One of the most important questions that Philosophy tries to answer is: 'What is Truth'?
There's more than one truth definition. For now i know about two:
- Classical Truth,
- Cathegorical Truth,
Cathegorical Truth definition can be 'extended' by:
- Thought Coherency,
- Pragmatism.
Classical Truth.
One can argue that when thought is identical to reality, when it reflects the reality - then it's true.
However, how a thought can be compared to a cube or Niagara waterfall? Thoughts seem to be shapeless, and a cube or Niagara waterfall are objects in three-dimensional space.
Time can't also be a measure of thought - thought can last shorter or longer than phenomenon it's compared to.
Many argue that there's difference between act of thinking and thought contents ... and that only thought contents need to be similar to reality to make thought true.
But similarity is non-strict criterium, how much of similarity is needed to make thought true?
Also, how we can know what is real, what is not?
To know if a given thought is true, one needs to know not only considered thought, but also the truth itself.
Using Classical Truth definition seems to be an unachievable ideal.
Cathegorical Truth.
As proper reality understanding seemed to be impossible, philosophers sought other means of discerning truth from falsehood.
Philosophers observed that when people believed in certain thoughts, they considered these as criteria by which they judged other thoughts as either true or false.
This line of thoughts resulted in alternative truth definition, 'Cathegorical Truth'.
'Thought is true when it is compatible with a certain final and irrevocable criterium'
Coherent Truth Theory.
Certain followers of Cathegorical Truth definition believed that thought systems need to be internally coherent.
Truth could be added to a thought system when it's compatible with main criterium of that system, and when it's coherent with other thoughts in that system.
Truth as Infinite Process.
When a thought is considered true by a Cathegorical Truth definition, it doesn't mean that it will hold true in future.
Neo-Kantianists from the Marburg school called this fact 'Truth is Infinite Process'. What follows is thought that there's nothing everlasting and irrevocable, that every theorem is makeshift one.
When certain theorems cease to hold true in a given time, whole thought systems and philosophies need to be re-created again.
Pragmatic Truth Theory.
In it's radical form, this approach starts with assumption that truth of a given theorem depends on it's compatibility with certain final, lasting criteria. Pragmatic Truth Theory, however - in it's radical form - believes that:
In it's less-radical form, pragmatism does not go so far as above theory, but tends toward empirism and positivism.
Corrected Classical Truth definition.
Followers of this thought argue that it's not true that nothing can be learned.
We know that Earth is round, and that Sun is larger than Earth.
Doubts of Non-Classical Truth followers can also be applied to their own definitions of the Truth. If we think that we can't ever understand how Reality works, then we also do not know if our chosen criteria lead to correct understanding of the Reality.
And finally, followers of Classical Truth definition argue that other Truth definitions distort and falsify the Truth.
Non-Classical Truth definitions lead to Idealism.
Followers of Non-Classical Truth definition confirm that they know nothing except of what appears in their Mind. They also called themselves: 'skeptomai', which means: 'i look around', 'i seek'.
Their thoughts were one of 'starting points' for idealism that says that learnable world is not what is real, that learnable world is just only 'thought construct', fiction.
They said that it is fiction that differs from poetic fiction only in that, that it is built from certain rules contained in criterias, that people use when they make judgments.
Blog author's approach.
For my own uses, i've chosen Cathegorical Truth definition, where category to meet is:
Internal Consistency (Coherency) is another important choice for my approach. This is related with honesty mentioned in cathegory above, mostly self-honesty.
... i think that people who are dishonest to themselves can't be internally consistent in their thought systems.
... i believe that 'Truth is Infinite Process'.
Buddhism adapts to Cultures it's practiced in, and when Science contradicts Buddhism, Buddhism adapts.
... i believe that key to Timelessness of many Buddhist lessons lies in it's adaptability and abstraction (generalization). i think that when Buddhism adapts to new Culture and new Reality, the Lessons become more Abstract, more Universal, more Timeless.
... i am not radical, so Classical Truth is also welcome in my thought system to some degree... i believe that for unenlightened being it's impossible to learn whole Truth about Reality, but some things may be learned still.
Partial Truth is not the Truth, but what science, society's opinions, our experiences and senses tell us about Reality might be practical still.
-=- Changing Point of View can change Reality perception as well. -=-
... i know only what appears in my Mind, rest is unknown.
... i am a seeker (of the Truth), i am a skeptomai.
( Quoting the 'X-Files' serie: 'Truth is out there' ;) )
Source:
Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz: 'Topics & directions of Philosophy. Cognition Theory & Metaphysics'.
Chapter 2: 'Topic of Truth'.
(book in polish language).
