Simple question today. Does Truth exist? This is a Yes or No question, and the only other option you you can say is 'You cannot say, because it's subjective'.
So, Yes, No, or 'You cannot say'?
I have touched in the last excerpt that there are two types of Truth. There is an absolute objective truth, and a subjective relativistic truth. The first concept is something we can associate with the words: 'fact, truth, actually', the second concept is more associated with: 'Beliefs, opinions, arguments, stands.' Both truths are essential to humanity and can correspond with each other, and when they don't its usually why people say 'you're thinking is wrong'.
Many people consciously or subconsciously acknowledge the existence of Truth. They may be complete atheists, psychotic scientists, cloistered nuns or a deranged philosopher living in Lala Land, and they can say 'Yes' or 'No' to the above question, but as long as they have a definite stand in life and are realists, it can be said that they are advocates of Truth. For as much as Science advocating the existence of Truth (objectively via logic, as I said last time), Religion too advocates the Truth, although in a much more subjective and metaphysical method method. (Note that I had capitalized the T in both Science and Religion, I will explain why in the Moderation Doctrine next time)
So in other words, There is no such thing as 'No'. Because to say 'no', some form of logic or belief has to be worked out to substantiate the answer, and neither logic or belief can work out if there is no conclusion- or 'true' answer to the question of truth I had placed to you in the first place. So if you said 'no' I can say that you are contradicting yourself, so- go suck your thumb eh? LOL.
As for those who said 'You cannot say, because it is subjective' and REALLY maintain that things are absolutely relativists (a.k.a. they are the opposite of realists). have they not fallen into the Relativist Fallacy themselves? For on what grounds can they REALLY maintain that "the truth is subjective" when it is everything is relative as according to them? They cannot counter-argue this statement, for they cannot even have a conviction in the first place. So- if you said 'You cannot say, because it is subjective' and really maintain it that way, you can't do anything either. So- go suck you thumb too eh? LOL
So, can I say that there be it Objective or Subjective (please don't confuse this Subjective with the subjective I had associated with the relativists- because a Subjective truth, being a conviction, is also a Truth), there is at least a truth out there? I believe that we can safely say 'yes' to the above question. I have proven the existence of truth today via logic, and some illiterate old man could have come out with the same answer by looking simply believing it's true. Either way, we are realists- and advocates of truth.
17 January 2009
Does Truth Exist?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Then again, WHAT IS TRUTH?
One dogged religious person's "truth" can be an atheist's lie. Better still, religion A's truth can be religion B's lie. And since so many people believe in each side of the story, what is Truth? or rather, which is the Common Truth?
If we cannot establish the common truth, how do we know whether truth exists? Because to know it exists, we have to test it by scientific methods. And in order to do so, we have to first pinpoint What Truth entails.
And at the very heart of it, who defined truth to be truth? Is truth defined by "a well established view of certain things that can be replicated or proven successfully over space and time". Then what if we're in fact, limited by space and time such that we do not see the WHOLE truth. i.e. We might be convinced that North is North, but being unaware that we're in fact conducting experiments on top of a gigantic magnet.
So does Truth really exist? And what IS truth?
There are many definitions on truth. Quoting Dictionary.com, we can see that definition 1,3,5, and 8 defines truth on an objectivistic approach. Definitions 4,6,7 and 11 defines it to be subjective to human standards,definitions
2,9 and 11 defines truth to be subjective corresponding objective truth.
Wikipedia has mantained that there are no definite definitions on truth. Indeed, it is impossible to define the truth of Truth itself- if we were to let the word define be the mathematical sign '=' and Truth associate a value 'X', it would be self-fufilling to write X=X and try to solve the equation from there.
Hence integrating both pieces of information logically, we can see that the Truth is broadly split into Objective Truths, Subjective Truths, and their relation (correspondence) with each other.
Humans have long seeked methods to try to define Truth and prove it's existance, and it is correct that many of their methods may be conflicting if not confusing. However, it is interesting to note that regardless the Atheist or the Moralist or the scientific philosopher, they all have one thing in common when it comes to the issue of Truth:
They first believe/assume the existance of the truth, and then they try to prove it's existance from there.
Science aims at the objective Truth- it has to have an aim so that whatever logical theories that may come out of it, be true or at least approximately true.
Religion on the other hand does not come up with hypotheses, arguments, and experiments to prove it's Truth. Unlike Science, most religions have their followers fediestically believing in the Truth that they advocate to before they attempt to prove it logically via theology and meta-ethnics.
Either way, Truth has to be assumed before proven.
Perhaps we may never get to know the Truth in our lives, or even find an appropriate definition for it. But either way, we have to assume it's existance- to attempt to classify it under the 3 big spectrums of Objectivity, Subjectivity and their Corresponding relations. And, like what Science, Religion, and Philosophy, attempt to define it from within.
Interesting.
Dont mind if i share some of my views on this intriguing topic.
I had always thought that Science and religion were "subsets" of the "Truth" In that both would complement each other rather than conflict. If taken individually as seperate "entities", religion or science would come across as "incomplete".
What is truth? The truth, as the world seems to see it, is incomplete. From what i experience, people would rather try and disprove religion using science than try to co-relate them. Cross-referencing to 'There is a Conflict btw Science and Religion' Posted by Jelemsei ( Pls dun mind for quoting your older posts :) ) and "The science of God" by Gerald S, i feel the "truth" would be easier to seek if such co-relation was further extensively researched.
They key would be to try and find a sort of "balance" in utilising the views presented by religion, science and philosophy.
As for the actual definition of "truth", i dont know. It cannot be defined but we all know it exists. No name or description would seem to do it justice IMO. It exists and people are seeking it as seen in how people turn so willingly to, for example, their religion when all manner of "sense" and "logic" fails(as in the case of an exasperated person). Another example would be the inate tendency in people to seek out "idols" when "gods" are not necessarily present in their lives.
It is inate in us to seek and if it is, according to metaphysical subjectivism, we have already proven that a TRUTH exists.
Post a Comment