrating, participatory, experiential mode of perception. There is a greater holistic relational reality that naturally connects subjective experience and the outer phenomenal world. This brings to mind Martin Buber's notion that "All real living is meeting," the writings of Lynne McTaggart (particularly, "The Bond" and "The Field"), as well as Aldous Huxley's notion of "The Perennial Philosophy." Although it is sometimes helpful to distinguish between subjective perception and objective reality, taking a more unified, holistic, non-dualistic, participatory perspective can often produce other valuable insights. Material and experiential phenomena that are naturally, actually, dynamically, responsively connected may distortedly be made to seem exclusively dichotomous and compartmentalized by the divisive words used to define, image, and describe them. That is to say, divisive conceptual interpretations often seem to fragment a more holistic, integral field of interactions between material phenomena, energy, and experience. Factual information is not the only valid kind of truth; a deeper kind of experiential insight or intuitive "wisdom of the heart" can also be a valid way of knowing truth. Although various individuals may each naturally view truth or reality from somewhat different or diverse perspectives, there is also significant common ground, or natural compatibility and complementarity, between the viewpoints of individuals who are open to intuitively contacting the relational energy or matrix of reality in which we are all embedded. This view that significant commonalities exist between the viewpoint of psychologically healthy individuals, across diverse ethnic cultures and personal backgrounds, who intuitively grasp the relational, connective, contextual, aspects of reality, finds support in Abraham Maslow's research into "Peak Experience." I discuss this kind of relational, intuitive, participatory, responsive, mode of knowing in my two recently published books (as described by the attached Press Release), as well as in my blogs, which I have posted on my ResearchGate profile page.

"Man is the measure of all things" - Protagoras. If he is right then even a dog faced baboon could be the measure of all things. I can't say I agree with him. With the advent of logic and math we are able to objectively gather evidence and demonstrably prove truths like the Pythagorean Theorem. The Pythagorean Theorem is not true of an awful lot of right angle triangles, it's true of every one of them. We can roughly measure a triangle and say that this seems to be a right angle triangle or we can know what a right angle triangle essentially is by way of the theorem. It's not up to any single person to agree or disagree by whim. The validity of this theorem isn't declared to be true by vote or sociologically but by demonstration. Plato believed we come to know these things by recollection but Aristotle, on the other hand, wrote that we know this by its very definition.

If a claim is the truth, it must have a proof.

A claim that something is self-evident is an axiom and may or may not have a proof.

It seems to me that the only real proof of truth is our own direct intuitive experience. Any belief and its opposite counterpart can always be argued for and against; factual evidence for or against any position and its relative polar opposite can almost always be found, but the vibratory energy of love and integrity reconciles and harmonizes all relative opposite polarities within itself and is beyond argument or debate.

There are many different answers that apparently are given in answer to the question What is a proof? See, for example,

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-spring-2010/readings/MIT6_042JS10_chap01.pdf

Here is a definition given in the MIT notes:

Definition. A formal proof of a proposition is a chain of logical deductions leading to the proposition from a base set of axioms.

I agree with András Bozsik . The truth has to be objective otherwise its not the truth. Subjective truth is is based on a persons perception. The examples Sribas Goswami gave confirms this. The argument that the truth has to be backed by evidence, might also be subjective, because all facts are not truth. It was be like the analogy of the three blind men touching as elephant. The one holding the trunk will say an elephant is like a snake. The one touching the ear will say the elephant is flat like a sting ray. The one hold the leg will say an elephant is like a pillar. They are all stating facts based on their perception, but not necessarily true.

I think the answer is simple as long you define truth.. something that still not see in any answer. But i will start saying that some answer are wrong.

1. You can't use logic for know if true is subjective(yup is the old but seems nobody got to this). The reason is cause our language is not useful for that, that is self-reference question and just like the paradox of liar get a problem, here we have a problem.

2. You can't get new truths from logic(proofs). Logic is only a system where you can do inference. When you do inference you do not generates news truth only change the language we use for express that truth.

Now i hate this type of question where you have to guess what mean with the word truth. If we think in logical terms truth is simple, just a value that can have a statement. why is important, well cause we can make formulas with them and generate proofs that let us make inferences, that is if all premises are true then the conclusion is true. Is that objective or subjective? well they are subjective cause how can you know that your premises are truth.. you put them. So i think you are not thinking in truth in logic, so lets get apart of logic and proof and go to science.

Lets define truth as something that represents the real world, now we can measure it. That is we can do a experiment and if represent the real world then is true... sadly in practice we can never make a experiment with the grade of detail that give us the 100% of chance of that. But we solve the question in favour of truth as something objective sadly we make it in the form that we can't be 100% sure if something is truth or not, still is better be 99.9999999% chance of be true that be subjective i think.

I think that we should stop talking about truth in this two forms, and let the truth only means the logic part. I think that cause we have other word for mean truth in science context that is certainty, certainty means that is true and that is reliable. So my final answer is... truth is subjective and certainty is objective and try not confuse each of them.