To what extent can absolute truth exist if “Context is all” (–Margaret Atwood)? If I was provided with the statement, “Define the term ‘balance’.” my immediate response would be that balance means when something is equal or uniform. If a psychology major was asked the same exact question, they might answer that “balance” is a state of mental/emotional stability. Under the circumstance that the psychology major and I were in the same room looking at an art piece such as “The Starry Night” by Van Gogh, we might both answer that balance is when unity or harmony can be seen in a subject. Our answers to open ended questions or vague statements vary depending on what circumstances we are provided with or the settings that we see the subject matter …show more content…
This does not necessarily mean that truth does not exist, but that truth exists within one’s context. When my art teacher and I both critique the same art piece, we are given the same subject context wise, but if asked to describe the colors/values of the piece, arrive to different conclusions. The explanation to our varying answers is simply the idea of perception: an inevitable factor that affects the “truth”. I say green, but my teacher says moss. Does this mean that there is no definite description of the colors? Although technically there is no single answer, both of us are correct as it is the truth in our own contexts. In this case, an absolute truth does not exist, but is merely what is true for each …show more content…
Both the correspondence theory of truth and pragmatic theory of truth tie into this idea. The correspondence theory states that a proposition must reflect on what is realistically occurring to be true. So with 5+5=10, we know in reality that this is correct and therefore is true. One flaw with this theory is how we define reality, but this can also lead down a path of relativism and idle debate. The pragmatic theory on the other hand is regardless of reality, meaning something is true if one believes it to be or deems it important to them. Linking this back to the example with my art teacher and analyzing the same art piece, we both had different opinions on the color descriptions in a common piece. This does not mean that we are both wrong, or one is right, but instead, our answers our true for ourselves. If one believes that the sky is blue and another believes that the sky is gray; both are right in their own way and in their personal realities because of unavoidable differences in perspective and
reality. A belief can be modest or tragic, but the true believer seperate one idea to another
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
The definition of truth is the epitome of what we we all perceive to be reality. Truth is what we sometimes think about in the back of our head, but we are unsure of whether this truth is really “true.” The objective correlative is another term that is used to refer to truth. The objective correlative is getting enough people to feel the same emotion and agree upon it. Objective correlative also refers to the objective truth or the facts. It’s trying to get the subjective truth to become objective, then subjective for each person. The idea of objectivity is that it is concrete, measurable, and tested. This idea of objectivity relates to the characteristics of what facts are.
(2) Rattan, Gurpreet (2014) “Disagreement and the First-Person Perspective” Analytic Philosophy. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Pg. 1 – 23.
Some ideas have more objective reality than others, depending on the formal reality of the things which they represent.
This assertion that the truth exists beyond the realm of earthly understanding is echoed in Father Forbes' final words to Theron, which reverberate like the sound of the door slammed in the minister's face: "The truth is always relative, Mr. Ware..." (Frederic 326).
Knowledge, its source and truthfulness have been under question for a long time. People have always wondered what exactly constitutes facts and if there are any defining laws that can be attributed to all knowledge or information available in the world. Many philosophers speculated on how information can be interpreted according to its falsity or truthfulness, but have not come to definite conclusions. Edmund Gettier has provided one of the key pieces in understanding and trying to figure out what knowledge really is.
In order to begin the process of learning how these two worldviews can co-exist, one must understand exactly what a wor...
One’s worldview is usually dependant on how the particular individual interprets life and its occurrences. Additionally, if one believes something to be so, it will be so to them. It’s all a matter of perception. However, which perspective is truly accurate: Agnosticism, Theism, or Deism? These three worldviews have been the subject of countless debates throughout history and that have yet to be concluded. The purpose of this philosophical essay is to suggest that theism is likely to be considered the correct worldview.
Since Protagoras claimed that man is the measure of all things it is true or reflective of reality, then nobody is ever wrong about anything. This means that nobody deserves criticism, judgment, or correction for anything that they say, their beliefs, or their actions. Protagoras’ claim empowers us; it implies that each of us, as individuals having individual beliefs, are the creators of his or her own truth. Our truth is based on the social traditions in which we are accustomed to. Our truth is determined by our culture and our habituation. It is shaped by the experiences that we have had, those that are yet to come, and our precise biopsychology. There is no way a person can form a culture-free or perspective free belief. Truth is the relativeness of one’s inner most innate tug with morality.
What exactly is “truth”? And how do we arrive at the truth? Over these past weeks I have successfully be able to study two different but very closely linked methods of arriving at what we human beings know as truth. Introduced to the method of pragmatism by William James, I have concluded that pragmatism uses an approach in which reason is used to find what is true but what also has to be considered is that the truth is subject to change. Which distinguishes it from Rene Descartes' method of pursuing what is true. Essentially they follow the same procedures. Although at the final moments of my research, I began to find myself pro-pragmatism. I disbelieve Descartes claim that the mind believes everything that is perceived through the human eye which leaves no room for an imagination. Both James and Descartes differ in some areas while maintaing similarities in others. Whether its concerning the way their visions are presented, their interpretations of the truth, or how applicable the idea of it is to our lives.
Have you ever believed in something so strongly that when someone would say something different, it would not influence your decision? If so, you may have experienced the first feature of reality, Reflexivity, in which one has an incorrigible proposition. Reflexivity is a relation that exists between entity and itself. For exa...
There are many arguments for moral realism, one of which is presented by David Enoch, who posits a unique explanation of how normative truths can exist. He argues for moral realism by using his Indispensability Argument, which explains the necessity of normative facts in deliberation. I will argue that Enoch’s claim is valid in that it fairs well against opposition, however it shows weakness by not addressing moral subjectivity.
The idea of alternative reality challenges the Principle of Contradiction, a fundamental part of logics which lay...
There are therefore absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false in such fields where a distinction matters and is significant, but circumstances also arise when truth must be relative to a certainty continuum where one may find a middle ground.