Since Psychopomp didn't bother to post this week, just messing, I shall jump in put forth a topic that I want to see on here. That being the truth. What is the definition of truth? Is it universal?
My opinion of Truth is that of relativity. There is no logical way for their to be an absolute truth in philosophy of course. It becomes problematic when we delve into tautologies and scientific laws. In the scope of idealogy and interpretation through observation, it is rare that any two human beings view things identically. I'm very interested in where this might go and in all of your ideas. Please post and hopefully through my responses I can fully develop my ideas as it is difficult to put together a coherent opinion with so many different possible situations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Absolute can mean a few things...
It can mean something you know without a doubt, but that's more so a personal absolute truth or it can universaly absolute that everyone will agree on. And as far as the latter goes, I believe since people are so different, is that people can not agree on things all the time. So following that logic, the only absolute truth is... there is no absolute truth.
I know that sounds like a cop-out but yeah.
To have a general discussion on the truth, it will be necessary to pick subject matters as examples. I am going to stick to a definition of the truth that limits it to absolute truths. For instance, 2 + 2 = 4. That is the truth. I can defend that truth against all who would like to debate it. It is an easy truth to see.
Really, that's where I'm going to draw the line. There are some truths that are easy to see, and there are some where the truth can be debated reasonably. In the cases where the truth could be debated, there will still be an absolute truth, wether it can be determined or not. If there is no absolute truth to a specific question, then any answer given to that question would be an opinion, not a truth.
So, on to some examples:
There is a truthful answer to the question, "Is there a God?" I state that as fact, and I can debate reasonably that I am correct in that assertion. I don't know if there is a God or not, but I know that the answer is either yes or no. Now, to debate the answer, wether there is a God or not, is problematic. There is simply a lack of evidence to support either answer. So, because of that you will hear as many opinions on the subject as people you ask, and no provable truths.
I figure that example should shoot straight to the heart of what this thread is trying to pry at.
This is the main example of a truth that is, in a certain way, dangerous to seek. It is not a question that should be seriously asked or debated by someone who is afraid of finding the answer. Other examples of dangerous truths could include: Who killed JFK? What really started World War I? Did Jesus Christ have a wife and children? Who really should have won the 2000 U.S. presidential election? Did Grape Ape cheat in the laugh Olympics?
...ok, so maybe that last one isn't too profound.... besides, we all know Grape Ape is a cheater!
haha
... sorry..
The point I'm trying to make is this: There are abolute truths for any question you can ask. In cases were there is limited evidence, or evidence can be called into question you will not be able to find absolute provable answers. In those cases you will have to decide what can be ascertained from the available data, and you will make judgement calls in this process. You will get closer to the truth by this process, and further away at the same time.
The truth, they say, will set you free. However, that freedom doesn't necesarily bring comfort. It will most likely bring disillusionment. When you gather enough knowledge about different truths, and they all start to link together into one big picture of the way things really are, you will become lonely. If you are fearless in your quest for truth, you will one day look around and find that you are all alone, and that nobody can follow you to the new reality that your search for truth has created. You will have to communicate through a little window of self deception to remember the lies that create the universe that most of your peers exist in.
Take it from me, everything has a price. The price of truth is freedom. Freedom has it's good and bad qualities. Ignorance really can be blissful, when you look back on it in envy.
-Jammo
Very well formulated and I agree for the most part. I don't believe that eeverything has an absolute truth. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the quantum world completely random and unpredictable? And that is according to our knowledge right now but I do believe science just made the discovery that it all appears random because if you dive deeper into the quantum world, everything is really operating in uniformity...if the idea is everchanging then how could you possibly state that it has a truth that does not change? When I say truth in the quantum world, I'm referring to predicting when certain events will occur(trying to relate this to the 2+2=4 idea) Sorry if I butchered the question so again, please correct me if I'm wrong or dilusional.
I'm not positive that I'm completely up to speed on the ever changing world of quantum physics, although I do have somewhat of a grasp of it, so I'll do my best to answer you. The last book that I read dealing with quantum physics was the Tao of Physics, the updated version. Although that book is a study of the relationship between eastern religions and physics, the physics section was newly updated and very heavy to comprehend. Either way,it was more up to date than the physics I learned in school. BTW, I highly suggest reading it if you have interest in this area.
It is my understanding that the quantum world isn't completely random, but there are random events, to be certain. For instance electrons are not as simple as what they were described to me in school. When they blow up atoms in a particle accelerator, there should always be a set number of electrons showing up for a specific atom. The thing is, they sometimes don't appear, or sometimes they appear in two different places at the same time. I repeat, matter can exist in two different places at the same time. They also are now described more as a wave than a particle, and they would say that a particular electron has a "probability of existing" somewhere along it's wave. They admit that they can randomly disappear, or exist simultaneously in two different places, and yes, it's very random.
Now, the situation gets even more complex when you delve into even smaller sub atomic particles.
Still, with all of that said, Einstien's simpler model of the atom is still basically accurate. It's just not quite as detailed and complete as the modern model, but it accurately describes the basic makeup of atoms.
Therefore, I would say that Einstien's description of quantum physics is still a truth, albeit one that needs to be expounded upon.
What happens to truth when we use our own definitions? You say 2+2=4 but what if 2 is 3 to someone else? Who then is correct in their affirmations? Do remember that we define things by what we observe and they are very tentative.
YES!! NOW THE MAGIC IS HAPPENING!!
hahahahaha... I was waiting for someone to challenge my assertion that 2+2 does indeed equal 4. Well done blind watchmaker. Now we have a blog.
In your question you have illustrated a classic limitation of philosophical debate!
THE LIMITATION OF COMMUNICATION:
In a previous blog I started to make the point that language limits our ability to express things to each other. This much is plain to see. Say the word "faggot" to someone in Ohio and it means homosexual, say it to someone in Scotland and it means cigarette, originally it means a flaming stick of wood.
So, now think about the fact that all of the words we use have been bastardized from other languages, or have changed meanings over time, or are used in slang fashions on occasion where they take on whole new meanings.
You get an idea in your head and go to express it to someone standing in front of you and you have to make approximations of your idea so that you can apply common words to describe it. Then that person is going to take your approximated words, and form an idea in their head that also cannot be accurately expressed in language and you can see how impossible it is to completly express an idea from one individual to the next.
Wich brings us back to 2+2=4.
It would seem, because of it's simpler and more consistent nature, that mathmatics then is a more perfect way to communicate.
In fact, it is a less accurate way to communicate.
2+2=4 seems perfect until you apply it to a situation. Let's say we have 2 apples, and we add 2 more apples to it, so we have four, right? However, applying units to apples makes an ASSUMPTION that all of the apples are equal. In fact every single apple varies. This one weighs 6 oz., that one 9 oz. This one is a Jonathan apple, and that one is a granny Smith. ... and so on.
Now, let's say you were working with a much more complex equation. Realizing that each number, and each variable represents an assumption we must conclude that the more complex an equation is, the more assumptions have been made.
So, your question is "What happens to the truth when we use our own definitions?" I say that all you have is your own definitions. Sure, you could look up the definition of "truth" in a dictionary, but you'll still be forming a mental image or opinion of it in your head as you read over a bunch of other words that are used in billions of other scentences and definitions. A dictionary is a list of approximations described by other approximations.
So, do I have the same idea about truth as anyone else? I guarantee that I do not. Nobody shares the same opinion about anything. It's not even possible.
Watchmaker, I would also like to say that the last thing you were getting at about defining things by what we observe is probably the only true thing that has been said in this entire thread.
Sorry about that, apparently I am a rather poor typist. As I was saying the question really just boils down to if the truth is subjective to our own realities and how we define it, what constitutes reality as reality is the affirmation of what we know to be truth.
Ok to expound on the idea of truth, yes truth to one self is our opinion on the subject or how we perceive the event at the very core, but the reason I didn't ask the "2+2=5" question is because those units were made to represent the value they posess to the masses. Sure, I could say that a football field looks to me like it is 200 yards long instead of 100 yards and base my entire life's calculations off of my conclusion. However, it would only make sense and be effective in one's own world. In order to communicate with anyone outside of one's mind frame, the numbers have to be changed to fit what the person(s) mind who one is communicating with understands.
So what you are saying is that there is an underlying truth to everything that we share with others? I have often misinterpreted what Krista has said to mean something entirely different and many of times found myself in trouble because of it. It is of my opinion that even if we consider the need for absolute truth we will still find it relative. I also pose the question to you, if it is your mind viewing the world and interpreting it, then can it not be that you are merely observing your own truths via looking at your own mind?
Post a Comment