Is it impossible to determine WHY a statement is true without using another statement? In other words, can statements only be justified by other statements? If so, how can any statement be justified by objective reality, which itself is not a statement, or a collection of statements? Does this mean that objective truth/reality can not be justifiably said to exist?

EDIT I wanna know from a philosophical standpoint if objective reality can be said to exist despite the fact that all information we humans have about objective reality comes from a collection of subjective statements?

| improve this question | | | | |
  • I don't understand why your impossibility claim is relevant to objective reality existing. You should explain if you want an answer. – alanf Feb 9 '17 at 13:45
  • 1
    To assert that a certain statement p is true, is to make an assertion about "p". When we say "The rose is red" we are making an assertion about roses. Wehn we say " "p" is true" we are making an assertion about written or uttered sentences. Roses exists as well as sentences uttered or written : they are part of "reality". – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Feb 9 '17 at 13:50
  • @alanf I ask you if a certain statement is true. For example this correspondence in the commentators field we have right now. I assume you would answer yes. If I then ask you a second question: WHY do you consider that statement to be the truth. How would you answer that second question? – GNU Feb 9 '17 at 15:44
  • @mauro-ALLEGRANZA Your comment contains subjective statements who have the purpose to back up your other subjective statements. If you and i where the only two people in the universe and I would go polemic with everything you said in your comment. What would be the truth in that case? – GNU Feb 9 '17 at 15:57
  • 1
    @GNU My answer would depend on the content and context of the statement. – alanf Feb 9 '17 at 17:53

Yes, I think the only way to determine why the statement is true is by using other statements, even if in different form if talking about the nature of these statements (I can explain visually a statement that comes from discourse) but I think we have no escape because these statements we're trying to prove exists in a context that generated them by other statements. Telling why - so proving - is acting to unveil the background statements that made the statement that had to be proven emerge.

So I think that objective reality does not comprehend proofs because this is a concept that lies in our subjective perspective that is proper among human beings.

You were asking:

Does this mean that objective truth/reality can not be justifiably said to exist?

I found it a pretty interesting question even because it takes into account faith. Well, objective reality exists but it does not comprehend truth or lack of it. Objective reality have to exist and work because we are its products, but "objective truth" seems to me like a contradictory concept because we have not that control over the whole we're part of.

Thanks you for this question, it allowed new questions to rise on me.

| improve this answer | | | | |
  • Welcome to philosophy and thanks for the answer! Is there any chance you could indicate why is this a persuasive answer to the question for you? What sort of research could confirm it? (Please edit your answer rather than responding in comments!) – Joseph Weissman Feb 18 '17 at 16:08
  • Hello Joseph, thanks for your comment. I am sad to having not the knowledge in this subject that could relate it to any kind of research. It just comes from my perspective and lacks on every kind of academic authority. – user25560 Feb 19 '17 at 0:53

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.