Soulists believe that if objectivity exists, it’s inaccessible to human minds at our current level of development. And if beliefs can’t be sorted by objective truth, then our criterion for deciding what we should believe is by how useful a belief is.
Okay, reasonable
Or in simpler terms, usefulness decides truth.
Wait what?
If the big questions are unsolvable, you don’t stress over them, you do what you can.
Okay yeah, that’s me, and I’d think most reasonable people as well.
It is me, or the author, who’s having trouble with the word “truth” (and “believe”)?
This same author, in another article, defines ‘soulism’ as basically anarcho-antirealism. Outside of that, it’s hardly been written about, so They kinda get to define it however They want, but Their description seems to contradict itself
I don’t see the contradiction between soulism and anarcho-antirealism. Soulism as a term originates on the internet as anarchism which opposes natural laws. Destroying natural laws requires destroying the system that places reality above people. In other words, destroying realism.
The truth is what we should believe. According to realists, we should believe in reality. According to realists, truth is objective. According to soulists, we should believe in whatever’s useful. According to soulists, truth is a choice and we have a responsibility to make a good choice.
It sounds like They describe soulists as arguing that the truth is unknowable, so believe nothing and simply use the most helpful assumptions as a guide.
And elsewhere it sounds like They’re saying soulists delude themselves into fully believing those most helpful assumptions as objective truth
Soulists definitely don’t believe in an objective anything. I wrote the article, and I can’t see any part of it where I said soulists believe in an objective truth.
Let’s take this theory into the practical. “Trans women are women.” Is that an objective truth? No, women don’t objectively exist. It’s a subjective truth. But it’s a very important subjective truth that everyone needs to agree with and genuinely believe in if we’re going to have a free society.
Ah okay, so it is me who’s having trouble with the word “truth”.
To me, the default definition of ‘truth’ is objective truth, but in this context it’s more broad than that, right?
So when You said “usefulness decides truth”, I read it as “usefulness decides objective truth” (which I see now is not the correct way to understand what You wrote).
“subjective truth” just seems like an oxymoron to me, though I see it’s a fairly hot topic now that I’m looking into it
Regarding Your practical example, I would argue that “woman” is a social construct which objectively exists. Though I get what You’re saying and I agree
Thank You for sharing your article and discussing it with me btw (also I really enjoy Your writing style)
Thank you. In the spirit of this article which says that everyone naturally thinks like a soulist, please allow Me to argue that you’re already familiar with the concept of subjective truth. “Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father.” That’s not an objective truth either. Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker don’t exist. Star Wars isn’t real. It’s just a story. Yet, the vast majority of people in our society can all agree that Vader is Luke’s father (unless they’re making an argument that Anakin and Vader are different people). It’s a truth culturally ubiquitous. Everyone knows it.
You already intuitively understand how to navigate the concept of fictional truth. You might be familiar with the term “canon”. You know how to make arguments about what is and isn’t canon, and you have opinions about canon, which you’re capable of defending. There is no objectivity in fiction. It’s all made up. If we all decided that Luke is Rey’s father, it would be true. The truth is whatever you can convince people to believe. And you know how to navigate these kinds of situations. You don’t need objectivity in order to work with truth. You never did.
When I say “Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father”, the rest of the sentence “in the fictional Star Wars universe” is implied. When you consider the implied part, the statement is an objective truth. The objective truth in a work of fiction is either decided by the creator or is unknowable.
In other words, the implied statement that I don’t say out loud because it’s unnecessary and pedantic is “The character ‘Darth Vader’ is, according to the creator, George Lucas, the father of the character ‘Luke Skywalker’ in the fictional ‘Star Wars universe’.”
Are other people not implying that part when they say things like that? I’m autistic and this is a genuine question.
Edit: to be clear though, I do understand ‘subjective truth’ when it comes to things like interpreting art and such- like I get why that’s a term
Edit #2: I remember there being a user on Lemmy that uses capitalized pronouns. Is that You? Should l be capitalizing Your pronouns? (Asking bc of Your username)
Okay, reasonable
Wait what?
Okay yeah, that’s me, and I’d think most reasonable people as well.
It is me, or the author, who’s having trouble with the word “truth” (and “believe”)?
This same author, in another article, defines ‘soulism’ as basically anarcho-antirealism. Outside of that, it’s hardly been written about, so They kinda get to define it however They want, but Their description seems to contradict itself
I don’t see the contradiction between soulism and anarcho-antirealism. Soulism as a term originates on the internet as anarchism which opposes natural laws. Destroying natural laws requires destroying the system that places reality above people. In other words, destroying realism.
No I’m not trying to imply any contradiction there. I meant the parts I quoted
The truth is what we should believe. According to realists, we should believe in reality. According to realists, truth is objective. According to soulists, we should believe in whatever’s useful. According to soulists, truth is a choice and we have a responsibility to make a good choice.
It sounds like They describe soulists as arguing that the truth is unknowable, so believe nothing and simply use the most helpful assumptions as a guide.
And elsewhere it sounds like They’re saying soulists delude themselves into fully believing those most helpful assumptions as objective truth
That’s an important difference
Soulists definitely don’t believe in an objective anything. I wrote the article, and I can’t see any part of it where I said soulists believe in an objective truth.
Let’s take this theory into the practical. “Trans women are women.” Is that an objective truth? No, women don’t objectively exist. It’s a subjective truth. But it’s a very important subjective truth that everyone needs to agree with and genuinely believe in if we’re going to have a free society.
Ah okay, so it is me who’s having trouble with the word “truth”.
To me, the default definition of ‘truth’ is objective truth, but in this context it’s more broad than that, right?
So when You said “usefulness decides truth”, I read it as “usefulness decides objective truth” (which I see now is not the correct way to understand what You wrote).
“subjective truth” just seems like an oxymoron to me, though I see it’s a fairly hot topic now that I’m looking into it
Regarding Your practical example, I would argue that “woman” is a social construct which objectively exists. Though I get what You’re saying and I agree
Thank You for sharing your article and discussing it with me btw (also I really enjoy Your writing style)
Thank you. In the spirit of this article which says that everyone naturally thinks like a soulist, please allow Me to argue that you’re already familiar with the concept of subjective truth. “Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father.” That’s not an objective truth either. Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker don’t exist. Star Wars isn’t real. It’s just a story. Yet, the vast majority of people in our society can all agree that Vader is Luke’s father (unless they’re making an argument that Anakin and Vader are different people). It’s a truth culturally ubiquitous. Everyone knows it.
You already intuitively understand how to navigate the concept of fictional truth. You might be familiar with the term “canon”. You know how to make arguments about what is and isn’t canon, and you have opinions about canon, which you’re capable of defending. There is no objectivity in fiction. It’s all made up. If we all decided that Luke is Rey’s father, it would be true. The truth is whatever you can convince people to believe. And you know how to navigate these kinds of situations. You don’t need objectivity in order to work with truth. You never did.
This just feels like funny semantics?
When I say “Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father”, the rest of the sentence “in the fictional Star Wars universe” is implied. When you consider the implied part, the statement is an objective truth. The objective truth in a work of fiction is either decided by the creator or is unknowable.
In other words, the implied statement that I don’t say out loud because it’s unnecessary and pedantic is “The character ‘Darth Vader’ is, according to the creator, George Lucas, the father of the character ‘Luke Skywalker’ in the fictional ‘Star Wars universe’.”
Are other people not implying that part when they say things like that? I’m autistic and this is a genuine question.
Edit: to be clear though, I do understand ‘subjective truth’ when it comes to things like interpreting art and such- like I get why that’s a term
Edit #2: I remember there being a user on Lemmy that uses capitalized pronouns. Is that You? Should l be capitalizing Your pronouns? (Asking bc of Your username)