|An approximate representation|
By Morris Dean
A better way of asking the question might be: How can truth not be subjective for everyone, and how is objective truth even possible?
Anyone’s perception of anything is his or her own perception. Objective truth depends on everyone involved’s agreeing on a procedure by which objective truth can be determined, or approximated as closely as possible – everyone may even agree that their procedure leaves room for doubt and revision. Science is that way, for example, and is stronger for it by forestalling the jumping to conclusions; everyone acknowledges that further information might change the consensus view.
In Vic Midyett’s Tuesday Voice column yesterday (“Truth: It does not alter”), the little girl and the son had their individual perceptions of the truth about nurses and father, respectively, which was at variance with the objective truth as understood by Mr. Midyett, whose point of view for the narrative amounted to that of an “omniscient narrator” in fiction.
What about Kyle Garza’s perception of the truth about pornography in last week’s Thor’s Day column (“Why Christians aren’t celebrating Playboy’s PG-13 move”)? Was his view of pornography objective or subjective? Another perceiver will present an alternative view tomorrow – Bob Boldt in his Thor’s Day column, “Eroticism and its discontents: A response to last week’s column on pornography.”
|Copyright © 2015 by Morris Dean|