Today in class, my group-members and I discussed our opinions of Truth, and attempted to agree on how we can know if something is true. But our opinions were so completely different and based on entirely different premises that it was difficult to find common ground.
My group-members submitted the following:
-There is no universal standard of truth outside of math and science.
-There is no definite "right" or "wrong."
-Truth is relavitve, left up to the determination of the individual.
-Each person's opinion is his own truth.
I hold to the following:
-There is abolute truth.
-Things are universally "wrong" or "right," "true" or "false."
-Opinions can be right or wrong, depending on if they line up with what is, in fact, true.
-Even though someone may not know or be able to perceive a fact does not change its truthfulness. (ie: a blind man cannot see a wall, but the wall exists, nevertheless.) That "the wall is not there to him" is NOT a fact. It is an incorrect perception.
The main conflict was this: my group-members and I disagreed on the very definition of TRUTH itself. They believe that truth is simply each person's opinion. It is whatever you want it to be, however you perceive life. In effect, they are saying that there is no such thing as truth, only a collection of opinions. I believe truth is what IS. Otherwise, it's not truth!! It IS just opinion, not actual facts. We might as well leave the word "truth" out of it. The world would be entirely chaotic if we did not accept the simple fact that somethings are true, and others are false. You can't say 2 + 2= 5 just because you want to. Opinions are great, and there's nothing wrong with them. Let's just not confuse them with the truth itself.
The one thing we did agree on was this: ALL FACTS CAN BE PROVEN.
This, however, presents an inconsistency in my group-members' argument. If a certain fact can be proven, it means that there is an absolute truth in relation to that fact. It means that statements contradicting this fact are false, regardless of opinions. They have also conceeded that inside of math and science, there are definite "rights" and "wrongs." Respectfully, I ask where they draw the line? Why do they say that there are standards of truth within math and science, but not within moral or political issues? For example, there are general principles of morality that we hold to be true. These principles tend to bring the most benefit to society, and without them, society doesn't function well. Martial infidelity, for example, obviously causes people pain; thus, we describe it as "wrong." We hold it to be a general "truth" that marital infidelity is wrong.
So, I would argue that you CAN draw the line of Truth outside of math and science. Facts exist and can be proven. But if we do not distinguish between fact and opinion, Truth completely looses its weight and value. It is no longer even real "truth," but an opinion. And if that happens, why even bother defining the "facts"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I absolutely agree (see my post about the discussion). For use to be able to even use words like truth, there must be a standard of truth by which we measure other things. A relativistic view negates the idea of truth itself. A realativist's view cannot be "true" because there is no standard by which to measure its validity.
Thanks, Luke! I posted a comment on your blog, too.
Post a Comment