Dive Deep: Is Truth Subjective? (2/9/23 - 3 PM EST)

Hey everyone! I would like to do a biweekly zoom chat where we dive deep into very interesting topics. I think we can all learn from eachother and expand our minds when diving deeper into these kinds of conversations. Some will be controversial and hit some deeper notes but I want to go into uncomftorable territory because usually that’s where the most growth is.

But to start, this thursday at 3 PM EST, I want to dive deep into a more simpler question:

Is truth subjective?

Couple of questions in regards to this would be:

  1. How do individual perspectives and biases impact the concept of truth?
  2. Can multiple perspectives coexist in regards to the same truth?
  3. Is the pursuit of objective truth a worthwhile endeavor or is it inherently flawed?
  4. To what extent does culture and society shape our understanding of truth?
  5. How does language influence our perception of truth?
  6. Can subjective experiences lead to universal truths?
  7. Is it possible to separate emotions and personal opinions from objective truth?
  8. How does personal experiences shape our beliefs about truth?
  9. Can scientific evidence provide a universally accepted truth?
  10. In a world of misinformation, how can we distinguish truth from false information?

I know some of you are probably like… I WANT TO ANSWER THESE NOW. Lol, it’s okay. After Thursday’s zoom chat, this thread can open up discussion and people who couldn’t join can add their two cents.

But obviously, I first want to know if this is something people are interested in. If you are, like the post. So I can gauge if this is an idea worth pursuing.

I will still do the thursday chat because… I’m sure one or two of you will join (I would hope lmao). So if you want to join on Thursday, do PM me so I can send you an invite link on Thursday.

Also, you don’t need to be on video or audio. You can chat on the chat if you like as well.


Thank You.
It sounds very promising, I would really Enjoy hearing you and others talk about these subjects, plus a thread after? Awesome.


I’m out there!


Yo @sammyg is it Thursday or Tuesday?

Cuz the title says 2/7/23 which is Tuesday


Ok breaking the rules here, but that’s why I used to call myself wildchild (ok Sammy don’t spit out your sapien tea lol)-

Can we start with the definition of the word “truth”? And differentiate between relative and absolute truth?



Sure thing.


Thursday. Fixed that. And look forward to it!


Me :eyes: :fast_forward: it!!


This sounds awesome i’m in


I’m in :slight_smile:


Love this new zoom deep dive series, @SammyG ! What a good and important topic to start with, IMO.

What are the universal truths? how do we really know?
How do we discern the real truth?

I’m in!


Simple answer, no.

However, humans generally do not have the capacity to achieve what is required for the truth to be revealed in a way that would make it fully apparent & known. Truth is a byproduct of understanding. When something is fully & accurately understood from a single perspective of any given topic/concept, that understanding reveals what is true. When all the perspectives are fully & accurately understood, all of the things that are true are brought together to reveal the truth. I guess you could use a very poor analogy to say that what is true is singular and the truth is plural.

This is a work of mastery, generally beyond the scope of any one human working alone. However, if we all work together sharing what we know to be true, while also helping to verify the accuracy of the understanding that drives those things thought to be true by others, it is possible to get much closer to the truth than we ever could alone.

Hope this helps, have fun with your discussion.


Probably not going to be able to join, so here is my answer in written form:

My answer is yes, it is.

It is all 100% subjective experienced truth.


Consciousness is the only real thing.
It is the observer and manifestor at the same time.
So it observes and experiences only that truth that it has created in the first place.

So what subjective truths one participates in and is part of, only depends on which larger pieces of consciousness one is also temporarily part of.

For example we as small consciousness fragments making a human experience, are experiencing truth in a way that is subject to your own manifestations and the manifestations of the consciousnesses of our species, our planet and that of the physical universe.
But all of this is still 100% subjective and limited to that greater consciousness we are currently participating with according to our current choices.

If god/source is the ultimate EVERYTHING consciousness, then there is still no objective truth, but simply god completely deciding what it wants to experience. Since god encompasses ALL consciousness it 100% completely manifests and observes its own subjective truth all the time.



Probably the most rational thinkers around this subject were Freud and Lacan.

Scientific Discourse

Both Freud and Lacan use the term “science” in the singular, thus implying that there is a specific unified, homogeneous kind of discourse that can be called “scientific”.

This discourse begins, according to Lacan, in the seventeenth century [1], with the inauguration of modern physics.[2].

Sigmund Freud
Science and Religion

Freud regarded science as one of civilization’s highest achievements, and opposed it to the reactionary forces of religion.

Jacques Lacan

Lacan’s attitude to science is more ambiguous.

On the one hand, he criticizes modern science for ignoring the symbolic dimension of human existence and thus encouraging modern man “to forget his subjectivity.”[3].

He also compares modern science to a “fully realised paranoia,” in the sense that its totalizing constructions resemble the architecture of a delusion.[4]

Positivist Model

On the other hand, these criticisms are not levelled at science per se, but at the positivist model of science.

Lacan implies that positivism is actually a deviation from “true science”, and his own model of science owes more to the rationalism of Koyré, Bachelard and Canguilhem than to empiricism.


In other words, for Lacan, what marks a discourse as scientific is a high degree of mathematical formalization.

This is what lies behind Lacan’s attempts to formalize psychoanalytic theory in terms of various mathematical formulae.

These formulae also encapsulate a further characteristic of scientific discourse, which is that it should be transmissible.[5].


Lacan argues that science is characterized by a particular relationship to truth.

On the one hand, it attempts to monopolize truth as its exclusive property [6]; and, on the other hand, science is in fact based on a foreclosure of the concept of truth as cause.[7].


Science is also characterised by a particular relationship to knowledge (savoir), in that science is based on the exclusion of any access to knowledge by recourse to intuition and thus forces all the search for knowledge to follow only the path of reason.[8].

“Subject of Science”

The modern subject is the “subject of science” in the sense that this exclusively rational route to knowledge is now a common presupposition.

In stating that psychoanalysis operates only the subject of science,[9] Lacan is arguing that psychoanalysis is not based on any appeal to an ineffable experience or flash of intuition, but on a process of reasoned dialogue, even when reason confronts its limit in madness.

Human And Natural Sciences

Although the distinction between the human sciences and the natural sciences had become quite well-established by the end of the nineteenth century, it does not figure in Freud’s work.

Lacan, on the other hand, pays great attention to this distinction.

However, rather than talking of the “human sciences” and the “natural sciences”, Lacan prefers instead to talk of the “conjectural sciences” and the “exact sciences.”

Conjectural and Exact Sciences

Whereas the exact sciences concern the field of phenomena in which there is no one who uses a signifier,[10] the conjectural sciences are fundamentally different because they concern beings who inhabit the symbolic order.

In 1965, however, Lacan problematizes the distinction between conjectural and exact sciences:

The opposition between the exact sciences and the conjectural sciences can no longer be sustained from the moment when conjecture is susceptible to an exact calculation and when exactitude is based only on a formalism which separates axioms and laws of grouping symbols.[11]

Whereas in the last century physics provided a paradigm of exactitude for the exact sciences which made the conjectural sciences seem sloppy by comparison, the arrival on the scene of structural linguistics redressed the imbalance by providing an equally exact paradigm for the conjectural sciences.

Natural Sciences

When Freud borrowed terms from other sciences, it was always from the natural sciences because these were the only sciences around in Freud’s day that provided a model of rigorous investigation and thought.

Lacan differs from Freud by importing concepts mainly from the “sciences of subjectivity,” and by aligning psychoanalytic theory with these rather than with the natural sciences.

Lacan argues that this paradigm shift is in fact implicit in Freud’s own reformulations of the concepts that he borrowed from the natural sciences.

Structural Linguistics

In other words, whenever Freud borrowed concepts from biology he reformulated those concepts so radically that he created a totally new paradigm which was quite alien to its biological origins.

Thus, according to Lacan, Freud anticipated the findings of modern structural linguists such as Saussure, and his work can be better understood in the light of these linguistic concepts.

Is Psychoanalysis a Science?

Freud was quite explicit in affirming the scientific status of psychoanalysis:

“While it was originally the name of a particular therapeutic method […] it has now also become the name of a science - the science of unconscious mental processes.”[12]

However, he also insisted on the unique character of psychoanalysis that sets it apart from the other sciences:

“Every science is based on observations and experiences arrived at through the medium of our psychical apparatus. But since our science has as its subject that apparatus itself, the analogy ends here.”[13]

Jacques Lacan

The question of the status of psychoanalysis and its relationship with other disciplines is also one to which Lacan devotes much attention.

In his pre-war writings, psychoanalysis is seen unreservedly in scientific terms.[14]

However, after 1950 Lacan’s attitude to the question becomes much more complex.


In 1953, he states that in the opposition science versus art, psychoanalysis can be located on the side of art, on condition that the term “art” is understood in the sense in which it was used in the Middle Ages, when the “liberal arts” included arithmetic, geometry, music and grammar.[15]


However, in the opposition science versus religion, Lacan follows Freud in arguing that psychoanalysis has more in common with scientific discourse than religious discourse:

“Psychoanalysis is not a religion. It proceeds from the same status as science itself.”[16]

Scientific Status

If, as Lacan argues, a science is only constituted as such by isolating and defining its particular object of enquiry, Lacan argues that psychoanalysis has actually set psychology on a scientific footing by providing it with a proper object of enquiry – the imago; [17][18] then, when in 1965 he isolates the objet petit a as the object of psychoanalysis, he is in effect claiming a scientific status for psychoanalysis.[19].

However, from this point on Lacan comes increasingly to question this view of psychoanalysis as a science.

In the same year he states that psychoanalysis is not a science but a “practice” (pratique) with a “scientific vocation”,[20] though in the same year he also speaks of 'the psychoanalytic science."[21].

By 1977 he has become more categorical:

Psychoanalysis is not a science. It has no scientific status - it merely waits and hopes for it. Psychoanalysis is a delusion - a delusion which is expected to produce a science. . . . It is a scientific delusion, but this doesn’t mean that analytic practice will ever produce a science. [22]

Linguistics and Mathematics

However, even when Lacan makes such statements, he never abandons the project of formalizing psychoanalytic theory in linguistic and mathematical terms.

Indeed, the tension between the scientific formalism of the matheme and the semantic profusion of lalangue constitutes one of the most interesting features of Lacan’s later work.

1 Like

This one is also good.


Lol I said no answers yet but ya’ll couldn’t help yourselves haha. Still, I enjoyed reading these answers and they expanded my views on the subject and will be used for the discussion. So thanks!

I’ll be sending the zoom links to everyone in a bit.


Love you, Sammy! :slight_smile:

1 Like

I want to join please

can u send me link

Interested, please send link

1 Like