All Truth is Subjective

1. "Reality need not exist for something to be true. A computer game may seems an epic adventure, but is, in fact, simply pixels on a screen. This may be how my opponent sees reality, possibly even more abstractly. However, that does not mean that certain things true within the game are therefore falsified as a result of the game's departure from reality. On the same token, reality may be utterly void but that does not mean certain things cannot be true within our illusion. So I can perfectly well accept that premise, and it does not temper my case in any way." Something that is true only exists as truth in the eye of the beholder. While a computer game may seem epic or as pixels, I ask how we "know" this. Well, in our opinion the game was epic. That is the easier of the two to name subjective. As for pixels, there was a man who thought he created something and named the dots on the screen pixels. So are these dots really pixels or are they only pixels to those who believe the man when he called them pixels? We do not know if these"pixels" are named something else by someone else and so what makes the use of pixel more truthful? This would be because it is more widely believed and so perceived as truth. Moving on, when my opponent says, " On the same token, reality may be utterly void but that does not mean certain things cannot be true within our illusion." it seems he concedes a small point to me here that reality may or may not exist. The "truth" of our existence may not even be true but he also points out that certain things may be true within our own illusion. This is exactly my thesis. Truth is subjective. Someone's illusion of truth is entirely his own and thus is subjective. 2. "Not everyone need agree with a statement for it to be true One's "idea of truth", as my opponent puts it, has no implication on the truth of the matter, similar to how there could be absolute morality, even if not everyone practices it. Anything can be denied, or redefined (for example, the number 2 could hold a different value for a lunatic), but that does not change the fact that by accepted, dictionary definition, something can remain accurate. According to Webster, absolute is "free from imperfection." (1) The invalid denial of an unstable or possibly sinister force speaks not on subjectivity, but on the human condition." I will accept his topic sentence and point out this. If not everyone accepts something as truth but one does, then whose truth is it? Let me explain this. A man who is a conspiracy theorist believes that conspiracies are truth. A normal man has no belief in conspiracies. Who is right? According to the topic sentence, it would be both. Not everyone believes in conspiracies and so it is a lie to them but for the theorists their truth is in the conspiracies. Therefore, people would try to determine who is right or wrong. The problem is that those determining who was right or wrong are simply finding what they believe to be true which is then accepted by majority. Moving to the body, he points out that "One's idea of truth" has no implication to what would be the real truth. The problem here is that the perception of one person to another differs and so the truth can change from one to another. Therefore, who can determine these "absolute truths"? The whole idea of an absolute truth is a truth created and believed by someone. How can we determine if this is true? Using the definition of absolute being "free from imperfection" we see that a truth being absolute would have to have no problems within and so be perfect. Then the problem being, who determines if this truth is imperfect or not? Man's truths are only those that we create. "Furthermore, Philosophy.com defines the entire phrase in question, absolute truth, as "inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts." (2) While few statements or bits of knowledge adheres to this stringent definition, such declarations do exist, and the ability of someone to pretend said declaration is false does not ultimately invalidate its claim." This idea is a good one but has a single problem. The belief that something can be declared untrue and not invalidate the claim just means that people have some things that they believe in so much more that they are not going to change their opinion without a drastic show of what they would think as proof to the contrary. This simply makes argument here a circle because it has one side saying that this is the truth and so cannot change with another saying that it is only true because you believe it is. Therefore, we have to decide which we believe which then still follows the idea of truth being subjective. "Truth Vs. Opinion It seems to me that in this debate, the distinction of these two terms are all-important. The fact of the matter and what people think the fact is are often diametrically opposed. Let's take a polemical topic: the question of whether God exists. Whatever peoples' varying views of the matter may be, there is a correct answer in that there either is a god(s) or there isn't. That is called absolute truth, and in this sense it undoubtedly exists. To these questions, there are answers, even if our pitifully limited minds may never reach them. However, what my point is is that truth, therefore, is not, and cannot be subjective as long as there is a correct answer. Opinions can change, but the reality (even if it doesn't exist) will remain the same. Truth does not alter itself for different opinions, and thus is not a matter of subjectivity." The use of "absolute truth" is the most essential part of this argument and so I will address first. You believe that somewhere along the line something has to end up as truth. This belief is the truth that you hold as being true. What I believe is true is in one of my favorite quotes. "Believing is knowing." We know only through belief and cannot change that. Even what I just said was me showing my truth but that can be different with others. Opinion is truth. Everything we think is true, factual, or absolute in being correct is only that way because it believe it is so. "Absolute Truth and Morality While I briefly alluded to this comparison in my opening paragraph, I will expand it now. My impressive opponent professes the Mormon faith; thus, though I could be wrong, I assume he believes in God's absolute morality. This being true, I would like to issue the following challenge to him: how can absolute morality exist if not everyone subscribes to it? And how can he say morality is "real" despite its non-universality but also say truth is not because of its non-universality? My opponent's faith and argument seem quite exclusive and possibly even hypocritical, and I would like to hear what he has to say in response." First time I have been called impressive. Thanks. Now to answer you. 1. I do believe in God's absolute morals 2. Some do not subscribe by choice. We came on this Earth with free agency and we can use it as we see fit. If someone does not like morals, they can believe that all they want. That is their right. 3. I do not say that truth is not real. I say that all truth is subjective. There is a underlying difference here. 4. To put this all together, I believe in my faith and believe it is true. Therefore, to me, it is truth. That is not the case for many(as in they don't believe what I do) but it does not change what my truth is. "Can Truth be Subjective? Reading through what I have written, I will confess that a valid criticism that could be made of my work is that my focus remains too much along what is true, and not so much what is subjective. And before I conclude my beginning statement, I should remedy this by connecting the two portions of my argument. Were the proposition "people's perception of truth is subjective", I would be inclined to concur. Indeed, I suspect my opponent would struggle to find a rational opponent running with hat to line. However, the key word is whether "all truth" is subjective or not. And truth, at least some, is certainly, certainly objective, regardless of how one sees it or thinks of it. This debate is not so much about people as it is about truth, and truth, whatever nuggets of it exist, is not subjective. On that note, I will conclude my opening gambit. Best of luck to my opponent in the upcoming round, and I look forward to continuing our discussion" We see here again the idea of absolute truth. The idea that somewhere along the line there has to be something that is true, despite what others may believe, is completely subjective. I may be sounding redundant at this point and I apologize but it is important to get this across. To have an absolute truth would be found by those who would believe it. I refer back to my story of the cursed man in my opening. This man would not have changed his idea of voodoo being real no matter how much he was told it was fake. If anything, his belief was strengthened by the experience. Therefore we try to determine whose is the absolute truth. The problem is that by determining whose is absolute we are making a judgement call that creates a subjective truth. Good luck con and I appreciate your professional tone to the debate. With that, I close and hand the torch back to you and hope the debate stays as interesting as it has so far.