Subjective And Objective Truth

Truth, in metaphysics and science philosophy, the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts or propositions that are said to agree with the facts or state what is the case in ordinary discourse.

Truth is the belief's goal; logical fallacy is a fault. Citizens need the world's reality to survive. It is important to know the truth. Believing that which is not true is capable of spoiling the plans of a person and may even cost him his life. It can lead to legal and social penalties to say what is not true. By contrast, the good scientist, the good historian, and the good detective are characterized by a dedicated pursuit of truth. So what is truth, it ought to have such gravity and such a central place in the lives of people?

What is subjective truth? Subjective truth is the type truth in which truth is derived through beliefs of opinion.

What is objective truth? This kind of truth is based on facts or are generally accepted things.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Reality is influenced by the beliefs, ideas, perceptions, and emotions of an individual, much like reality. Truth and reality, however, are not the same thing. Reality is the environment in which we live, while truth is the thing that helps people form their reality. Facts are widely accepted as true for truth to exist. Without some kind of truth in their lives, a person can not live a life. There is only deception if there is no truth-a false fact that can not exist. Everyone has an understanding of what they think is true. Since everyone is unable to describe reality objectively, it can only be inferred that truth is subjective. There are things everyone can accept to be real, like the belief we're born, we're alive, and we're going to die. But aside from that, there are a number of different things that can be argued to be true such as the idea of heaven and hell, whether there is life outside of Earth, and so on. So by that thought, truth cannot be viewed as something objective. For something to be objective, everyone must agree it. If it there is one individual that thinks differently, it must be viewed as subjective. Truth is the idea that people understand that it is true on the basis of their concepts, ideas, experiences, knowledge and emotions that shape their reality, although not everyone will agree.

Human nature is to adapt to its environment, be it physical or societal. People are constantly redefining concepts that are considered to be valid, so it is wrong to say the truth is something that is purely factual. This doesn't mean we shouldn't question everything we think is true. Instead, this is an invitation by ideologies and evidence to back up our accepted truths. Just because someone says something is wrong with you doesn't mean you're wrong. Continuously defining ourselves and what is right and wrong is in our nature as human beings. It is in our best interest to be open to understanding different views rather than judging others by what we believe to be true. To broaden and understand the different ways we can view the world, we need to be open to the thoughts of others. David Brooks’s article from the New York Times “Human Nature Redux” speaks to the nature of human nature. There are two arguments against human nature. The two arguments come from Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau argues that people are born free, but that they are chained by society. He believes that society is corrupting humans as a result. On the other hand, Hobbes argues that human beings are born evil by nature and that to civilize man, a third party must be set up. Hobbes sees human nature as a competition, the 'you vs. me' idea. Man is kept in line by having a third party, like government, thereby establishing a progressive society. What is the essence of human nature, the argument we are trying to decode here? Brooks and Hobbes sides. He states, 'Humans are struggling for hegemony and rejecting progressive egalitarian dreams.' Moreover, he says, 'this is based on the idea that there is a universal human nature; that it has nasty, competitive elements about which we do not understand much, and that the conventions and institutions that have evolved prevent us from slitting each other's throats are valuable and altered at great risk.'

Personally, I don’t see why it matters. I don’t believe it makes a difference as to whether Rousseau or Hobbes is correct. In my opinion, the argument can be made that they are both correct. Rousseau has a point that government can corrupt people. However, Hobbes can be argued to be correct in the case that everyday government keeps man from doing chaotic things, sending wrongdoers in society into prisons. Both parties can be viewed correct just by looking at several different instances throughout history.

The irony of human nature is that without society, man can’t live, and without man, society can’t survive. Human nature has its flaws, but the same is true of society. Society and man have to work together to find a happy medium that keeps society out of control. By this logic, we search for facts rather than something set in stone. We as humans are beings of adaptation. Every day, man constantly forms his idea of reality and truth. It would be wrong to say we live in a world where reality is set in stone. Man believed at one point that the world was flat. Nevertheless, when someone realized that the world was round, man adapted the truth.

So I agree that there is truth and truth can be found through experience for example, we were told that if we put our hand in fire it will burn even though it is something that is proven we can also acquire this knowledge through personal experience that is actually putting our hand in fire to find out whether there it actually burns or not.