I will begin by addressing my opponent's argument, before present a couple of points of my own.
That judgment is personal to the subject making that judgment, i.e., a human being.
I label that judgment true or false depending on our criteria.
My criteria is personal, and therefore, subjective...
When I make the judgment, the person making that judgment is the subject and I am that subject.
There is no evidence for my judgment being somehow, outside of my own reasoning, emotions, values and so on.
As I will show in my argument, there is reason to believe that a person's judgement can be outside of their own subjective perspective. In my second point, I will take this to the extreme and demonstrate a line of reasoning which is entirely undeniable.
I might agree that X is true with most people on the planet, but each person has to come to this agreement in a personal, unique, and thereby subjective manner. An agreement cannot exist outside of those subjects.. the people who say that X is true.
Truth is a label ... its a word that I use to describe that I think that something comports to reality.
I have a personal view of what reality is.. and how it works.
That which the majority agree on is not necessarily true. This does not disprove the existence of objective truth. My opponent is also correct in that truth is a label, like any other word. This also does not disprove the existence of objective truth, so long as this label applies to some sort of objective standard.
I can go by science, I can go by what my religion tells me but I have my own personal view of reality.
I might be wrong about that view, and so what I think is true might not be true.
But I think it is true.
Even when I'm wrong, I might think that what I am judging is true.
My certainty about something being true is not a guarantee that it is true.
I am very often wrong about what I consider to be true.
Yes, one might think that their misconception is in fact a truth. In this case they are objectively wrong, and that is that.
My main argument is that ideas like "unicorn", "pizza", "god", "redness", exist in the mind. So does the idea of "falsehood" and so does the idea of "truth". The mind is dependent on the subject. So are, therefore, ideas that exist in the mind.
This reasoning is circular. My opponent is trying to prove that truth only exists in the mind, yet they start with the assumption that truth only exists in the mind.
The Buddhists have a saying that the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.
We use labels to point to our ideas.. to communicate to others our ideas.
Another way of saying that is the map is not the territory. A map is another label for a part of the world, but is not that part of the world itself. A map is a guide, but what it's guiding us to isn't the map. It's the part of the world.
I attach the label true to those things I consider to be real.. like pizzas and redness. I attach the label "false" to those concepts, those ideas that I consider to not exist.. like fairies, like ghosts. The label itself does not exist in the way that a rock, a pizza, or a particular wavelength of light as in my example of the word "red" exists.
Indeed, the word "true" is not the same thing as the truth. This, however, is not particularly relevant. This would be like pointing out that the word "apple" is not an apple, and thus concluding that apples don't exist.
Rocks, pizzas, wavelengths of light do exist outside of my mind.
Fairness, liberty, happiness, anger does not exist outside of my mind.
To touch on the first point of my argument somewhat, is it true that rocks, pizza, and wavelengths of light exist outside of your mind? Is it objectively true? If my opponent agrees that it is, then they agree that objective truth exists.
Subjective truth depends on a subject.
Truth is a human concept that depends on a subject.
Human concepts can change, can be influenced by personal growth, personal experience, personal emotions, personal cultural values, by language, by a personal ability to perceive certain things and not others.
Us coming to think about something differently, or even entirely redefining it, will not change the thing itself. If I declare that my perception of what a "rock" is is that it is an object that can easily be eaten, and I try to bite a rock, it won't go very well. My notion of what something is doesn't change it. My notion of it is subjective, the nature of the thing itself is objective. The same applies to truth.
I will now make two points:
1. My opponent's position is inherently self-refuting.
The position that objective truth does not exist refutes itself. If by this they mean that it is objectively true that objective truth does not exist, then they are contradicting themselves. On the other hand, objective truth, by its very nature, is independent of the subject, so it does not even make sense to say that it is subjectively true that objective truth does not exist.
2. 1 + 1 = 2 objectively, and I can prove it.
1 + 1 = 2 doesn't mean anything without formalizing what we mean by 1 + 1 = 2. Let's establish some definitions. Firstly, we are working within
ZFC. This does not make this truth subjective, but rather, since 1, +, =, and 2 are all as defined in ZFC in the statement 1 + 1 = 2, the statement 1 + 1 = 2 is interpreted as "1 + 1 = 2 in ZFC." Regarding definitions, = is as in ZFC. We will now define 0. Axiom 6 asserts the existence of some set. Using axiom 3, we may define a subset as all elements x of the set provided by axiom 6 so that x is not equal to itself. Since there are no such elements, the resulting subset is empty. Namely, the empty set is a set. We define 0 to be the empty set. We now define the successor operator. If x is a set, then Sx = x U {x}. Addition is effectively repeated succession, so 1 + 1 = S1 = 2. I'm not going in to very much detail with this, because this will get very technical, very fast, but for more details on this, I suggest chapter 4 of
this textbook. The point, however, is that 1 + 1 = 2
by definition. That which is true by definition is objectively true. Sure, definitions are chosen by humans, but if we specify definitions in our statement of something, then there is no longer any ambiguity. It is no longer left to human interpretation. I chose the example 1 + 1 = 2 because it is somewhat non-trivial, but to simply demonstrate my point, even if you do not accept this example, consider this statement: If the earth is flat then the earth is flat. I don't think that the earth is flat, and hopefully you don't either, but the statement "if the earth is flat then the earth is flat" is a tautology, meaning that it is true by virtue of its logical structure. I chose to use this particular proposition to make the point that it does not matter whether the proposition P is true, it will always be true that "if P then P." This is really enough to demonstrate my point, I simply chose to use "1 + 1 = 2" to demonstrate that this doesn't just apply to completely useless statements.
To be honest, what caught my attention is "This reasoning is circular." ~ Math_Enthusiast
What is this? I don't even know, I have searched for the word "reasoning" in every dictionary.. and I can not find "circular" for what reasoning is..
I dont even understand what the topic is.
I wish you were CON, as your instigation would suggest, but I'll be keeping an eye on this one. If you want someone to vote on this debate, feel free to contact me.