We talk a lot about truth here, on Germaine’s political blog. I’m going to go rogue and infiltrate it with some dastardly philosophy. (Apologies Germaine. ;) My quest: A search for the correct definition
of “truth.”
Truth is an interesting concept. Saying that truth is “the absence of
falsehood” seems like too simple a definition to me and does not get at the
essence of what I am looking for. I
rather fancy one of Webster’s definitions:
3a : the property of being in accord with fact or reality
but I still feel that such a definition does not tell the
whole story. Why? Because all realities are not created equal. I think I might have mentioned that before
here. Who’s to say whose reality is more
legitimate, more real, than another’s?
To the person experiencing something, it becomes their reality, their “truth.” So in that sense, truth seems to have the ability to be relative / subjective / malleable. Ouuu.
Can we equate the word “truth” with the word “fact?” What makes something a fact versus a truth? What’s the difference? When I think about trying to define “fact”
(or even “truth”), I think it is “a something that can be no other way than
what it is.” “…can be no other way than what it is??” There’s an interesting phrase. Many things can be other ways than what they
are and still be a “factual / truthful something.” Take a simple example like an aluminum
can. It could be open, closed, full,
empty, crushed, to name a few ways it can “be.”
Granted, it’s still a can, but not that “can be no other way than what
it is.” It can be many qualifying ways, while maintaining its “can-ness.”
Let’s forget cans for now.
When looking for a bottom line definition of truth, maybe I need to add the
element of time into the mix. A “truth”
is something that “can be no other way than what it is at any given moment in
time.” This could be what I’m looking for, yet I still don’t feel happy with my
definition. I’m saying that truth, and
by extension a fact (or would that be the other way around?), can be a fleeting
thing, some kind of dynamic thing, a variable.
And so, by this train of thought, it certainly can’t be something
absolute. Some would say I’m over complicating it, but I’m just trying to get to the truth of what is truth?
In my mind, it seems like truth should be an absolute concept.
And some “truths” do not change
at any given moment in time. For example,
the concept of the number three. It cannot be something other than what it
is, no matter how much time passes.
Numbers can be represented in the physical (perceptual), but they are comprehended
in the mental (conceptual). Could this
be a key element in understanding truth?
Would it be right to say that truth is a concept (mental) supported by
precept (physical)? This sounds pretty
good but we know from jury duty that circumstantial (inferred) evidence (i.e., missing
hard evidence) doesn’t necessarily get to the “actual” (uh-oh, I’m introducing
a new variable) truth of some matter. It
seems that I am back to square one, saying that truth can vary based on one
person’s mental conception, versus another’s.
No, this argument does not fly either.
Does truth depend on some kind of “majority opinion” to be
valid? No. Opinions can vary from society to
society. But if we all agree that a certain
color, such as green, is truly green,
no matter what the society in question says, then that must be some kind of “absolute
truth.” We can measure the frequency of
that color and it will always show “green”
on the scale. A colorblind person may
not see green but would likely agree that what everyone else sees is what we
will define as “green,” based on the measurement. An immutable "truth consensus” is reached, no
matter what anyone else says.
So does the ability to measure something and always get the same results play into “what is truth?” I think I am getting closer but can I think
of any exceptions to the rule? Are there
any truths that cannot be measured? How
about the notion of “love?”
For example, I may declare that I love someone and the truth
of that matter could only be measured
by others in how I treat that so-called loved one. An outside observer not familiar with me
personally may see me scold my loved one, or do something mean to them, and
claim that I “truly” do not love that person, based on observed behavior at
that moment in time. But I could declare
that their measurement / analysis of the situation would not be the truth. Because they are not me, they have no way of knowing how true my feelings
of what I call “love” are. Such “love
truths” are personal, not accessible by an outside observer, but we personally believe
them to be “truths” nevertheless. I
still have to ask, what about these feelings make them “a truth?”
At what point does something become “true”… or “true enough?” If something is 50.001% true, is it truth? Conversely, if something is 49.999% not true,
is it not truth? Can something be
partial truth? We hear it all the time:
Well, that’s partially true. But this is not getting me any closer to
understanding truth, and if it is relative or absolute. I want to understand the essence of truth,
after all the fluff has boiled off.
Some would say I need to drag the God concept and religion
into the mix. But to me, that only
confuses the question and muddies the waters.
And it makes me feel like I’m grasping for straws. Scrap this idea.
So, which is it? What
is truth? Is truth relative or absolute? Is there some kind of bottom line definition
when it comes to truth? If so, please
state it for me. My definitions seem to
be all over the board. I’ve done a lot
of describing, but not any bottom-line defining. Maybe, like good and evil, that’s the best we
can do, try to describe it, when contemplating “truth.”
Maybe that’s why Webster referred to it as a “property.” I do think it can be both relative and
absolute. How do you know which it
is?
Help me out and give
me your thoughts on “what is truth” and “how can we know it?”
(Please excuse any typos and non-sequiturs in my stream of
thought. :) Feeling too lazy to review. :(
No comments:
Post a Comment