Once, in the course of a very amusing discussion at the Info-Forum, I came across the fact that not all people who use the term "truth" clearly understand what it is ...
Long enough argued with one wonderful person, and suddenly he gives me: "By the way, why do not you consider your views to be true?"
- That is, how I don’t think it? - I was taken aback. - I consider my views to be true! But not an ABSOLUTE truth, but only a RELATIVE truth! ..
And I explain further ...
If a person naively believes that his views are ABSOLUTE truth, this only means that he has fallen into dogmatism! And dogmatism is the path to spiritual stagnation, and even degradation ...
Absolute truth is in principle not available to man. Only and exclusively relative! ..
I am just aware of this and I understand that my views carry in themselves both a piece of absolute truth and a piece of delusion. That is, they are relatively true ...
This approach allows me to avoid dogmatism, allows me to constantly expand and improve my views, sweeping out more and more errors and errors from them, making them more and more accurate and adequate ...
And here my opponent gave out what I was really taken aback! ?
I quote from his address to me verbatim:
"It sounds curious -" relative truth ". What is this truth that may not be true? Truth is about something, about something is no longer the truth. Either the concept of "truth" is distorted beyond recognition, or you are putting yourself cheaper than half-truth. Truth does not need self-determination. Truth is truth in Africa too. We call indisputable things the truth. If a thing can be disputed, then it means it is not true, it cannot be semi-true or relative truth "... ?
And it was then that I realized that most people, operating in a dispute with one or another term, often cannot give an intelligible and clear definition of these very terms! We all, without hesitation, use the words - "time", "God", "truth", "love", "faith", "space", etc. But ask a person: "What is time?" or: "What is space?"
But back to TRUE ... ?
Here is a bearded man sitting motionless on a stone and says about himself: "I am in immobility, I do not move!" ?
Is he telling the truth? Yes! He really doesn't move!
But then another uncle (beardless) comes up to him and objects: “Nooo, my bearded friend, you are in motion now! After all, the Earth is moving in outer space with tremendous speed, and you are also moving with it. Moreover, you consist of molecules and atoms, and they are also incessantly moving, which means that you are in a state of incessant inner movement! And in time - you are also moving now, just have time to count the seconds! ”.
Does this second, beardless man speak the truth? ?
Undoubtedly! From the points of view he described - his bearded opponent is actually moving!
It turns out that the first statement is true, and the second is also true!
And this despite the fact that both statements are DIAMETRALLY PRO-TYPICAL! ?
Another example: "Two parallel lines - never intersect!"
True? True!
But exclusively within the framework of Euclidean geometry! Within the framework of Lobachevsky's geometry or spherical geometry, this is no longer a truth, but a delusion! ?
And so - in everything that you touch!
Alas, not all Internet debaters are familiar with philosophy (at school, alas, this subject is not taught at all, and in universities - very few people really study it - just for show) ... ?
Therefore, I will allow myself to conduct a small educational program. Suddenly, it will come in handy for someone who wants not just to argue for the sake of self-affirmation, but wants to learn how to debate, in order to search ... Yes, yes, in order to search for the very TRUTH! ?
So, here is a (far from complete) list of varieties of truth:
Absolute truth is such knowledge that completely exhausts the subject and cannot be refuted with the further development of knowledge. The human mind will always be limited to a certain framework, and it does not have the ability to reveal completely the absolute truth ...
Relative truth is a truth that reflects an object not completely, but within historically determined limits. Relative truth always reflects the current level of our knowledge of the nature of phenomena ...
This is the very philosophical concept that reflects the assertion that absolute truth (or ultimate truth) is elusive. According to this theory, one can only approach the absolute truth, and as this approximation, new ideas are created, and the old ones are discarded.
Objective truth is the content of our knowledge that does not depend on the subject in terms of content (it always depends in form, therefore, truth is subjective in form). Recognitions of the objectivity of truth and the knowability of the world are equivalent and have nothing to do with the relative concept of irrationalist philosophy ...
Concrete truth - truth that reveals the essential points of an object, taking into account the specific conditions of its development. There is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete.
Scientific truth is knowledge that meets a double requirement: first, it corresponds to reality; secondly, it satisfies a number of scientific criteria. These criteria include: logical harmony; empirical verifiability, including the test of time; the ability to predict new facts based on this knowledge; consistency with those knowledge, whose truth has already been reliably established, and so on. These criteria, of course, should not be regarded as something immutable and given once and for all. They are a product of the historical development of science and may be replenished in the future ...
Practical truth is that which is proportionate and useful to people in the arrangement of their lives ...
Well, etc. ?
In general, the question of what truth is is far from as simple as it seems ... ?
The simplest definition of truth: ? TRUE is an adequate reflection in the mind of the subject - that which exists objectively.
This definition dates back to antiquity, therefore it is called the "classical concept of truth". The main idea of the classical concept was expressed by Plato: "... The one who speaks about things in accordance with what they are, speaks the truth, the one who speaks about them differently - lies." Later, Aristotle expressed the same understanding of truth ...
An important feature of the classical concept is that truth in it is objective (in the sense that it does not depend on the will and desire of people, on its recognition or non-recognition).
The correspondence of thought to an object is determined by the object, its characteristics, and not by our desires. Therefore, say, the idea that bodies are made of atoms was also true in the time of Democritus, although it received wide public recognition only in the 18th century. Until now, the classical understanding of the truth is the most widespread. However, this understanding raises a number of problems that still do not have a generally accepted solution ... ?
Marxist philosophy proposed to consider practical activity as a criterion of truth: if, guided by some thought, we achieve success in activity, then this thought is true. Apparently, in many cases, this criterion helps us distinguish between truth and error. If you want to know if a person is generous or stingy, go to a restaurant with him. If you want to know if your potatoes are rotten, try eating them. At the level of everyday experience, the criterion of practice often helps us distinguish truth from falsehood. However, already here it becomes clear that false ideas can lead to success in practice. For example, we still focus on the terrain, proceeding from the fact that the Sun and the entire firmament revolve around the Earth, while OBJECTIVELY - everything is exactly the opposite! When it comes to establishing the truth of scientific theories, the very criterion of practice becomes completely vague ...
Another important question related to the classical concept of truth arises about the assessment of the history of human knowledge. The classical concept speaks only of two concepts - truth and falsehood. Let's say that at the moment we are able to single out the truth from the totality of modern ideas and theories and separate it from the lie. When we look at the previous ideas and theories from the point of view of modern truths, we find that all of them (or at least most of them) are false!
For example, now it is completely clear to us that the natural scientific views of Aristotle are false, that the medical ideas of Hippocrates and Galen are false, that the theory of evolution by Cuvier and Lamarck is false, that even the great Newton was mistaken in his ideas about the nature of light, space and time ... ?
But how could a continuous chain of delusions lead to modern truth ?! ?
And how could these people live and act, guided solely by lies ?! ???
This is where we come to understand what RELATIVE TRUTH is! ?
️ Previous theories were not false! They were relatively true! ️
The progress of knowledge consists in the deepening and generalization of relative truths, in the growth of the seeds of absolute truth in them! .. ?
Well, instead of P.S .:
in the twentieth century, several more concepts of truth were proposed - the theory of coherence, which interprets truth as the compatibility of statements; conventionalism, which believes that truth is conditioned by agreement; an emotivistic concept that equates truth with emotional attractiveness, etc.
And all the same, at the present time, debates continue over the interpretation of the concept of "truth"! Nevertheless, among all these controversies, the basic idea of common sense and the classical concept stands firmly: what is true is that which corresponds to the real state of affairs ...‼ ️
So, the main joke is that ANY statement can always be challenged! Even the seemingly most obvious things - see the example with parallel lines above ... ?
And therefore, let me finish our popular educational program with a short quote from an equally popular work: ???
"... Any knowledge available to a person is always relative! Most of our knowledge is the interpretation of sensory perceptions with the help of the mind (the use of devices, in this case, is only an expansion of the range of action of our senses). However, the same sensory perceptions ( results of experience), can be interpreted in a hundred different ways. social practice in this case cannot serve as a criterion for the truth of knowledge: interpreted in different ways, in practice it can act (or not act) in the same way, and, on the contrary, acting (or not acting) in the same way, can be interpreted in different ways.Practice is a criterion for the relative truth of our knowledge.
Absolute knowledge of the external world implies complete theoretical and empirical knowledge about it in the past, present and future. But due to limitations, due to the specifics of his qualities, a person can only approach an absolute theoretical understanding of the world and, to an even lesser extent, to empirical knowledge, complete and comprehensive, embracing the entire Universe. Moreover, the incessant development of the Universe will always outstrip human knowledge about it (and no ability of foresight, no calculations can serve here as a criterion of absoluteness), and this is another argument in favor of the fact that any of our knowledge is relative.
The construction of any concept begins with the acceptance of some primary facts as axioms, that is, unsubstantiated, arbitrary. But can we have absolute confidence that these axioms are true (absolutely true)? Unfortunately no!.."
(c) "The Gospel of Morpheus
Long enough argued with one wonderful person, and suddenly he gives me: "By the way, why do not you consider your views to be true?"
- That is, how I don’t think it? - I was taken aback. - I consider my views to be true! But not an ABSOLUTE truth, but only a RELATIVE truth! ..
And I explain further ...
If a person naively believes that his views are ABSOLUTE truth, this only means that he has fallen into dogmatism! And dogmatism is the path to spiritual stagnation, and even degradation ...Absolute truth is in principle not available to man. Only and exclusively relative! ..
I am just aware of this and I understand that my views carry in themselves both a piece of absolute truth and a piece of delusion. That is, they are relatively true ...
This approach allows me to avoid dogmatism, allows me to constantly expand and improve my views, sweeping out more and more errors and errors from them, making them more and more accurate and adequate ...
And here my opponent gave out what I was really taken aback! ?
I quote from his address to me verbatim:
"It sounds curious -" relative truth ". What is this truth that may not be true? Truth is about something, about something is no longer the truth. Either the concept of "truth" is distorted beyond recognition, or you are putting yourself cheaper than half-truth. Truth does not need self-determination. Truth is truth in Africa too. We call indisputable things the truth. If a thing can be disputed, then it means it is not true, it cannot be semi-true or relative truth "... ?
And it was then that I realized that most people, operating in a dispute with one or another term, often cannot give an intelligible and clear definition of these very terms! We all, without hesitation, use the words - "time", "God", "truth", "love", "faith", "space", etc. But ask a person: "What is time?" or: "What is space?"
But back to TRUE ... ?
Here is a bearded man sitting motionless on a stone and says about himself: "I am in immobility, I do not move!" ?Is he telling the truth? Yes! He really doesn't move!
But then another uncle (beardless) comes up to him and objects: “Nooo, my bearded friend, you are in motion now! After all, the Earth is moving in outer space with tremendous speed, and you are also moving with it. Moreover, you consist of molecules and atoms, and they are also incessantly moving, which means that you are in a state of incessant inner movement! And in time - you are also moving now, just have time to count the seconds! ”.
Does this second, beardless man speak the truth? ?
Undoubtedly! From the points of view he described - his bearded opponent is actually moving!
It turns out that the first statement is true, and the second is also true!
And this despite the fact that both statements are DIAMETRALLY PRO-TYPICAL! ?
Another example: "Two parallel lines - never intersect!"
True? True!
But exclusively within the framework of Euclidean geometry! Within the framework of Lobachevsky's geometry or spherical geometry, this is no longer a truth, but a delusion! ?
And so - in everything that you touch!Alas, not all Internet debaters are familiar with philosophy (at school, alas, this subject is not taught at all, and in universities - very few people really study it - just for show) ... ?
Therefore, I will allow myself to conduct a small educational program. Suddenly, it will come in handy for someone who wants not just to argue for the sake of self-affirmation, but wants to learn how to debate, in order to search ... Yes, yes, in order to search for the very TRUTH! ?
So, here is a (far from complete) list of varieties of truth:
Absolute truth is such knowledge that completely exhausts the subject and cannot be refuted with the further development of knowledge. The human mind will always be limited to a certain framework, and it does not have the ability to reveal completely the absolute truth ...
Relative truth is a truth that reflects an object not completely, but within historically determined limits. Relative truth always reflects the current level of our knowledge of the nature of phenomena ...
This is the very philosophical concept that reflects the assertion that absolute truth (or ultimate truth) is elusive. According to this theory, one can only approach the absolute truth, and as this approximation, new ideas are created, and the old ones are discarded.
Objective truth is the content of our knowledge that does not depend on the subject in terms of content (it always depends in form, therefore, truth is subjective in form). Recognitions of the objectivity of truth and the knowability of the world are equivalent and have nothing to do with the relative concept of irrationalist philosophy ...
Concrete truth - truth that reveals the essential points of an object, taking into account the specific conditions of its development. There is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete.Scientific truth is knowledge that meets a double requirement: first, it corresponds to reality; secondly, it satisfies a number of scientific criteria. These criteria include: logical harmony; empirical verifiability, including the test of time; the ability to predict new facts based on this knowledge; consistency with those knowledge, whose truth has already been reliably established, and so on. These criteria, of course, should not be regarded as something immutable and given once and for all. They are a product of the historical development of science and may be replenished in the future ...
Practical truth is that which is proportionate and useful to people in the arrangement of their lives ...Well, etc. ?
In general, the question of what truth is is far from as simple as it seems ... ?
The simplest definition of truth: ? TRUE is an adequate reflection in the mind of the subject - that which exists objectively.This definition dates back to antiquity, therefore it is called the "classical concept of truth". The main idea of the classical concept was expressed by Plato: "... The one who speaks about things in accordance with what they are, speaks the truth, the one who speaks about them differently - lies." Later, Aristotle expressed the same understanding of truth ...
An important feature of the classical concept is that truth in it is objective (in the sense that it does not depend on the will and desire of people, on its recognition or non-recognition).The correspondence of thought to an object is determined by the object, its characteristics, and not by our desires. Therefore, say, the idea that bodies are made of atoms was also true in the time of Democritus, although it received wide public recognition only in the 18th century. Until now, the classical understanding of the truth is the most widespread. However, this understanding raises a number of problems that still do not have a generally accepted solution ... ?
Marxist philosophy proposed to consider practical activity as a criterion of truth: if, guided by some thought, we achieve success in activity, then this thought is true. Apparently, in many cases, this criterion helps us distinguish between truth and error. If you want to know if a person is generous or stingy, go to a restaurant with him. If you want to know if your potatoes are rotten, try eating them. At the level of everyday experience, the criterion of practice often helps us distinguish truth from falsehood. However, already here it becomes clear that false ideas can lead to success in practice. For example, we still focus on the terrain, proceeding from the fact that the Sun and the entire firmament revolve around the Earth, while OBJECTIVELY - everything is exactly the opposite! When it comes to establishing the truth of scientific theories, the very criterion of practice becomes completely vague ...
Another important question related to the classical concept of truth arises about the assessment of the history of human knowledge. The classical concept speaks only of two concepts - truth and falsehood. Let's say that at the moment we are able to single out the truth from the totality of modern ideas and theories and separate it from the lie. When we look at the previous ideas and theories from the point of view of modern truths, we find that all of them (or at least most of them) are false!
For example, now it is completely clear to us that the natural scientific views of Aristotle are false, that the medical ideas of Hippocrates and Galen are false, that the theory of evolution by Cuvier and Lamarck is false, that even the great Newton was mistaken in his ideas about the nature of light, space and time ... ?
But how could a continuous chain of delusions lead to modern truth ?! ?
And how could these people live and act, guided solely by lies ?! ???
This is where we come to understand what RELATIVE TRUTH is! ?
️ Previous theories were not false! They were relatively true! ️The progress of knowledge consists in the deepening and generalization of relative truths, in the growth of the seeds of absolute truth in them! .. ?
Well, instead of P.S .:in the twentieth century, several more concepts of truth were proposed - the theory of coherence, which interprets truth as the compatibility of statements; conventionalism, which believes that truth is conditioned by agreement; an emotivistic concept that equates truth with emotional attractiveness, etc.
And all the same, at the present time, debates continue over the interpretation of the concept of "truth"! Nevertheless, among all these controversies, the basic idea of common sense and the classical concept stands firmly: what is true is that which corresponds to the real state of affairs ...‼ ️
So, the main joke is that ANY statement can always be challenged! Even the seemingly most obvious things - see the example with parallel lines above ... ?
And therefore, let me finish our popular educational program with a short quote from an equally popular work: ???
"... Any knowledge available to a person is always relative! Most of our knowledge is the interpretation of sensory perceptions with the help of the mind (the use of devices, in this case, is only an expansion of the range of action of our senses). However, the same sensory perceptions ( results of experience), can be interpreted in a hundred different ways. social practice in this case cannot serve as a criterion for the truth of knowledge: interpreted in different ways, in practice it can act (or not act) in the same way, and, on the contrary, acting (or not acting) in the same way, can be interpreted in different ways.Practice is a criterion for the relative truth of our knowledge.
Absolute knowledge of the external world implies complete theoretical and empirical knowledge about it in the past, present and future. But due to limitations, due to the specifics of his qualities, a person can only approach an absolute theoretical understanding of the world and, to an even lesser extent, to empirical knowledge, complete and comprehensive, embracing the entire Universe. Moreover, the incessant development of the Universe will always outstrip human knowledge about it (and no ability of foresight, no calculations can serve here as a criterion of absoluteness), and this is another argument in favor of the fact that any of our knowledge is relative.
The construction of any concept begins with the acceptance of some primary facts as axioms, that is, unsubstantiated, arbitrary. But can we have absolute confidence that these axioms are true (absolutely true)? Unfortunately no!.."
(c) "The Gospel of Morpheus
Last edited by a moderator:
