I am confused when you say that Truth cannot be inherent.
Do you mean that Truth cannot be objectively known of anything? So that what we are certain of is Fact, and not Truth?
For example, are you saying that "a circle is circular" is just a Fact, and for us to think it Truth would either be false or a conjecture of language.
Now to avoid the culture or language bias, I could then say "a circle is what it is". If you still insist that that is just a Fact, you are essentially saying that there is no such thing as "truth", or truth is always subjective.
My next question to you would then be, what is a Fact? Can we know with absolute certainty what a Fact is?
The idea of “Objective truth” is implicitly epistemic in nature. What that means is that:
If you can say something, then you must be able to know it.
In other words, when we say the phrase “Objective truth”, we must be referring to a Social Objectivity, because it is impossible (at least, to the best of our knowledge) to express in words or to know something that is a Metaphysical Objectivity.
This is what Husserl says:
"That in its nature as the aggregate Subjectivity of individuals, Intersubjectivity, itself, is what allows for the formulation of a type of Objectivity—a Social Objectivity, created by means of the collective exercise of individual Agency."
In Sartre’s words, this is what we call Facticity:
"The fact of the world—of the reality which we create together."
I would say that a fact which is known is necessarily the assertion of a belief in the truth-value of that fact, whether that belief is held by an individual person or a society as a whole. Truth-value must necessarily always be Subjective in the sense that it is assigned through an individual person's Agentive belief--however, the Social consensus of individual Subjects creates a form of "Subjective Objectivity" (which we refer to as Social Objectivity) and is in reality the only form of Objectivity which we can really reference or have knowledge of. The Metaphysical Objectivity which we infer exists beyond our perception, after all, is by definition imperceptible and inaccessible. When we can know is only the physical--and the physical is accessible only by means of empirical observation.
If you're interested in this topic, I'd recommend that you read through or watch Existential Basics 5 and 6, as well as possibly checking out this article:
On Theory, Knowledge, and the Meaning of Metaphysics
Hi Mark.
I am confused when you say that Truth cannot be inherent.
Do you mean that Truth cannot be objectively known of anything? So that what we are certain of is Fact, and not Truth?
For example, are you saying that "a circle is circular" is just a Fact, and for us to think it Truth would either be false or a conjecture of language.
Now to avoid the culture or language bias, I could then say "a circle is what it is". If you still insist that that is just a Fact, you are essentially saying that there is no such thing as "truth", or truth is always subjective.
My next question to you would then be, what is a Fact? Can we know with absolute certainty what a Fact is?
From Existential Basics 6: Intersubjectivity, Social Objectivity, & the Free and Equal Other:
https://themodernexistentialist.substack.com/p/intersubjectivity-social-objectivity?s=w
The idea of “Objective truth” is implicitly epistemic in nature. What that means is that:
If you can say something, then you must be able to know it.
In other words, when we say the phrase “Objective truth”, we must be referring to a Social Objectivity, because it is impossible (at least, to the best of our knowledge) to express in words or to know something that is a Metaphysical Objectivity.
This is what Husserl says:
"That in its nature as the aggregate Subjectivity of individuals, Intersubjectivity, itself, is what allows for the formulation of a type of Objectivity—a Social Objectivity, created by means of the collective exercise of individual Agency."
In Sartre’s words, this is what we call Facticity:
"The fact of the world—of the reality which we create together."
I would say that a fact which is known is necessarily the assertion of a belief in the truth-value of that fact, whether that belief is held by an individual person or a society as a whole. Truth-value must necessarily always be Subjective in the sense that it is assigned through an individual person's Agentive belief--however, the Social consensus of individual Subjects creates a form of "Subjective Objectivity" (which we refer to as Social Objectivity) and is in reality the only form of Objectivity which we can really reference or have knowledge of. The Metaphysical Objectivity which we infer exists beyond our perception, after all, is by definition imperceptible and inaccessible. When we can know is only the physical--and the physical is accessible only by means of empirical observation.
If you're interested in this topic, I'd recommend that you read through or watch Existential Basics 5 and 6, as well as possibly checking out this article:
On Theory, Knowledge, and the Meaning of Metaphysics
https://themodernexistentialist.substack.com/p/on-theory-knowledge-and-the-meaning?s=w
Thanks for the support!