Is there an objective truth?

The only truth is that there is no truth. Deep stuff isn't it?

>>2928774
yes and anyone who disagrees is a post modernist neo-marxist SJW who is actively trying to dismantle the philosophical foundations of western civilization

>>2928774
brianlet here, why would 1+1=2 not be viewed as objective truth?

>>2928779
go to bed jordan

>>2928781
numbers do not exist independent of the observer

>>2928774
Cogito ergo sum

>>2928781
because commie pomo infiltrators want you to think:
>there are many different ways to interpret [thing] (great example would be a piece of literature)
>the way you interpret [thing] is greatly influenced by your race, upbringing and (((class)))
>therefore all interpretations of [thing] are equally valid, and the only reason why we exchange interpretations through speech is because we want to advance the interests of people who have similar interpretations (racial groups, etc)
>western civilization is phallogocentric, oppressive, dominated by white men, and must be destroyed at all costs

>>2928774
Yes, but we can only ever guess what it is apart from >>2928792

>>2928774
Probably, but you're going to have to define what you mean by truth. Certainly anything communicated by language is subjective, because we only perceive a small subset of what we experience. Exactly what subset that is depends very heavily on the individual and the specific circumstances, so I can't communicate an event to you, only my interpretation of it. Photographs and videos are more objective because they can transfer data that the original viewer may not have perceived, but by nature they can't impart the full experience of the event.

>>2928781
because you have no way of determining that the tool you used to understand that (your mind) is correct or not faulty

I think at least, I too am a brainlet

>>2928789
Retarted. If a dinosaur killed another dinosaur there would be one less dinosaur

>>2928774
>Are there facts that remain true independent of the observer?

Even if there are, no one can know with certainty.

By definition, no.
By pragmatism, i.e, using the word "objective" as it is supposed to be used, plenty

>>2928774
Yes. If it were true that there are no objective truths then the statement "there are no objective truths" would be objectively true, which is absurd. Therefore there are objective truths

>>2928837
dinosaurs don't exist independent of the observer