As I understand Nietzsche, truth is inherently untrue in so far as there is no possible realm with which we can view it objectively. That is to say, we are inherently forced into viewing things subjectively, in our personal perspective, and thusly cannot prove them without a shadow of a doubt.
I used an example in class, of having two separate spheres of thought- like a Venn diagram - containing on one side all true ideas, theories, beings, all facts; and the other containing all falsities. Now, the individual contemplating it would be outside of both, neither true nor false, and as such, could not deduce whether or not either one of them would be "objective", because the individual would only have his or her perspective on the matter. I couldn't think of any proper defenses to this in the class, so I'll posit one now- how would that individual determine which one is necessarily true or false, when it could be either or? I posit that he could not, but the more I think about it, the less sure I am of it. I still find it to be an interesting quandary, however.
Moving on to another example I made in class on the nature of truth, I was asked how to prove, given lack of objective truth, that 1 + 1 could equal something other than 2. This, I feel, I am more capable of answering.
Take for example, the mathematical fact that the repeating decimal, .99999999999... etc is equal to 1. So, as a society, we agree on this as a mathematical fact; there seems to be a certain truth about it and to it. But let's say that "1" is a pie, and we took away .0000000000000000...1 percent of it away, the tiniest possible crumb that could still be considered part of the pie. Now, I would argue that subjectively, the pie is no longer entirely whole, as we've taken the tiniest crumb away from that pie. Follow?
Now let's say we did that with 2 pies, two separate pies. So we've got .9999999999999 of one pie and .99999999999999 of the other pie; for all intents, when we look at them, we see two pies. But when we consider the tiniest little piece that we've taken away, is it not the case that they are in fact now incomplete, adding to 1.9999999999999..8 pies, in essence?
I guess my argument is that while there appears to be an objective reality, I do not believe that we can escape the subjective nature of our perspective. I also believe that Nietzsche would agree with me entirely, in so far as truth, like the pie example, will always have a limit, some perspective which calls into the argument a case in which "truth" is an accepted, inarguable paradox. And with that in mind, I do not believe that objective truth will or can ever be the case, personally.
With that in mind, I believe that Nietzsche's Übermensch, or Overman, is doing their most conscious choice to reach the limits of our knowledge, of our consciousness, of our very existence. I believe that since Nietzsche is arguing against the possibility of objective reality, it's our responsibility as thinking members of the herd to our absolute best to strive towards the limits of capability. I believe that Nietzsche wants humanity to evolve.
At the very least, my personal perspective has led me to that conclusion, and Nietzsche puts it into terms that I understand and agree with.
Thanks for the feedback on my post.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, when you take 0.99999 + 0.99999, you are making a different math problem than 1+1. Although it does make an extremely close approximation, it doesn't equal the same sum. The approximation is there just to make it simpler. If you are trying to teach a child 1+1 with 2 pieces of bread with some chunks missing off of them, you aren't going to say the exact fraction of bread. You would naturally just approximate it. If you wanted to be exact however, you would figure out the decimal or fractional value. Math is just too technical to be dis-proven.
Psychedelic states and dream states In my opinion are subjective states of consciousness. For the most part, that area of thought comes down to belief. But even in such states, it still seems impossible to dis-prove 1+1. One voice plus another voice equals too much of a bad trip.
Just my penny plus another penny.
I'll warn that this is a dense argument I'm fighting, for a very small piece of semantics. So if you feel that objectivity and subjectivity are not at all closely related, I can guess that you'll still disagree with me at the end. However, I'd like you to hear me out- because math can be too technical to be proven.
DeleteI disagree vehemently, good sir. .999999999 IS inherently equal to 1. Take fractions, for example. Is 1/3 equal to .333333333333? Yes. Is 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 equal to 1? Yes, 3/3 is equal to .99999999999999? Yes, absolutely. Mathematically, they are identical problems; approximation doesn't play into it as closely. Here, for a more clear explanation of this (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_.9_repeating_equal_to_1 and https://www.khanacademy.org/math/recreational-math/vi-hart/vi-cool-stuff/v/9-999----reasons-that--999------1) checking here.
I can follow that it can be seen as two different problems, but I still disagree on the grounds that the definition of what constitutes 1 is a shaky concept when we're looking at the pie problem I've presented. If we're throwing in approximations, that's stepping away from the nature of an objective argument; objectivity is about exactness and logical perfection, it's about truth and facts, and subjectivity is about those approximations and limits. What I'm arguing is that knowledge is inherently limited, that by nature of our being forced into our personal perspective, we are entirely incapable of making an observation that is necessarily objective. Think of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example. If there's a case that is impossible to make an objective observation, it follows that the universal truth of an objective reality cannot be known by us entirely, and as such, our entire perspective is subjective; objectivity as a universal concept does not leave room for subjectivity, but subjectivity does leave room for some objectivity. I'd codify that as an argument, but I really need to get ready for class.
Let's take a different approach to my pie problem. Let's take the same two pies, and cut one of them into 3 pieces. We still have two pies, right? Except, we're still reaching a decimal limit- it's still the problem of us having .33333... + .33333... + .33333... and reaching .99999... at the end. Now, in this case, we have not lost any chunks of pie. We've got the same thing, in different parts, with the same limit of rationality blocking the exact equality you're talking about. This isn't a case of a different problem, and I'm not talking out of my ass- this is mathematically sound. By all means, continue research on the subject, I think it's fascinating.
When you say "If you wanted to be exact however, you would figure out the decimal or fractional value.", I disagree with the "or" of your statement. I feel that there's no difference.
I disagree that objectivity is about exactness. Imagine this: I have a stack of paper. Then someone gives me another stack of paper. I now(objectively) have, more paper than I had previously. The concept behind 1 + 1 = 2 does not change.
ReplyDeleteI'll define objective with (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective), in the 3rd sense; a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations .
DeleteSo from there, I would argue that objectivity is, by definition, about exactness. A fact is an immutable idea, one that does not change. Now, time can change a fact, but it becomes something else entirely when looked at as an agent of change, which is irrelevant to my point.
From here, I'll define subjective with (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective) in the 3rd sense; characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.
So subjectivity is, in essence, anything that is decided by our perception, something that is mutable, when the fact and our mind intersect.
From those two definitions, I argue that your stacks example is disanalogous on the terms that stack is an inherently subjective term. While I agree that yes, you do have two stacks in the example, you can also split one stack into two stacks, or combine two stacks into one stack. So if we take your example, let's put those two stacks together. Like, put the first stack on top of the stack- now, instead of 1+1=2, we get 1+1=1.
So yes, objectively it is true that you have more paper, but as for you having 2 stacks, that's subjectively determined by how you stack them, and as such, I disagree with you.
I anxiously await your response, though!
I never claimed that I had two stacks. I claim that I have more paper. And you have admitted that objectively, I have more paper. Haven't you already agreed with me?
ReplyDeleteHere, how about I change my statement to demonstrate an understanding of your efforts:
I disagree that objectivity is about exactness. Imagine this: I have a stack of paper. Then someone gives me another stack of paper, which is kept separate from my other stack. I now, at this point in time(objectively) have, more paper than I had previously. The concept behind 1 + 1 = 2 does not change.