Opposing perspectives of Truth
Thinking about opposite philosophical views, like rationalism versus empiricism, or coherentism versus correspondence theories of truth, materialism versus idealism, do you think that one must ultimately be true and the other false? Or does every philosophical work stand on its own merits as something true, or possessing elements of truth?
Comments (93)
Perhaps it's a mistake to think that they are opposing? Perhaps, both are right about some stuff, and both are incomplete and thus inadequate for accounting for everything. Perhaps the reason for this apparent chasm is that both sides work from the same inherently inadequate notions?
That's what I've come to see.
"Truth" is only the concept of a "Dominant Opinion". When the current "truth" no longer supports the method in which society behaves in such an age, it becomes a lie, and a new "truth" is constructed.
So what criterion or evaluation would apply to works such as Plato's "Republic", or Hume's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" then? Are these works of artistic fiction only, containing no content or substance?
In this case, they are the concept of the opinion of an individual. They only become "Truth" when they become the accepted opinion of the masses. It could be truth for Plato or Hume, but what is an individual "truth" in a sea of mass "truths"?
Rubbish. You're conflating truth and belief.
If for you, the concept that "truth" in reality doesn't exist, but is just a case of mass belief, is "rubbish", that's ok, for indeed, this is your individual "truth".
"Your belief creates your truth"
What is important is what one takes from these works..or not, as the case may be.
Quite so.
What's the difference between truth and belief?
Belief is the concept of accepting something as your truth, as the infinite self-realization, of acccepting something as your own. But "Truth" as I perceive that you see as "Absolute Truth" is moldable. If the majority says that something its true, it is, end of the discussion.
If so, does "The Republic" contain meaning only that is relevant to the time period to which it correlates? Or are there, in fact "eternal" truths? I guess a priori truths are that, but the wisdom that is in "The Republic" isn't a priori.
In the analogy of the Cave, there are no reports of smart people watering their garden under the true sun. The enlightened one stumbles back to the others with dazzled eyes and a troubled mind.
The distance between Hume and Kant was a disagreement upon how helpless they were in the face of how obscure causality is for the observer. Kant basically agreed with Hume but said it couldn't hurt to keep the hands on wheel rather than abandoning the enterprise to play backgammon.
I could go on but why? I am not proving a truth by making these observations.
So, let me see if I have understood you rightly enough....
Belief is accepting something as your truth, wheres truth is if the majority says something is true, it is, end of the discussion?
Nah...
The majority can be wrong, and have false belief. Truth cannot be false. So, truth has nothing at all to do with majority consensus.
One important factor, often overlooked, is to understand these terms in their historical context - what gave rise to rationalism, how empiricism became dominant, and so on. That actually amounts to a dialectic, which is a dialogue between opposing viewpoints, that gives rise to insights that may not be available to any of the protagonists’ own views.
Also it's important to understand the underlying historical and sociological forces that find expression through these views. In that respect, understanding the 'history of ideas' is fundamental.
The second point is to understand how one consciously or unconsciously adopts these various positions and what social and cultural forces drive those choices. So if the first point is dialectical, the second is critical. That kind of approach underlay Kant's critical dialectics, and the later 'historicist' readings of philosophy that grew out of it.
Not a lot of people have any real background or understanding of these factors (and I'm claiming any particular expertise beyond general knowledge.) As a consequence they often express views which are held for reasons that they don't understand, as they're merely parroting the accepted wisdom, which in our day is generally confused.
I agree that the context in which the different propositions take place in is the first step that is not taken enough.
I think that is basically the whole premise of the science of "hermeneutics".
I just finished a book called "Essay on Philosophical Method" by RG Collingwood - he was a significant thinker in the early hermeneutical school.
That is a good point. My only objection is that much of their wording stays out of the problems being wrestled with. It becomes too much of sports-like commentary upon how the contenders are doing.
The point of view is outside of the struggle being observed.
Interesting. What exactly do you mean the POV is outside of the struggle being observed?
Compare, for example, the way someone like Plato is interpreted by the generations of people who have done it. Whether that be Plotinus or Strauss, they own their translations of what was meant by saying this or that.
But those who would make the narrative about what was happening then and now, in order to make those expressions a part of explaining one sequence or another according to some measure, that is a different activity. Our desire for an encyclopedia of events makes the latter more attractive at the expense of the former.
Einstein did not disprove Newton it is just that Newton's mathematics don't hold in Einstein's frame of reference.
This is a good point to emphasize since so many "critics" of points of view did not own their observations as a part of a dialectic.
Good.
I see. Interestingly, Collingwood's idea of philosophy incorporates both. He says that every philosophy is in part a borrowing of philosophies of the past and in part a collaboration with those of the present.
He says "the business of philosophy is not to be an encyclopedia of knowledge".
I will check Collingwood out. I am not familiar.
To be clear, I am not dismissing historical enterprises. For example, I think Hegel is really important to understand. His many descendants don't quite know what to do with the old guy. He has become a strange kind of patient zero to other events.
Collingwood says that "technical terms" are not fundamental within language because they require explanation. Because
The business of language is to express or explain; if language cannot explain itself, nothing else can explain it.
Based on this he argues that
"The language of philosophy is therefore...a literary language, and not a technical.
It makes me think of an observation by a systems theory philosopher I just read, that the foundation of any metaphysical theory is its "elegance" - ie. the overall narrative beauty of a metaphysical theory is the substantiation of that theory.
Talk about merging subject and object.
A move most certainly needed in many respects...
I mean more like the need to take proper account of that which consists of both, and is thus... neither.
I'll quote myself in this case:
If for you, the concept that "truth" in reality doesn't exist, but is just a case of mass belief, is "rubbish", that's ok, for indeed, this is your individual "truth".
Indeed, you are an "Absolute Truth" follower. More of the same, as always...
Very perceptive on your part. In my opinion, each domain as it were, possesses elements of truth. Ever since I learned (from cognitive science) that dichotomizing is a virtual sin, the sky opened up. Meaning, I try to cherish each tenant of knowledge, and then create my own sense of truth out it. Kind of like writing music; influence's in your compositions.
The frustration rears it head when one chooses to exclusively paint oneself in a box. The person feels they must support an all-or-nothing campaign of sorts. They feel that incorporating and integrating both sides, is somehow a sell-out for whatever reason. The resulting frustration is usually an indicator that something is wrong and they might be dichotomizing too much. In ethics, it really manifests itself. Pragmatism, stoicism, etc.., you can find nuggets of truth in all of them... .
It pretty much happens in all of life. Life is not like engineering. You must apply the right formula to size the structural beam correctly; thus it's A or B, there is no middle ground. Yet, cognitive science teaches us that living life/the human condition is more like A AND B. That's why some folks are not cut-out to do, say, personnel management, coaching, etc.. There are many gray area's within the human condition that we find ourselves trapped in. And I submit, more gray's than not...each person must learn to navigate through them. It almost has an Existential theme... .
It's all good LOL
Given any "disagreement" between objective reality and my experience of it, I can always try to change objective reality, but odds are most of the time it is going to be more productive to alter my own opinions. I guess, bottom line, I am always hoping to discover or encounter an idea that will fundamentally change my perspective. Which is why I think communities of thought are so important. Books can only give you so much. At the end of the day, it is all too easy to discover what you are already looking for in a book. People can hold you to a higher standard.
Truth is falsifiable, belief is not.
Another case in point. Ever hear the slang phrase: 'that person has a lot of book smarts, but no common sense'. In a way there's another example of dichotomizing. Ideally, the person who is educated both in principle and practice, arguably makes for a better end result/well rounded individual... .
Should one believe the ethical philosopher who used to be a practicing psychologist, over the one who does not have the practical experience? Should one choose the music teacher who just knows music theory, but sucks at musical performance and cannot improvise? Should one choose the priest who never had a wife to relate to? Should one choose the coach who never played?
The lists are endless. Now, are there exceptions within, sure. In theory or practice, there can still be nuggets of truth regardless. And I have seen players who make lousy coaches. Or great musician's who can't teach or explain things. The art of living suggests which of parts need to be balanced in order to achieve whatever end-goal. Integrating opposing forces is an intriguing subject...
Nah, you're just wrong about my position...
I have no trouble telling the difference between belief and truth... even in practice, sometimes...
We can check often enough to know that sometimes we cannot.
This makes no sense to me. Truth cannot be false. Belief can. Thus, belief can be falsifiable. Truth cannot.
Yep, a few simple tools can go a long way. One take away from this, is that there is a sense of creativity in all walks of life. That, arguably, is what separates excellence from the average.
I am sorry. I should not have stated belief. I meant religion. Theory and hypotheses are also beliefs. But falsifiable beliefs.
And what has not proven to be false can for the time being be considered true.
Nah. There are some pretty outrageous claims, ones none of us believe, that cannot be falsified.
That said, being unable to be falsified does not always warrant casting such beliefs aside. Context matters here. We can have knowledge that is unfalsifiable. Our certainty ought be tempered.
All knowledge of that which exists in it's entirety prior to our reports on and/or of it is unfalsifiable.
A claim that no-one believes does not exist. A claim has to be believed by someone to exist. And belief in that claim will persist until that person accepts falsifying evidence.
The universe was created by my imaginary friend, the invisible pink and black unicorn.
And do you genuinely believe that? I think that ad hoc falsification or verification is the bane of true philosophy. People genuinely believe things for genuine reasons relevant to a real engagement in life and the universe. I am prepared to seriously evaluate any belief that someone is prepared to adopt from a committed and meaningful standpoint - I call this "ontological commitment". Otherwise, it's just playing games.
Of course not, but that is the very point. A claim need not be believed in order to exist.
It's important to consider the simple difference's between objective and subjective truth(s). Some truth's are more subjective than objective, and vise versa. Both are good, depending on the context.
Otherwise, as creativesoul suggested, I could assert I saw an invisible pink unicorn, an alien from another world, and so on. And I can also say I was sleep walking last night and don't remember a thing I said and did. Those instances would suggest another kind of truth.
In other words, how would one know that they are sleep walking in the first place(?).
But this was my point. There is a world of difference between a belief upon which you would stake your life, and one that you just cook up. The one you cook up really doesn't qualify as a belief at all, it is just an arbitrary statement.
I think that beliefs must meet some minimum standard of actual commitment to qualify as beliefs. People stand up for their beliefs. Or they act upon their beliefs. They are judged upon their beliefs. They live by their beliefs.
So a belief has a different kind of ontological status than a statement simpliciter.
That was not a claim. That was a joke. Quoting Pantagruel
Well you just just admitted it was not a claim but a joke.
A joke does not have to be believed to exist.
As we will never arrive at absolute truths, we will have to suffice with subjective truths of which some are more subjective than others.
Only empiricism is able to make a distinction between belief and knowledge.
You could 'claim' you had seen these things only if you had indeed really (imagined) to have seen these things. Otherwise you are just lying.
Quoting creativesoul is just pure nonsense.
You can say anything you like. That does not mean you believe it.
...when would it be ok to believe in a some thing that, is considered absurd, illogical, irrational, etc.. anytime, sometime, never?
Please put in the quote that you are referring to.
Considered by whom?
Considered by the person who is doing the considering.
Why would anyone believe something they know to be absurd, illogical or irrational? Do you?
Yes. If one believes they themselves exist, they would then believe in the illogical. Because, consciousness is, in itself, illogical (how consciousness/subconsciousness functions together). Not to mention all the other metaphysical phenomena... .
So the statement : Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am), is in that sense illogical and/or an existential absurdity/tautology.
This makes no sense to me at all. Why is consciousness illogical? Consciousness is neither constrained nor defined by logic, which is only a tool. Consciousness is what it is. Its experience of its own existence is a primitive fact. Facts are not "logical," facts just "are".
Quoting 3017amen
So you are saying, to believe you exist is absurd, illogical and or irrational? So you go around telling everyone, you don't exist. When someone you greets you, you say: "Hey man, you don't exist and I don't exist."
Wouldn't a belief require a believer?
Good for a laugh.
Because it breaks the laws of non-contradiction (I.E., driving while daydreaming, sleepwalking...).
Ha! No, I go around telling everyone that they should be humble because they cannot prove that their own existence is purely logical (consciousness breaking the rules of non-contradiction).
Consciousness isn't a statement or a proposition. The law of non-contradiction applies to statements or propositions.
Okay gotcha. Let's start with this.
Driving while daydreaming, and sleepwalking thus:
Jack is driving and not driving= true or false statement?
Jack is sleeping and not sleeping= true or false statement?
Please, you may re-word the phenomenon anyway you like to make it logical.
Jack is actually doing whatever he is doing at the time he is doing it. Whatever that is. If he is driving and daydreaming, then he is driving and daydreaming. It is just the way that you are rephrasing the statements that is causing the apparent contradiction. Daydreaming does not equal not driving. Sleepwalking does not equal not-sleeping. You are equivocating in the most question-begging way possible.
Really. Consider Jack navigating the highway and is dreaming about the beach or a meeting he's about to attend. He subsequently crashes by running through a stop sign. He fortunately survives. He said he was at the beach in his mind. So, was his consciousness or subconsciousness driving the car?
Or said in a proposition: he was driving and not driving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_multitasking
I don't know many people that believe their existence is absurd, illogical and irrational. Do you?
By other words, using "Doublethink".
And could you explain me why is so?
Truth is grounded on belief. There is no such thing as an "Universal Truth", there is only diferente perceptions of concepts, that some may indeed believe is truth and some who may not. Truth can be false. Belief cannot.
Truth doesn't exist outside of ourselves, in the Universe, as an all powerful force. It only exists as belief, that then is projected as "Truth" by the individual.
We agree. That was never at issue. Whether or not all claims are believed by someone... that was at issue.
Correct. It's a meaningful claim that no one believes. That proves the point that there are such things.
Because I do not believe what you wrote.
Not on my view.
Truth cannot be false.
Belief can.
Being falsifiable requires the ability to be false and the ability to be shown as such
Some belief can be falsifiable.
Truth cannot.
Which part are you objecting to and what grounds that objection?
So much is certain, that nothing is better adapted to form a mind which is capable of a great development, than living and participating in great scientific revolutions. I would therefore counsel all to whom the period they live in has not naturally presented with this advantage, to procure it artificially for themselves, by reading the writings of those periods in which the sciences have suffered great changes. To peruse the writings of the most opposite systems, and to extract their hidden truth, to answer questions raised by these opposite systems, to transfer the chief theories of the one system into the other, is an exercise which cannot be sufficiently recommended to the student. He would certainly be rewarded for this labour,by becoming as independent as possible of the narrow opinions of his age.
~Hans Oersted
Truth can not be opposed by truth
Knowledge (unverified) is belief.
Only empiricism can verify this belief.
Only once it is verified (empirically) to be 'true' we may consider it knowledge.
Knowledge is information.
~Karl Popper
So that even the dumb fuckers can understand it.
Sure, and those chaotic experiences are what, illogical?
Yes, both yours and mine are, as I've suggested through conscious/subconscious phenomena.
Unless you can explain that otherwise... ?
All things in existence are part of the so called truth, even lies.