Logical truth Vs Objective truth

Hi,
This subject has touched my thoughts again and I was interested on your thoughts as to the distinctions and relative values of logical truths and objective truths.

I used the example the other day about a subject such as a tree.

I can see the tree and consider it to be logically beautiful yet at the same time consider it to be objectively less so......

A logical truth could be for example Einstiens theory of relativity. An objective truth could be considered to be "the telephone is ringing" so therefore it is true to say that the telephone is ringing.

From experience I know that the many logical truth constructs that we have can be very precarious as to validity most of the time.

Is logical truth a way to finding the objective truth or is it complimentary or extraneous to the objective truth?

Can both truths co-exist in harmony?

I look forward to your comments and discussions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah...
I think you have an odd definition of logical truth. In technical terms, a logical truth is anything which has a truth value of True based solely on the virtue of the definitions of the words and the functions of the logical connectives, and nothing else.

For example...
'I am in Canada or I am not in Canada.'

This is logically true as the condition for the sentance to be true is that either I am something or I am not something - and it is impossible for me to not be either of those. The connective "or" (v if you're familiar with sentential or predicate logic) indicates the sentance has a truth value of true if and only if one or both of the disjuncts of the sentance are true. Since one being false in this sentance means the other must be true, this sentance is a logical truth. It is true given only the words and the connective.

This could be symbalized easily:
C = I am in Canada

The sentance becomes:
C v ~C

Anyway, I just don't know what you mean by "objective truth". If you mean that "true in that it holds in the real world" then the proper term is "sound" (in terms of arguements). And no, there is no valuable connection between objective truth and logical truth. If an arguement is sound and valid then yes it is logically true, but this is just common sense. If an arguement is logically true, well, that tells us nothing about the real world.

Anyway, hope I answered what you were actually asking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I assume by objective truth you mean an 'absolute truth'.

Yes, logical truth is a means of getting the closest to objective truth as possible. As humans, we can never actually have objective truth. It is not in our faculty. Therefore, we use logic as a means of getting as close as possible.

It helps me to think of 'truth' as a probability rather than possibility. We will never be 100%. But we can get close enough to be confident and assured.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, hold on...
Do you guys mean "logical truth" in the sense that philosophy uses it? Because if so you're making no sense to me.

If not, could you define more exactly??

 

I took "logical truth" to simply mean a truth set forth from a logical argument.

I could be way off base.

Its always a good idea to set forth some definitions initially so we are all talking about the same things!

PS. Nice to see you back Tyler

 

Thanks Tyler and Fading Captain, yes you are both correct and the logical truth is I have no idea of the conventional terminology that is currently being used in philosophy. [ha ......in a way it could be considered an absolute or objective truth as well]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Seriously though,

To me a logical truth is a truth based on a speculation, a mental creation based on the bringing together of various aspects or 'items' and with a few assumptions etc thrown in for good measure.

An objective truth is more a self evident truth, one that requires little construction as to it's validity, one that is usually taken for granted as being a common truth for all observers.

For example the reality or existence of this post could be considered as an objective truth however the meaning of this post could be considered as a logical truth. Suggesting that subjective filtering is occuring in it's interpretation.

In some ways the use of Einsteins Relativity is relevant.

question:
What is common and invariant to all observers?
What is unique to each observer?

What is common could be considered as objective truth.
What is unique could be considered as a logical truth, or truth subject to the persons unique use of logic......

 

Is it like... the difference between knowing something a priori versus a posteriori?

Seems like it. A priori is knowing something based on logic and assumptions, and a posteriori is knowing something based on experience, ie, empirical fact.

 

Tyler has stated everything correctly here.
For all intents and purposes, the difference between logical and objective truth is a semantical one, nothing more. The problem is that the term 'objective truth' has come into common usage and, unfortunately now has certain connotations that are not necessarily correct. The most significant one being that 'objective truth' connotes some sort of essentialist or otherworldly nature. This is more than likely due to Platonic and Rationalist ideas that permeate contemporary Western thought.

 

I don't think so. It seems to me more like the difference between rationalism and positivism, which is certainly not semantic. There is a difference between a logical fact and an empirical fact, you realize?

Uh, maybe if you're a born-again Christian. An objective truth is, by definition, true regardless of bias.

Platonic and Rational "ideals" always seemed opposing to me. No?

 

Well, sure.. but I wasn't about to get into a whole rationalism vs positivism angle here, that one could go on for quite some time...lol. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a logical fact.

You miss my point; I wasn't referrring to some spiritual nature, rather to the idea that 'truths' ontologically exist beyond usage.

Not to me. The rationalist tradition follows quite readily from Platonic Idealism. Simply replace 'Form' with some a priori justifier. For Descartes for example, this would be God.

 

Is that statement the REAL (objective) truth? It assumes that Canada and "I" exist.

I view the "objective Truth" as "reality" or "what exists". There is only one objective truth and it is independent of human thought and perception. Any other type of "truth" is perceived.

That being said, the only objective true statement anyone can ever make is:

"Objective Truth does exist".

 

Interesting....
This 'independent' truth you speak of.. given that you have, by your definition, no possible access to it.. exactly what proof of it do you have?

 

these post that appear on my monitor could be considered as objective truth, but my understanding of these post would be a logical truth or a truth I create logically.

 

Logical truth says "I hear a telephone ringing. That is my telephone ringing"
Objective truth says "Ah but it could be the TV sound tricking me into thinking my telephone is ringing!"

 

sounds more like objective scepticism [chuckle]

 

Sceptic!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

ok...ok...hmmmm....maybe logical speculation over an objective truth then.....

At least we can be fairly confident you have a telephone or not .....as to whether it is ringing well.......that's another thingo....thingo....thingo......ha

 

The proof of it lies in the fact that “SOMETHING does exist”. I (what I perceive myself to be) am experiencing a (absolute, objective, real, etc) TRUTH right now. I perceive that “something” or truth to be “typing on my keyboard”. The objective truth may be something completely different (dream, illusion, eating ham sandwich, whatever) but it is SOMETHING.

It is impossible to “prove” because humans (and any other species) are constrained by language, and the perception of being human – what does “proof” mean anyway? I use the same principle (and this got me bashed in the astronomy forum) in making this statement:

You can not fully define something by being inside it. You need to travel to the outer surface of that object and observe it from the outside. This applies to objects like oranges, universes, and in this case “objective truth”.

 

Well, we may not be absolutely right in defining apples as different from oranges, but we're half-right, and it works. You're starting to sound like Derrida... which is absolutely pointless. Keep that concept in the back of your mind, but think practical. Empirical facts are the closest things we have to objective truths.

True.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah... I'm not that well-versed in philosophy. How could God in any way be regarded as an objective truth? If anything, the argument for him is based on (twisted) logic, isn't it?

Lost me a bit. I can see how Platonic Idealism is based on some sort of rationality - that forms have to exist, or something. Just never seemed like it had very concrete reasons behind it.

Shouldn't your logical conclusions be based on empirical conclusions?

 

I had to do a wikipedia search on Derrida – He does write beautifully:

The whole point is to keep “that concept” which I’ve described “in the back of our minds”. And I agree that “empirical facts are the closest things we have to objective truths” but all philosophy (and this thread) is not based on practicality. When we think of truths, universes, and oranges, we must also try analyze the very nature of human philosophy itself -- it is in a bubble. Reality or objective truth does not exist to serve our human minds, nor should we expect it to.