Objective versus Subjective

Truth is bandied about with such subjective relish that the majority of people in our culture really do not believe there is such a thing as objective truth … except in certain areas of mathematics and physics. Subjective truth is clothed with such expressions as “You have your opinion, and I have mine … If believing that makes you feel good, then that’s fine … Everything is relative; you have your truth, and I have mine … That may be true for you, but it isn’t true for me.” How many times have we heard or stated ourselves after making a statement, “Well, that’s my opinion,” usually accompanied with humbled eyes and a sense of apology? The moment we made that statement is the moment we unconditionally surrendered to subjective truth.

Subjective truth is that which is true to the subject, the person thinking, saying, or acting on his truth. Objective truth is that which is true apart from a person. Let me illustrate. The moon’s soil is composed of oxygen, silicon, iron, calcium, aluminum, magnesium, and a small percentage (3%) of other elements. A child or an uneducated person may say, “The moon is made of cheese.” That is a subjective statement. It is true to the child. In a word, it is his opinion. The objective truth is that the moon’s soil is comprised of the elements previously listed. It is truth regardless of who believes it. It is truth regardless of where they believe it. It is truth regardless of when they believe it. Regardless if a person says the moon is made from cheese or salami or toe jam, ultimately we know it is all bologna regardless how it is sliced because we know the moon is comprised of oxygen, etc. Subjective statements uttered prima facie or screamed from the depths of the soul do not undermine or support an objective truth. All subjective truth is irrelevant in regard to any objective truth.

As a child I heard the following question: If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? Though I goofed off as much as any child, the question did bother me when I was alone with my thoughts. I truly puzzled over the question. I did not understand the difference between objective and subjective truth. I really thought that somebody had to be there for sound to exist. If someone did not hear it (a subject perceiving and believing it), then it simply did not exist. But we know that is nonsense. Do animals exist in the Siberian boreal forests only if someone perceives them? If a deaf person makes an utterance (the subject cannot hear it), did a noise exist or not? When I look at the lamp table in my living room, does motion not exist in the table because I cannot see it, whereas I know the atomic world comprising the table is in constant motion? Of course a sound exists when a tree falls in an empty forest because sound waves exist objectively without the necessity of a subject perceiving those sound waves.

Several years ago I was surprised by a remark from a person who was highly educated and who walked comfortably arm-in-arm with common sense. I primed the conversation with the comment, “How do we help people understand what Truth is?” His reply was, “No one has agreed on what truth is.” Actually that is not accurate at all. Surprisingly, with all the disagreement in philosophy over the centuries, 99.9% agree on what truth is! What is the consensus? More than that, what do we intuitively recognize as truth? I will continue that in my next posting.