- Objective truth: the physical world as it is. There are no "chairs" in this world (would an ant recognize a chair, or a bacteria?) - only data from which we can derive patterns.
- Consensus truth: what people have agreed to be true, often via perception or abstract logic. This is math, that is red, this is a chair, that is democracy.
- Subjective truth: what I believe to be true, by my own rationality or my own perception. This can sometimes deviate from consensus truth (eg. optical illusions).
There must be a term for this philosophical position, but I haven't found it yet (or the thinker associated with it). Obviously this is due to my ignorance because this is not a particularly profound metaphysical position to take.
- Survival based truth: what we believe in order to keep being alive and make more of us. The moment we mess too much, we're not there any more. An unforgiving, but strangely, also somewhat flexible truth.
I think this is the winner, at least for people and animals. It's got an internal self-righting system and transcends distinctions such as objective, subjective and consensus - it's all of them. It's the kind of truth that keeps existing by adapting to the world, or else it gets eradicated.
I believe this is what Jordan Peterson calls "Darwininan truth." He thinks it is the ultimate truth, but Sam Harris (on the side of "Newtonian truth") would certainly beg to differ.
I can only imagine that there are both, the "Darwinian" one that we humans use as an interface to an underlying, patternless, data-oriented "Newtonian truth."
The fact that you acknowledge there exists an objective truth means you're a philosophical realist, as opposed to an idealist.
The fact that you recognize there's a subjective truth, and that it can differ from the objective truth, hints at philosophical skepticism -- though skepticism goes a bit further and claims the objective truth is essentially unknowable.
I don't really understand your "consensus truth" category. The things you list are just labels, not truth statements. Apples and oranges.
I don't know any name for it but I've wondered about those same delineations (my term for the second is "consensus-based reality"). I worry about to what extent the first one can be said to definitely exist.
Can you prove Dick's statement is true? Denying reality is a very powerful trick. Any unavoidable physical consequence inside reality can be ignored by a sufficiently aversive mind.
Consider the differences between these claims:
"My reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
"Your reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
and bonus:
"Fantasy is that which, no matter how much you believe in it, doesn't come to be."
With political and other scandals where you get into believing the propaganda but then there are awkward facts that just can't be erased. Yet the world goes on ignoring the facts that, if taken into consideration, mean the convenient narrative verging on a fable can only be a lie.
The fact that disproves everything could be a five second clip from headline news reporting made decades ago, only broadcast live. Or the first edition version of a newsprint article revised in the 'final edition' that did make it to microfiche. Or a forum repost from a decade ago, now lost to a content management system update. These clues are everywhere, sometimes ignored due to 'fast moving events' where we are collectively still trying to learn the story and pertinent details and little clues are lost to the big picture we are still trying to see.
Maybe only with sci-fi can this be told, with real events too much opinion shaped by TV and the PR companies gets in the way.
Not believing in realty is semantically suspect. Delusion still provides a (false) reality in which to live. Hell if anything it’s evidence of active questioning to perceive anything.
- Objective truth: the physical world as it is. There are no "chairs" in this world (would an ant recognize a chair, or a bacteria?) - only data from which we can derive patterns.
- Consensus truth: what people have agreed to be true, often via perception or abstract logic. This is math, that is red, this is a chair, that is democracy.
- Subjective truth: what I believe to be true, by my own rationality or my own perception. This can sometimes deviate from consensus truth (eg. optical illusions).
There must be a term for this philosophical position, but I haven't found it yet (or the thinker associated with it). Obviously this is due to my ignorance because this is not a particularly profound metaphysical position to take.
Does anyone know the name of this?