Lili has some stupid ideas.
So. My exam is in about an hour, and I had to prepare an essay on a concept. Mine was truth, and I aim to argue how it doens't exist. :O Let's see how I do it...
Our understanding of truth is that it is a fact that can be proven to us. For example, we know that food is needed for us to live, and that poison will kill us. Truth can be fluid: although poison can, in excess, kill us, but small doses of toxins such as alcohol are bearable. Truth can also be separated from beliefs. For example, say there is a man in the Amazon rainforest, who believes he is the only human alive. He sees this as complete truth. However, we know this not to be true, as we exist. This example does prove, however, how belief can masquerade as truth, which is where the concept of truth becomes problematic.
My concept of truth is that it does not exist. A key characteristic of truth is that of absoluteness: two contradictory truths cannot exist, as this goes against the nature of truth. However, we can see this happening around us every day. For example, say there is a man and a woman. The man believes that there is a giant squid in another dimension that dictates his fate: this he believes as completely true. The woman maintains this is ridiculous, and this she believes as completely true. As neither can be proved right or wrong, two contradictory truths exist in the minds of the man and the woman, which goes against the nature of truth. It is clear to us which of the opinions is right. But who are we to judge? We are, after all, subjective ourselves. There can never be an objective truth as there is no objective being to decide what it is.
Of course there is a problem with this: objective truth is that which can be proved independent of our opinions, like through science. But can science truly prove something? We use scientific study to explain the world around us, and prove certain theories and assumptions to be true through empirical evidence. However, every era of history has done this, and believed their results and theories to be completely true. Let’s take the example of medicine. In ancient and medieval times, many doctors believed in the Four Humours. They even had their own proof of the Humours’ existence and affect on the health of the body. Today, this theory has been disproved in light of new knowledge we have. The same evidence has been taken as proof for other theories that we now believe to be true. But who’s to say that in a hundred years all our theories will be disproved in favour of new ones proved by advanced science? In this way, we can never be sure of scientific proof, as our knowledge of the world is still limited, and perhaps always will be.
Among others, such as the truth of our thoughts and existence (this I don’t have time to go into), there is a major flaw in my theory of the non-existence of truth. This is thus: for truth not to exist there must be at least one truth: that truth does not exist. This is of course contradictory. However, if truth cannot exist without its key characteristic, absoluteness, perhaps this contradiction proves the non-existence of truth?
1. Truth does not exist.
2. There is only one truth, that truth does not exist.
3. This is contradictory, and goes against the absoluteness of truth: two different truths cannot exist.
4. Therefore, if truth both does and doesn’t exist, at least as a concept, this flouts absoluteness and so truth does not exist.
An argument against this reasoning might be that there is a difference between concept and reality. But is there when it comes to truth? Truth is, after all, not a material thing. It can only be an idea in our minds.
There are many flaws in my theory. Perhaps it is best that we believe there is truth: without the simple truths we rely on every day, the world would be thrown into chaos. Also, everyone would be morally infallible, especially when it comes to lying. If truth is simply in, to coin a phrase, the eye of the beholder, why would lying be wrong? In this way a lie would simply be a truth to whoever you lied to. So maybe truth, even if it is more fluid than we would like to believe, should exist. In my view, our perception of our reality is so narrow that what is really true could be completely beyond our knowledge. There could, after all, be factors we are entirely unaware of affecting our lives, affecting the proof we use so that our conclusions could be false, or different from what we can imagine. In a universe of such vast possibility, it is foolish that we know anything as completely true.
But this, of course, is just my opinion.
---
How I'm going to remember all this for my exam, I don't know :S Housing, real life updates and memes to come later!
~Lili
Our understanding of truth is that it is a fact that can be proven to us. For example, we know that food is needed for us to live, and that poison will kill us. Truth can be fluid: although poison can, in excess, kill us, but small doses of toxins such as alcohol are bearable. Truth can also be separated from beliefs. For example, say there is a man in the Amazon rainforest, who believes he is the only human alive. He sees this as complete truth. However, we know this not to be true, as we exist. This example does prove, however, how belief can masquerade as truth, which is where the concept of truth becomes problematic.
My concept of truth is that it does not exist. A key characteristic of truth is that of absoluteness: two contradictory truths cannot exist, as this goes against the nature of truth. However, we can see this happening around us every day. For example, say there is a man and a woman. The man believes that there is a giant squid in another dimension that dictates his fate: this he believes as completely true. The woman maintains this is ridiculous, and this she believes as completely true. As neither can be proved right or wrong, two contradictory truths exist in the minds of the man and the woman, which goes against the nature of truth. It is clear to us which of the opinions is right. But who are we to judge? We are, after all, subjective ourselves. There can never be an objective truth as there is no objective being to decide what it is.
Of course there is a problem with this: objective truth is that which can be proved independent of our opinions, like through science. But can science truly prove something? We use scientific study to explain the world around us, and prove certain theories and assumptions to be true through empirical evidence. However, every era of history has done this, and believed their results and theories to be completely true. Let’s take the example of medicine. In ancient and medieval times, many doctors believed in the Four Humours. They even had their own proof of the Humours’ existence and affect on the health of the body. Today, this theory has been disproved in light of new knowledge we have. The same evidence has been taken as proof for other theories that we now believe to be true. But who’s to say that in a hundred years all our theories will be disproved in favour of new ones proved by advanced science? In this way, we can never be sure of scientific proof, as our knowledge of the world is still limited, and perhaps always will be.
Among others, such as the truth of our thoughts and existence (this I don’t have time to go into), there is a major flaw in my theory of the non-existence of truth. This is thus: for truth not to exist there must be at least one truth: that truth does not exist. This is of course contradictory. However, if truth cannot exist without its key characteristic, absoluteness, perhaps this contradiction proves the non-existence of truth?
1. Truth does not exist.
2. There is only one truth, that truth does not exist.
3. This is contradictory, and goes against the absoluteness of truth: two different truths cannot exist.
4. Therefore, if truth both does and doesn’t exist, at least as a concept, this flouts absoluteness and so truth does not exist.
An argument against this reasoning might be that there is a difference between concept and reality. But is there when it comes to truth? Truth is, after all, not a material thing. It can only be an idea in our minds.
There are many flaws in my theory. Perhaps it is best that we believe there is truth: without the simple truths we rely on every day, the world would be thrown into chaos. Also, everyone would be morally infallible, especially when it comes to lying. If truth is simply in, to coin a phrase, the eye of the beholder, why would lying be wrong? In this way a lie would simply be a truth to whoever you lied to. So maybe truth, even if it is more fluid than we would like to believe, should exist. In my view, our perception of our reality is so narrow that what is really true could be completely beyond our knowledge. There could, after all, be factors we are entirely unaware of affecting our lives, affecting the proof we use so that our conclusions could be false, or different from what we can imagine. In a universe of such vast possibility, it is foolish that we know anything as completely true.
But this, of course, is just my opinion.
---
How I'm going to remember all this for my exam, I don't know :S Housing, real life updates and memes to come later!
~Lili