First let me begin by thanking everyone for their input thus far. I've received a lot of insightful information on the topic of truth. And while I never imagined that this would be such a debatable topic, it is interesting to learn how many completely opposite views there are in regards what truth is.
I've thought much on the topic in the past couple of days, trying my best to wrap my mind around the idea that truth may in fact be absolute. Despite my efforts I still have to reject that opinion and by doing so I have only reaffirmed my own truth in this matter.
Hegel's dialectic theory comes to mind. And while this theory is in regards to historical data the same concept can be applied to defining and understanding truth. The term dialectic can be translated as "argument." The basic structure of an argument is that one person takes a position, called the thesis. Someone else takes an opposite stance, called the antithesis. Most often the "truth" lies somewhere in between. This comprises the third position which is the synthesis, taking points from both positions. At the risk of contradicting myself (and I know I haven't fully explained my point of view but I'll get to that later) consider a jury trial. Yes there is an absolute truth in that actual events did take place. It's up to the jury to determine to the best of their understanding of the accounts from both sides of the issue which is truth. But what if there are other issues such as moral and ethics involved aside from the actual legal issues? How can a conclusion be absolutely correct when there are differing points of view in regards to abstract notions?
That is, of course, where the judge comes in. It is he who determines the fate of the convicted. Now this is the point at which our human world and the realm of the creator end. We are the only species on the planet that has a need for a written code of law. The written code of law comes in many forms. Depending on your belief, your culture, your society, and your legal systems what is truth for you is often a fallacy in someone else's mind. For instance in our country it is a symbol of good luck to cross your fingers whereas in Vietnamese cultures it is obscene. Judges and other authoritative figures are necessary components of our society. This need is based on human behavior. Human beings need some basic construct in which to organize the complex web of emotions, logic, and reasoning that make them human.
The spiritual world, on the other hand, does not have a necessity for a judge. Everything that makes us human will fade away when we have left this life. Guilt, remorse, pain, sorrow, all these are human emotions which may be felt if judged. However, if there is no brain matter to process these feelings then the whole concept of judgment becomes obsolete.
Now, I do understand that, yes, there are some truths that are absolute, but then they can be classified as facts also. Events such as birth, life, and death are all truths that are verifiable with facts. However, truth in regards to human beliefs and worldviews are relative in that it is truth to the believer. What is important is that one’s own truth provides answers to the basic fundamental questions of life and gives hope for the future.
6 comments:
On that note I might recommend Philip K. Dick's novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", "Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said" or really anything from his early years.
It is interesting to bring up religion and one of Georg Hegel's dialect, the classic "Problem Reaction Solution Paradigm". This as much applies to truth as modern gocernment.
For truth, if you believe in a God that created the universe, and at one point was active at least, the Accuser, or Satan if you will would want to own the world, and take all the praise from the creator. Thus, you create a Problem, in order to get a Reaction, then propose your desire as the Solution. Satan causes problems in our lives, with permission from God to act freely without hurting us, as a test. Our reaction turns us towards God, or away from God, and when we turn away, we're desperate, without hope, and turn to the "solution" the Devil offers.
The government analogy, is displayed clearly here:
http://planetquo.com/The-Problem-Reaction-Solution-Paradigm
or
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=8340
and
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=8339
The search for wisdom is something many in life never do, because it challenges your daily actions, but I urge everybody to seek their truth, even though it is challenging to become a better perosn.
The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, “relative”—that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied. 1
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Truth has many definitions. There is "the truth", which would be what one person's interpretation of an actual account of their reality. Also, there is "a truth" which would be what a society as a majority believes to be an actual account of reality. Now then, what is reality? Truth can be like a sword. In one person's hand it can set you free, in another's it can enslave. My truth is when I close my eyes, turn off the world and my heart and mind agree. Truth to me is your "soul" or "overman" speaking. But I don't call it truth, it is just my current interpretation of reality. I might read this later and wonder what I was thinking. As reality changes, so does truth.
Interesting. So I assume then that you subscribe to the idea that truth is in fact subjective. That it can change from person to person, society to society, culture to culture or even from moment to moment for a single individual. I tend to agree.
Thanks for your comment.
M
Truth is subjective. Lies can be believable. thus become truths. Many rumors become truths in the minds of those who choose to believe them. Scarlet Letters, Black Lists, condemnation, Excommunication, etc.. are all examples of groups of people weighing their "truths" upon their neighbors. In 1491, the world was flat. Truth! The Bible tells us that GOD destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gamorrah with Fire. Biblical Truth! Mount Vesuvius buried the city of Pompeii in the year 79 AD. Blame it on an angry God again. In 1980, Mt. St. Helens Erupts in Washington State. Truth! Who was God mad at this time? He Destroyed mostly Park Land in that one. Maybe it was just a "Dry Fire Exercize" To show off his power. In 2004, In Thailand, a tsunami created by an undersea earth quake killed hundreds of thousands of people and swept many villages into the sea. This, however, is explained by science. not a biblical event but simply a geological event. Were the people of Phuket sinners? Did God really want to destroy them? Maybe, can it be possible that every Biblical Catastrophe can be explained geologically. Truth? We tend to steer our beliefs in directions that allow us to be accepted by the majority of our community. Over time, with enough support, we will alter our beliefs to what is most comfortable to us. Why stress if we don't have to.
Only by questioning Truths, do we reinforce our beliefs. Again, in one year, the world went from flat to round. Houdini couldn't have pulled that one off!
Post a Comment