Is There Objective Truth? Or Is Reality Subjective, Or a Social Construct?

A defense of objective reality against arguments that attempt to undermine objective truth. The video explores arguments in favor of subjective reality—or socially constructed reality—and shows how they fail.

0:00 The "mini-world" argument against objective reality (for subjective reality)
1:24 The basics of objectivity
2:39 Belief vs. reality (ontological subjectivity vs. ontological objectivity)
3:35 Summary of objective reality and objective truth
3:58 The rejection of objective reality (in favor of subjective reality or social construction)
4:56 The "tallest mountain on earth" example
6:19 Reply the "tallest mountain on earth" example and the "mini world" argument
9:53 Conclusion
10:03 Coda: Race and gender

Further Reading

The Construction of Social Reality, John Searle (1995)
Metaphysics, "Objectivity", Peter Van Inwagen (2014)

Footnotes

0. The content of this video very roughly tracks a part of the Realism/Anti-Realism debate in contemporary analytic philosophy and the position I defend borrows heavily from the work of John Searle and Peter van Inwagen. The main arguments are theirs—any mistakes are mine. (And surely there are mistakes. The topic is vast and complex; no ten minute video could cover it adequately!)

1. Technically, truth is a property of *propositions* and a belief is true or false in virtue of the truth or falsity of the proposition believed. That every proposition is either true or false is called the principle of bivalence, and anti-realism—which is roughly the view I’m criticizing in this video—tends to reject bivalence.

2. This is not an *epistemology* video about ways of knowing or the kinds of things we know. So we are not discussing *epistemic* subjectivity/objectivity. This is a metaphysics video about truth and the nature of reality. So I say “ontologically subjective” to make clear that we are talking about modes of existence as opposed to an epistemic category.

3. I say *most* of reality does not depend on you and me because, of course, some of reality does depend on us. We raise our hands, shuffle our feet, and re-arrange furniture (among other things). Thus, there are facts about the world that *depend on us*. And, our our subjective conscious states are also a part of reality. Nevertheless, the vast majority of reality does not depend on us in either of these ways.

#objectivetruth
#objectivereality
#socialconstruct

[LetsGetLogical]

Convinced? Let me know what you think!

[mikefaff-livingintheillusi]

Hi, Let’s Get Logical,
Thank you for this video.
Time 1:30
You state: It will help to start afresh and begin with some basics. All beliefs are either true or false.
My comment: I would start with the statement, “Everything is energy, and that is all there is to it.” With that true understanding or belief, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound? There is energy because everything is energy, but is there sound? As the ocean moves and no one is around, does it roar? When you look at a mountain, do you see the mountain?
The observer effect the observed. Without an observer, there is only energy.
Your eyes see nothing. The eyes’ function is to transmit information as wavelengths of energy. No trees are going down the optic nerve. No oceans going down the optic nerve. There are no mountains going down the optic nerve. There is only data in the form of electromagnetic and chemical signals that move down the optic nerve. That raw data is meaningless and chaotic till the mind interprets it. It is not the eyes that see. It is the mind that sees. It is the mind that interprets the chaotic data presented by the input data from the sensory organs.
Without the observer and without the mind to interpret, all is energy and meaningless. There are no trees. There is no ocean. There are no mountains. There is only energy. There’s no time and no space, only energy. There are no beliefs, true or false. All is energy.
Peace.
Mike

[cindyatwood]

Great video! I had to laugh in the beginning as I thought to myself: "Aren't there 8 objects when you include the background?" 🤣🤣

[DrClockwork]

I think you are mixing up the terms "Reality" and "Truth".

If pressed on it, I would say that truth is subjective, but I don't believe that reality is subjective or that "reality is the stories we tell ourselves" or whatever. I agree with you when you say that "reality is a certain way, " and that reality is that way regardless of what you think of it.

The problem is, I don't think that people who say that truth is subjective think that reality is subjective. I don't think that there are people who believe that actual reality is socially constructed, like you say at 7:40.

The reason I say I would only call truth subjective if pressed on it, is because I think the terms "subjective" and "objective" are useless and only serve to muddy the waters to make things less clear.

Let's replace them with mind-dependent and mind-independent, and see what happens to the question about if truth is subjective or objective.

Is truth mind-independent?

In your example, whether you say that there are 3, 7 or 4 objects in that mini world depends on how you define your terms, but once you have defined those terms, there are correct and incorrect ways to apply them. It would be incoherent for somebody who uses your first definition of an object to declare that there are 7 objects. If they have that definiton, then they would by necessity have to believe that there are 3 objects.

There are certain conditions under which beliefs about the world would have to be accepted or rejected. A true belief is a belief that you have to accept, and a false belief is one that you have to reject.

But, that makes truth a property of the coherence of the beliefs in a mind and a certain set of norms for rejecting and accepting beliefs. The beliefs certainly seem mind-dependent, but are those norms mind-dependent too?

That's the question you really have to answer to get to the bottom of this. Is logic discovered, or invented? Your video doesn't really get there. You seem to just assume that if something make logical sense, then it is objective, and therefor mind-independent.

And even IF logic is discovered and IF that means that it is mind independent, since truth seems to be a combination of mind-dependent beliefs and mind-independent logic, does that make truth mind-dependent, not, or both?

[the-logic-of-the-rainbow]

Set "X" = ""X" is an instantiation of the category "Some set containing only total lack of shared limitation"".

If this set "X" were our collective existence(Our world) then our world would contain "Only total lack of shared limitation".

However, if multiple people exist in our world, while this world is "X", then everyone shall necessarily be limited though the law of identity to be self-equal to some world sharing the intrinsic and extrinsic property of containing "Only total lack of shared limitation". This is contradictory. This is contradictory because the collective and individual existence of "Total lack of shared limitation" would itself be a shared limitation, insofar as it is wholly true of our world, it cannot possibly be wholly false. Therefore, it is limited to its whole self and its whole self only. But this is still a limitation, and it is extrinsically shared. Therefore, because "X" is contradictory, it cannot instantiate. Therefore, All sets of distinct being must be contain some shared set of limitations between them. Therefore, objective intersubjective reality exists (At least partially, full objectivity is not proven).

[SanksAska]

The observer and the observed are one, there being something outside of yourself is a thought. Now how can you prove that any pattern in the mind represents reality outside of the mind?

[lordtains]

Great video! Do you have any academic books on this subject? I have been looking for serious contemporary academic resources regarding objective/subjective reality.

[ManfreeFreeman]

Nothing can be objectively true. Things can't exist without something to percieve them. That experience can only be subjective to the being that experienced it. Even if observed that observation is subjective to the observer.

[kevinbee]

I was agreeing before this video as well that there is an objective reality. And also, when there are two conflicting opinions, at least one of them has to be wrong. They aren't true _for a certain person._ A statement is either true for everybody or for nobody.

I do think however that there is something true about saying that races, genders, or for example nations are "social constructs". When you look at a geographical map with mountains and seas that is different in a way than a political map with nation borders. The mountains and seas would exist without humans but nations wouldn't exist. I would then ask myself the question which practical differences this distinction makes?

I _wouldn't_ say that nations are unimportant, because they are "socially constructed". I suppose, for example when somebody in nation A wanted to help somebody in nation B, but they don't because they think that people should cooperate only within nations, it would make sense to remind them that nation borders were decided arbitrarily. Nation borders are a kind of heuristic – they aren't objectively true, they are just helpful thinking shortcuts.

To summarize: I think there is a difference between geographical maps and political maps and "socially constructed" could be a term describing this difference. On the other hand there has to be a practical consequence of this difference. If a word (like socially constructed) isn't _useful, _ it shouldn't be used. I'm not totally sure what this practical difference is.

[paradoxeefinity]

"reality" is a paradox that should be experienced hands-on

[jond]

You would assume our objective reality stems from objective truth, since our "reality" is nothing more then what we perceive. Our objective reality is based on our subjective truth in any moment.

[ivrz]

This does not address the difficulty. Does the moon exist when nobody is perceiving it? There is the problem. It is not a matter of opinions.

[TonatiuhMorenoGed]

Very interesting, but you are commiting a funadamental mistake by making no distinction between the concepts of "reality" and "truth".

[nataliak]

Thank you for the video!

Actually, I can’t understand how we, people, who are by default subjective can claim that something perceived by us can be objective - I mean there’s no way to check that objectivity because every time we are checking we are putting this evidence through the subjective lense of our subjective consciousness

“If we all were to become extinct at once, the mountains would still be there and so on…” But how is it possible to validate if that statement is true and get 100% evidence if no one with the conscious mind would be there to actually check how that experiment goes?

[MachinesTakingOverTheWorld]

Is there such a thing as objective reality? I can't see it with my eyes. I think my eyes are just practical.

[nonsense]

What is a table?
How many legs must it have?
How long or short must it be?
What is its best purpose?
Which angle represent a table the best?
Which language represents a table the best?
When I think about subatomic particles, and I visualize the table made up of these subatomic particles, am I visualizing the same thing as you? Who is more correct?

We can ask these questions and doubt each other in each others answers until the end of time. None of us know what a table is, and that is objective truth. It is also true that objectively we must agree that it is a table to work with it and get on with our day.

However, I think about and interpret this mind experiment subjectively. The two are inextricably linked, however, subjectively comes first. It must or I would else be dead.

[juliesuegordon]

you need to look at consciousness and its role in creating reality. Experience can only exist with awareness, and experience is reality, nothing exists without it being observed

[Onelove-Oneheart-hc]

Freewill and objective truth are under scrutiny

[artdadamo]

Observation: Joe has a headache. The headache itself is subjective in that if Joe doesn’t experience it, then there can be no headache. An unfelt headache is like an unthought thought., an unfelt feeling. But the statement “Joe has a headache” is a statement of objective reality. Joe in fact is experiencing a headache. Material for another video?

[ruthosornio]

Why are new generations (I’m generalizing here‼️)so inclined to subjective believe?
I’m 51, my daughter is 20.No matter what we discuss or talk about, we inevitably end up with her saying my beliefs are all subjective.I am willing, If I make an effort to agree for instance about my Christian Faith.But then we talk about communism vs A free market society and subjectivism can’t work here.I tend to believe that perhaps she has a whole life in front of her, therefore a sea of possibilities of change and transformation.
Facts Matter.