Thursday, March 27, 2014

A Further Examination on Truth


                  We live as human beings not completely aware of all things. We are ignorant in many fields and know little about things that are apparent to us. But we are somehow aware that of all things there must be a truth. It seems impossible for one not believe there exists truth, whatever it may be. For no one would commit to the belief that all things are just false without any existence of truth because the existence of something being false implies the existence of truth. This is such that if we are to declare proposition P false (in which P stands for all things in the universe) then we can say it is true that all things P are false. Therefore, the existence of falsity implies truth. Furthermore, it has been the ambition of several persons to pursue the truth of certain things. I will include myself in this group. Truth to me is mysterious and intriguing. As I have explained above it is obvious that truth exists but it is complicated to describe how it is that it exists or what it means for something to be true.

                      To begin with the latter, truth is contrary to what ever is false, since the two never occur simultaneously and any proposition that states this is itself false. For if a truth of water bottle is that it is green, it can not be the case that it can be blue at the same time that it is green. The natural way to follow from here is to ask what it means for something to be false. One could answer this by stating that being false is being not true but then we obtain a circular definition which would pose a problem. Let us look at each statement then carefully to access it plausibility. If we are to say that for something to be true is for it to be not false then we are asserting that the truthfulness of something depends on the existence of something that is not true. This turns into a problem because any number of things can be said to be false about a given thing and how can we know what kind of statements are false about an object if we do not know what its truth is. One can not say that the statement, “The water bottle is blue,” is false because we do not know if it is actually the case that it is blue. Let us then turn to our next option in saying that as we did before that for something to be false means for it not to be true. Falsity then would be depended on the truth of a given thing. We can then say that the statement, “The water bottle is blue,” is false because we know the truth of it. Then that brings us back to the question of how something can be true.

                          The complexity of the truth is now beginning to unravel. In my previous discourse in which gave a personal account of truth, I proposed a method ( the Cartesian method of doubt ) in which we could use to analyze the nature of truth. I also provided key insight that may aid us now. To begin I use the Cartesian method of doubt ( in which I doubted all things and then rationally deduced their existence) in order to prove my existence. I stated that there exist thoughts, and I am the one who is thinking them so I too must exist. This method of using reason in order to get to the truth of something (as I had said before truth is in fact the truth of something) seems to me as a great way of understanding how things can be true. That is we are able to come to understand truth by closing examining the nature of a particular thing (in a rational way) until we uncover a truth of things.

               Plato illustrates this point in his allegory of the cave. He writes about a discussion between his main character Socrates, and Glaucon (Plato's brother) in which Socrates asks Glaucon to imagine a group of prisoners in a cave. The prisoners are chained so they are unable to move, and are only able to see the wall in front of them. Shadows of statues are projected onto the wall by a fire behind them. Socrates continues by asking Glaucon to imagine that one of the prisoners is set free and dragged out of the cave and into the light. After seeing things as they really are the prisoner is filled with pity for the other prisoners and returns back to the cave to tell the others. The other prisoners hear him speak and shun him from the group for his difference in thought. Plato used the allegory to explicate that one must get an education. For Plato it seems natural to be born with ignorance (which is symbolized in the allegory using the cave), but he thinks it is also natural for people to seek truth and therefore it is natural to become educated. As kids we are inclined to ask several questions out of our ignorance, this seems to stop as we get older when believe that we have understanding. This is parallel with the prisoners in the cave who only see shadows of statues and artifacts and , “believe(d) that the truth is nothing other than the shadows of the artifacts” (515c, line 1-2). It is only when the guards dragged a prisoner outside and showed (educated) him the things as they are that he was able to get an understanding of truth. But this did not come without a period of doubt and examination. Thus it is clear that to come to an understanding of truth one must closely examine the thing in question. Then to understand truth something as a human being is to know something. And as Plato has mentioned in other works, knowledge is a justified true belief. Belief we take to be a mental state that proposes a truth for something. Therefore it is clear that to understand truth we must reasonably justify it. Hence, as I have proposed, the truth of something requires close examination.

                Let us turn our attention to another question. It has been clear that falsity is contrary to whatever is true, and whatever is true can only be understood through close examination which requires considering all the factors that affect the truth of the thing and deducing a reasonable explanation. But why is it that we must examine the truth of things? What is so great about examination that made Socrates proclaim that “the unexamined life is not worth living” (38a, line 3-4) ? Aristotle would respond to this question by saying that it is the human highest good is to live rationally as that is what separates us from other animals and plants. Therefore asking questions about truth is just part of our nature and it is something that we must do in order to live to our full capacity. This response provides some insights to the question but is also very vague. We can take from this response that humans are rational beings therefore seeking truth is part of our nature like breathing in air. Breathing in air we understand, helps us stay alive by providing our blood cells with oxygen, but what good does pursuing have for us.

           I have claimed in my personal account of truth that things exists independent of myself. It is not the case that my bottle is green only because I perceive it to be green. If it was that way then the properties that appear to be in the bottle would not be there at all but would actually just be mere projections by one's perception. It would be the case that bottle could not exist all together. It is of these things that are independent of myself that I have said that we examine closely and search for truth. It is clear that among all things there are relations between me and the thing. This water bottle for example, is half a foot to the right of my right arm. When I uncover a truth about a thing that then I am also uncovering a truth about the relation between me and the thing. If I find that the water bottle is one foot tall I discover that the bottle is in fact smaller than me. It then must follow that when I uncover the truth of a thing I am able to learn more about myself. Therefore a study of truth is not just a study of things (such as the whole world), but a study about myself. It seems then that we seek truth in order to understand ourselves, this is what Aristotle might have meant by that the highest good of man is living rationally and why Socrates would say that a life not examined is not worth living. For if one does not examine and pursue truth he fails to know even himself.

                It is important to understand that seeking truth does not occur in a vacuum and there are several societal perspectives that influence one's perception of truth. These societal perspectives, norms, and policies, compose what I will call the social paradigm which is the entire world view that a social group has. When one is born the rules of a paradigm are indoctrinated in us via the media, parents, friends, any sort of tool that you can use to obtain information. Therefore when one begins to examine things he does not begin with a clean slate, one begins with several presumptions about a particular thing. For example say there is a law that purposely facilitates the higher class to abuse the lower class and say I am born into a wealthy family that indoctrinates me into the paradigm of the higher class. It is apparent that I will view the law as just. Now any attempt to begin an examination on economics and the nature of justice will begin with this presumption. Let us return again to the example of the cave. The prisoners collectively hold a social paradigm in which they see the shadows cast on the wall as truth. Thus when the prisoner is set free and taken to the opening of the cave he at first thought, “the things he saw earlier were truer than the ones he was being now being shown,” (515d, line 7-8). For the paradigmatic view of the world that a group has is one that the individual will have prior to examination. It seems also that the one can in turn influence and even change the social paradigm. We know that the allegory of the cave as well as the other works of Plato have greatly influenced the beliefs of truth at the time and the beliefs of people of later centuries. Education thus seems to the liberator of ignorance. For when one has education one has knowledge of truth, and once one has knowledge of truth like the prisoner who was taken to the opening of the cave, one will be eager to continue to pursue truth. Education alone does not in which case ensure that the social group will accept the new view, even if it is the truth. For we have seen that as the man return to the cave he is shunned for his difference. But still once one has seen truth one must continue to strive to understand it because not only are we living to our full capacity as rational beings but we are also coming to know ourselves better. It is therefore examination of things that we should practice constantly and educate others into the habit. So much then for truth.










                                                                   Works Cited

Plato, Benjamin Jowett, Pedro De Blas, and George Stade. Essential Dialogues of Plato. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2005. Print.

Plato, G. M. A. Grube, and C. D. C. Reeve. Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1992. Print











0 comments :

Post a Comment