I believe that Kierkegaard is saying that truths can be measured qualitatively. In fact, It has to be measured qualitatively if subjective truths are truly subjective. For instance, in order for something to be subjectively true, the individual has to not just believe it, but embody the truth. It has to be more than just simply believing in something. Even though it is hard to find a standard to measure truths, this is how I see it. Tell me what you think.
There is a point where an individual moves beyond mere belief to subjectively true. And at the point where it becomes subjectively true. There is a range where subjectively truths can be measured. So what I am trying to say is that something can be subjectively more true than other things.
In an example: faith. Faith in its loosest term. For instance, an individual has a parent that was sick. This individual doesn't just believe that the parent will get better, the individual's faith will propel the individual to stake his/her life on it. Wouldn't you say that an individual who is willing to stake his/her life on a belief subjectively believe something more intensely than someone who will, (for interest in comparison) stake his/her car or something else that they believe to be valued less. This is of course assuming that they put more value in life than a car. This is why I believe that subjective truths can be measured this way.
That being said, if an individual does not reach this threshold where belief turns into subjective truths, it becomes subjectively untrue. As an individual, I can tell you that I believe in somethings more intensely than other things. This is where a belief can lose value or gain value.
Tell me what you think.
Phong, I like the thought that you put into your post-however I somewhat disagree with your understanding of the process of subjective truth. I don't think that Kierkegaard is making a case that some truths are "stronger" than other truths, rather that some are more true (subjectively of course) to an individual.
ReplyDeleteBasically as I understand it, there are two "truths", there are the objective truths, commonly called facts. These are the empirically testable truths such as math and natural science, blah blah blah. Then there are the more interesting truths, those that we hold for ourselves. That is to say, that a truth has no value to us as individuals until we accept the truth as a "subjective-truth". Basically the "facts" have no impact on our lives until we choose to accept them, such as the objective truth that gravity exists doesn't affect my subjective truth that I believe I can fly (until of course I put my passion into the subjective truth of attempting to fly).
So yeah thats my idea.
I understand your point of view, but I disagree in idea that a belief is subjectively untrue unless it reaches a "threshold." From what we went over in class, any belief an existing individual has is a subjective truth to that particular individual.
ReplyDeleteI don't really understand how a subjective truth can be measured. These are abstract ideas, so how can we measure such concepts?
To insight a change of pace, I do agree with your post. Not to at all lower the comments of others but seems to me that largely the disagreements with the original post arise from a disconnect or argument of syntax. While I more readily accept Colin's terminology as a bit more precise, I believe the passage is all being understood on the same level (perhaps the hardest part of understanding Kierkegaard's work is not the concepts but the semantics).
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do find the idea of a "threshold" a little misleading. As far as I understood it there is not a set point at which a subjective truth becomes necessarily "truth" or "untruth" -- that is a characteristic of objective truth. Subjective truth, as explained in the post, is a qualitative measure as far as I understand it. It has varying degrees which makes the idea of "truth" and "untruth" all the more ambiguous. Nothing in necessarily true or untrue in the subjective realm, but rather something is simply more "true" or more "untrue" than another. This is not helped by the realization that this is all a relation between a single individual and that "truth." So in the end, while I am quite under the impression that we are all understanding it in the same manner, I wished to point out that communication to key for explaining these concepts and that is why the seem so difficult.
I agree with Sarah's disagreements. I dont think there is any real "threshold" to a subjectively true or untrue belief. It is either true or not. Also, if you're going to measure truth, how would you define it or set up a scale of "truthiness"?
ReplyDelete