Truth?
I'm writing this due to some considerations upon the nature of truth that I have stumbled upon in my friends. It's perhaps an attempt to clarify some things. Or maybe it's just me insidiously trying to make them change their minds.
What is truth?
Philosophers don't agree on it (surprise, surprise) but there tends to be a postmoderly influenced popular idea in Sweden that truth is relative. What would relative truth mean? Let's consider.
* Human beings make their own truth. This can mean any number of things, but many people aim for what in philosophy is called "idealism", the belief that the world is composed of the mental/spiritual rather than something physical which human beings are part. It's an alright thought at first, but I believe it has it's basis in a sort of egomania rather than anything else. It's quite nice to believe we are the center of the universe, and that if we didn't think it it would not exist. But really, when you think about it, you're going to find how absurd it sounds. Does anyone really believe that the sun was circulating the earth 600 years ago and then changed because of Copernicus? And what are you, then? Why are you, specifically, or human beings, endowned with this particular power to "make". You might come up with an idea of a God, etc, but I think you're soon going to find that you're just speculating wildly.
*Truth is relative. What does that mean? Does it even make sense to say? It's such a popular thing to say, but when you investigate it doesn't seem to make sense (sense is, by the way, the perfect word for this - think of how you derive "senseless" from it). Basically, we're going on the charge from idealism above that when you think about it in a longer process it does not make sense. Just because I believe X of Y and you believe Z of Y doesn't mean that one of us is right. Perhaps try to think of it negatively: not that one of must be right but that it doesn't mean either of us is right, or that both of us are or whatever just because we believe something. We've all believed things that we stopped believing in.
What's certainly important is to differentiate what realms we're talking about relative truth. In morality it is far easier to understand. Basically, what you would then mean is just that each culture/person builds their own morality in one way or the other and that one cannot say that one is "true". That's fine.
But in the physical world of atoms, facts, etc, what do you have to lean on? Some people do retreat to saying that it "all depends". For example, a table is not the same in our daily sense perception, Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian physics. That's fine! But then you're not really saying it depends on our perceptionl, as many seem to try to get at. Don't bite off more than you can philosophically swallow. Few people, even absolutist dogmatics would think that your idea of truth would be, well, acceptable at least.
Myself, I am swinging towards a radical empiricist way of thinking: truth must be incarnated somehow. Perhaps by correspondence between the mental idea, or proposition, and the reality. There are enormous difficulty imbued in that, but I just cannot see how Truth would be a Universal (ie, a Platonic Form).
There's a perception these days that believing in a truth creates totalitarian ideas. I think I can accept that: but it is not so by necessity. Maybe human beings are just so constructed that truth remains -vital- to us. It would make sense. Even David Hume, the sceptic, said that when he went to play billiard with his friends he didn't doubt the law of causality. It's impossible to be a practicing sceptic all the time. Just think about the ordinary things in your home. When you step into the shower, can you ever think about the water that falls on you as relative? Or that you've constructed the toilet seat in your mind and then it materialized in front of you? Does your computer disappear when you fall asleep on it?
Anyway. Certainly, we must remember that millions have died for the Truth (tm), and still do. But millions have also died because of fire, yet, I can hardly believe we should get rid of fire for that.
What is truth?
Philosophers don't agree on it (surprise, surprise) but there tends to be a postmoderly influenced popular idea in Sweden that truth is relative. What would relative truth mean? Let's consider.
* Human beings make their own truth. This can mean any number of things, but many people aim for what in philosophy is called "idealism", the belief that the world is composed of the mental/spiritual rather than something physical which human beings are part. It's an alright thought at first, but I believe it has it's basis in a sort of egomania rather than anything else. It's quite nice to believe we are the center of the universe, and that if we didn't think it it would not exist. But really, when you think about it, you're going to find how absurd it sounds. Does anyone really believe that the sun was circulating the earth 600 years ago and then changed because of Copernicus? And what are you, then? Why are you, specifically, or human beings, endowned with this particular power to "make". You might come up with an idea of a God, etc, but I think you're soon going to find that you're just speculating wildly.
*Truth is relative. What does that mean? Does it even make sense to say? It's such a popular thing to say, but when you investigate it doesn't seem to make sense (sense is, by the way, the perfect word for this - think of how you derive "senseless" from it). Basically, we're going on the charge from idealism above that when you think about it in a longer process it does not make sense. Just because I believe X of Y and you believe Z of Y doesn't mean that one of us is right. Perhaps try to think of it negatively: not that one of must be right but that it doesn't mean either of us is right, or that both of us are or whatever just because we believe something. We've all believed things that we stopped believing in.
What's certainly important is to differentiate what realms we're talking about relative truth. In morality it is far easier to understand. Basically, what you would then mean is just that each culture/person builds their own morality in one way or the other and that one cannot say that one is "true". That's fine.
But in the physical world of atoms, facts, etc, what do you have to lean on? Some people do retreat to saying that it "all depends". For example, a table is not the same in our daily sense perception, Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian physics. That's fine! But then you're not really saying it depends on our perceptionl, as many seem to try to get at. Don't bite off more than you can philosophically swallow. Few people, even absolutist dogmatics would think that your idea of truth would be, well, acceptable at least.
Myself, I am swinging towards a radical empiricist way of thinking: truth must be incarnated somehow. Perhaps by correspondence between the mental idea, or proposition, and the reality. There are enormous difficulty imbued in that, but I just cannot see how Truth would be a Universal (ie, a Platonic Form).
There's a perception these days that believing in a truth creates totalitarian ideas. I think I can accept that: but it is not so by necessity. Maybe human beings are just so constructed that truth remains -vital- to us. It would make sense. Even David Hume, the sceptic, said that when he went to play billiard with his friends he didn't doubt the law of causality. It's impossible to be a practicing sceptic all the time. Just think about the ordinary things in your home. When you step into the shower, can you ever think about the water that falls on you as relative? Or that you've constructed the toilet seat in your mind and then it materialized in front of you? Does your computer disappear when you fall asleep on it?
Anyway. Certainly, we must remember that millions have died for the Truth (tm), and still do. But millions have also died because of fire, yet, I can hardly believe we should get rid of fire for that.
posted by Björn at 2:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home