After our discussion in class Thursday, I left feeling uncomfortable with Kierkegaard’s assumption of the nature of truth and the ease with which he simplifies objectiveness. The definitions he supplies for both are correct as they exist independent as any application: Objective truth exists outside the need of conviction and does not depend on any individual’s affirmations; Subjective truth requires “inward, infinite passion” through which each individual designates his truth. These are both correct definitions; however, when he applies their definition to discovering truth in reality, is he implying that one exists and the other does not, as the title of his essay would imply? Is subjective truth the only truth? Based on our discussion in class and the examples we used, I find this hard to accept. For instance, our exemplary statement, “The shirt is red”: I understand Kierkegaard’s contrast between knowing “that” the shirt is red and knowing “how” the shirt is red illustrates the difference between subjective and objective reasoning. However, given a circumstance where there is no individual, what happens to the shirt? Does it lose all properties because there is not an individual there to interpret them? Even if that is the case, would not the shirt still exist in a finite space in time? Therefore, it would seem that the physical existence of the shirt would exist independently from individual interpretation and would thus constitute objective truth. The same problem exists with our example of the man who jumps out a window. Belief may constitute a personal truth; however, despite the greatest amount of belief and faith, when that man jumps out the window, he will be subject to the universal laws of physics. This universality alone seems to imply the existence of an objective truth. Kierkegaard’s justification for subjective truth does not make sense either. He states that the inwardness that derives from passion is such an individual phenomenon that the passion would lead to a strong, personal conviction; this conviction means more to the individual because defines the relationship he has with the object or concept he is considering. Therefore, because the relationship means more, and gives conviction, it becomes a truth. But conviction cannot be the sole arbitrator of truth, for the mind is capable of infinite imagination and is essentially limitless. This seems to provide very loose boundaries for the designation of truth and leaves room for a wide margin of error.