Why is subjectivity truth

Imagine standing before a masterpiece in a museum. A scientist can measure the exact wavelengths of light bouncing off the canvas, and a chemist can analyze the precise molecular makeup of the paint. They have found the objective facts, but have they found the *truth* of the painting? If the art moves you to tears, changing how you view your entire life, isn't that deeply personal, subjective experience a much more profound truth than a list of chemical formulas? This is the core insight of the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who famously proposed that "subjectivity is truth." Kierkegaard was not arguing that we can make up our own scientific facts. Instead, he was pointing out that the most important questions in life—questions about love, morality, purpose, and faith—cannot be answered by looking through a microscope. ## Knowing vs. Existing To understand this concept, we have to look at how Kierkegaard contrasted objective knowledge with subjective truth. In his landmark 1846 work, [*Concluding Unscientific Postscript*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concluding_Unscientific_Postscript_to_Philosophical_Fragments), he explained that objective truth is concerned with *what* is known, while subjective truth is concerned with *how* it is known. > "When the question of truth is raised in an objective manner, reflection is directed objectively to the truth, as an object to which the knower is related. Reflection is not focussed upon the relationship, but upon whether it is the truth, the true thing, to which the knower is related. When the challenge of the truth is raised subjectively, reflection is directed subjectively to the relationship of the individual." For Kierkegaard, a person could hold all the "correct" objective beliefs but live a completely meaningless life. True truth is not a set of facts you memorize; it is something you *exist* in. It requires passion, commitment, and personal risk. For example, you can objectively study the concept of "love" by reading psychology textbooks. But you only know the *truth* of love when you actually risk your heart and love another person. That truth is entirely subjective, yet it is the most real thing you will ever experience. ## Why This Matters Today In our modern world, we are flooded with data, algorithms, and statistics. We are often taught that only what can be measured is real. But the subjective-as-truth perspective rescues the human experience. It reminds us that your values, your grief, your joy, and your ethical choices are not secondary to science. They are the very arena where your life's truth is decided. To explore more about Kierkegaard's unique way of looking at the world, you can read about his philosophy of [Existentialism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/) at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. --- ## Keep Exploring To dive deeper into this idea, consider these questions: 1. If subjectivity is truth, how do we prevent this idea from slipping into dangerous relativism, where anyone can claim their harmful actions are "their truth"? 2. How does Kierkegaard's concept of the "leap of faith" help us make big life decisions when objective logic fails to give us a clear answer? 3. In an era of artificial intelligence that can process infinite objective data, does our capacity for subjective, passionate experience become the ultimate definition of what it means to be human?

Imagine a world where a thief arrested for stealing your bicycle could simply look the judge in the eye and say, "In my personal truth, that bicycle belonged to me," and walk away free. If we accept the famous idea that "subjectivity is truth," how do we stop society from sliding into a dangerous free-for-all where any harmful action can be justified as someone's personal reality? This question brings us to the heart of existential philosophy. Far from offering an "anything goes" escape hatch, the thinkers who championed subjectivity actually demanded a terrifying level of personal responsibility. ## Defining the Core: Subjectivity vs. Relativism To understand why subjectivity does not equal lawlessness, we must define our terms. - **Relativism** is the belief that there are no absolute truths or moral standards. It suggests that what is "right" is merely a matter of opinion or cultural agreement. - **Subjectivity** (in the existential sense) refers to how an individual internalizes truth and lives it out. The Danish philosopher [Søren Kierkegaard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard), who famously championed the idea that "subjectivity is truth" in his 1846 book *Concluding Unscientific Postscript*, was not saying that facts do not exist. Instead, he argued that objective facts are useless unless they are lived passionately and ethically by the individual. For Kierkegaard, truth is about *how* you live, not just *what* you know. ## The Existential Guardrails: Responsibility and the "Other" How do we prevent this from becoming dangerous? Existentialist thinkers built powerful "guardrails" into their philosophy to prevent subjectivity from turning into harmful egoism. ### 1. Radical Responsibility The French philosopher [Jean-Paul Sartre](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre) argued in his lecture [Existentialism is a Humanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism_is_a_Humanism) that we are entirely free, but this freedom comes with an overwhelming weight. > "When we say that man chooses himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men." According to Sartre, when you make a choice, you are not just deciding what is right for you. You are painting a portrait of what a human being *ought* to be. If you choose to lie, you are endorsing a world of liars. Therefore, subjectivity requires a deep, universal responsibility. ### 2. The Freedom of Others Sartre's lifelong partner, the philosopher [Simone de Beauvoir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir), tackled the danger of relativism directly in her book [The Ethics of Ambiguity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethics_of_Ambiguity). She argued that your personal freedom is deeply connected to the freedom of everyone else. You cannot genuinely value your own freedom while actively oppressing or harming others. To deny another person's freedom is to undermine the very value of freedom itself. ## The Ultimate Question Subjective truth is not a shield to hide behind when we do wrong; it is a mirror that asks us: *What kind of world are we creating through our actions?* If you claim a harmful action is "your truth," are you truly acting in freedom, or are you just trying to escape the heavy burden of being responsible to the rest of humanity?