Philosophy Which sort of truth suits you best?

The way we perceive our environment, in combination with beliefs, does not only reflect what we try to define as truth. It also shows how we interact with other people in life, how we cope with everyday problems, and also how it contributes to our personality and shapes the mind, how it influences our thoughts of justice. In fact, it can be called some sort of life-style 'lol'

I tried to collect some of the most contemporary personal statements of truth, and tried to link them to some epistemologists who represented them to some degree. Please note that all these statements are a little oversimplified and not in detail the words of these philosophers. However, I tried to be as close as possible.


Which sort of truth suits you best?



1. With the usage of logic alone we can find ultimate truth! (de Spinoza, Descartes, Kant etc...)


2. With the usage of logic AND empirics we can find ultimate truth! (Bacon, Locke, Berkeley etc...)


3. It is impossible to find the ultimate truth. But with the usage of logic and empirics we can at least save temporary truth! (Popper, Campbell etc...)


4. Truth doesn’t exist and is only constructed in our heads in interaction with reality. But this shouldn’t keep us from being scientific! (Piaget, von Glasersfeld etc...)


5. I don’t care about what the ultimate truth is, as long as what we are searching for is useful and accepted by various scientists. (Peirce, James, Dewey etc...)


6. I don’t care about what the ultimate truth is, as long as what we are searching for helps to fulfil the needs of human kind. (Marx, Horkheimer etc...)


7. Everybody is right! All we need to do is to agree upon what sort of truth we are talking about! (Lyotard, Foucault etc...)


8. Shut up! Everything is propaganda, this thread is bull shit! haha (your name is Reinhaert and you can leave this discussion NOW!)

Originally I wanted to add a poll. But it said the sentences were too long :sad-2:

Great stuff Mzungu, thanks.
I must say that I didn't do my thinking yet to settle the Truth issue.
For now though I will go with numbers 5 and 6. Damn, I didn't imagine myself close to Marx, lol. But it was me who said, in couple of threads, that if I knew life only from books I would have been a communist.

Knowing life though I realize that the quest for the truth is a daunting task in human environment saturated with our emotions. In this context I can even go with 7 for a peace of mind, lol.

In mathematics and basic physics the Truth is easier to define, and it surely exists.
In quantum physics and statistics, the Truth is more evasive. Instead of firm yes, no, false or truth, we are getting most likely, possibly, very likely, but never 100% truth. This is probably same with complicated human environment. Therefore we should give up the quest for ultimate Truths and settle down with probabilities of what is more likely helpful for society, communities, nations/unions, and just go with this.

Number 8 is hilarious, thanks.

Now, this is great stuff, @Mzungu... and @LeBrok gave also a great answer.

I think that Philosophy deserves a little space in this forums... .

My notions of Epistemology are a bit rusty... but I will gladly comment of your examples...

From the start, I belive that currently for me the most complete and more reliable method of knowledge, is the scientific method, and the compendium of more trustable knowledge is in the most confirmed theories in Science. It provides its own "checks and balances" and seek continously to correct itself. Even when as @LeBrok said, our theories and observations (outside purely formal science) are merely approximations. But are the best approximations that we could get, after pityless scrutiny.

Now, not all the sciences are equally mature. The Natural Sciences have a lot of advantage in comparison to Social Sciences, because this last ones, even to these days, have to fight more against authority and spurious non scientific interests. Also their subject of study, seems objectively more complex.

Now, I comment about your examples...

1. With the usage of logic alone we can find ultimate truth! (de Spinoza, Descartes, Kant etc...)

Click to expand...

Logic and analysis are not a bad start... but our theories about the physical and social "Reality" needs to be assessed by observations. So I don't belive that logic and abstract analysis would suffice here.

2. With the usage of logic AND empirics we can find ultimate truth! (Bacon, Locke, Berkeley etc...)

Click to expand...

The oposite, and also wrong position. Empirics and Phenomenology alone cannot penetrate reality in the same manner as the postulations of Theories could do. However, these theories have to be contrasted by empirical facts.

So the best Science (or even "real Science") could only be archived by the marriage of points (1.) and (2.) in a proper manner.

3. It is impossible to find the ultimate truth. But with the usage of logic and empirics we can at least save temporary truth! (Popper, Campbell etc...)

Click to expand...

Exactly what I described before. This is the approach I like most.

4. Truth doesn’t exist and is only constructed in our heads in interaction with reality. But this shouldn’t keep us from being scientific! (Piaget, von Glasersfeld etc...)

Click to expand...

Don't seem to go much away from the former position... but one has the impression they wanted to say more.

5. I don’t care about what the ultimate truth is, as long as what we are searching for is useful and accepted by various scientists. (Peirce, James, Dewey etc...)

Click to expand...

If you don't care about truth, why do you care about what other people say?

"Action" is the realm of pragmatics and Engineering, not scientists.

This position, is not about science.

6. I don’t care about what the ultimate truth is, as long as what we are searching for helps to fulfil the needs of human kind. (Marx, Horkheimer etc...)

Click to expand...

A valid position, but it is more or less the same as the former.

7. Everybody is right! All we need to do is to agree upon what sort of truth we are talking about! (Lyotard, Foucault etc...)

Click to expand...

The socially accepted truth of any Era inevitable is limited by the social and philosophical vision and tolerance, of that Era.

I think this should not be. We socially should strive for "objective" science (even if it is elusive), and accept it.

8. Shut up! Everything is propaganda, this thread is bull shit! haha (your name is Reinhaert and you can leave this discussion NOW!)

Click to expand...

MUCH of what we see around us IS propaganda.

Inside of (generally accepted) Science itself (e.g. Economics!!), much of what you see is pure Propaganda (e.g. "Monetarism").

However, again, we have not to give up and look for true Science.

Best Regards.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

P.S.

Wow!, @Mzungu... Are you studying Philosophy?? What an interesting and most intelligent thread.

Congrats.

No.7 What sort of truth are we talking about?

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 fits to me.

LeBrok said:

Great stuff Mzungu, thanks.
I must say that I didn't do my thinking yet to settle the Truth issue.
For now though I will go with numbers 5 and 6. Damn, I didn't imagine myself close to Marx, lol. But it was me who said, in couple of threads, that if I knew life only from books I would have been a communist.

Knowing life though I realize that the quest for the truth is a daunting task in human environment saturated with our emotions. In this context I can even go with 7 for a peace of mind, lol.

In mathematics and basic physics the Truth is easier to define, and it surely exists.
In quantum physics and statistics, the Truth is more evasive. Instead of firm yes, no, false or truth, we are getting most likely, possibly, very likely, but never 100% truth. This is probably same with complicated human environment. Therefore we should give up the quest for ultimate Truths and settle down with probabilities of what is more likely helpful for society, communities, nations/unions, and just go with this.

Number 8 is hilarious, thanks.

Click to expand...

With everything you said you are practically summing up what the great philosophers were and are arguing and quarreling about!

Sirius2b said:

Logic and analysis are not a bad start... but our theories about the physical and social "Reality" needs to be assessed by observations. So I don't belive that logic and abstract analysis would suffice here.

Click to expand...

From today's point of view it seems easy to mock about relying on logic only. But there are two things to say: First, when scientists came up with this kind of thought it wasn't that natural, because from the 16th to 18th century still many people were relying heavily on authorities like the clergy or Ancient Greek authors without questioning them. Secondly, most of us usually use logic only in everyday life and tend to neglect evidence-based facts because of unawareness. Ironically it was this very forum, especially the part 'Genetics' in this forum, which gave me the inspiration to do this research here.

The oposite, and also wrong position. Empirics and Phenomenology alone cannot penetrate reality in the same manner as the postulations of Theories could do. However, these theories have to be contrasted by empirical facts.

So the best Science (or even "real Science") could only be archived by the marriage of points (1.) and (2.) in a proper manner.




Exactly what I described before. This is the approach I like most.

Click to expand...

Yes, same to me! At the beginning of the 20th century it became clearer that even the most evidence-based facts couldn't be taken for that granted anymore. Newton's laws about physics had universal claims and of course we still use them today. However, when it comes to other dimensions of messurements, for instance in space, they become useless. Albert Einstein was one of those who figured this out and got careful about his very own theories. Popper was the one who transfered standards of natural sciences to social sciences, with the awareness we can't grasp reality fully.

Don't seem to go much away from the former position... but one has the impression they wanted to say more.

Click to expand...

The difference between 3. and 4. is basically that 3. admits there is a truth, we just can't fully grasp it. 4. says truth is only a construct in our heads which we think to perceive. Moreover 4. allows also other methods than logic and empirics, as long as we try to stay serious.

If you don't care about truth, why do you care about what other people say?

"Action" is the realm of pragmatics and Engineering, not scientists.

This position, is not about science.



A valid position, but it is more or less the same as the former.

Click to expand...

As it got clearer that we will never be able to understand everything, people were questioning for the sake of what we are doing research and which results were worth being recognized as being scientific. There were two major and opposing positions: In the Anglican World 'Pragmatism' was the key word, to look which scientific method and result is usefull in any way and the majority of scientists can find a consent. Later, and especially in Germany, other philosophers were arguing that the benefit for society was mostly desirable. Most of them were a little leftist oriented ('Frankfurter Schule' with Horkheimer, Adorno, Habermas etc...), although not to the same extreme as Marx.

The socially accepted truth of any Era inevitable is limited by the social and philosophical vision and tolerance, of that Era.

I think this should not be. We socially should strive for "objective" science (even if it is elusive), and accept it.

Click to expand...

Right! This is the 'Postmodern' view, with which I identified mostly with until recently. On first glance it seems to be perfect, it harmonizes and finds a consent with all other views, plus you can switch to any method wherever you think it suits appropriatly. But life experience has shown me something different, though, as this kind of philosophy only turns in circles and leads to nowhere...

MUCH of what we see around us IS propaganda.

Inside of (generally accepted) Science itself (e.g. Economics!!), much of what you see is pure Propaganda (e.g. "Monetarism").

However, again, we have not to give up and look for true Science.

Click to expand...

Originally intended as a joke only, I think this is really a statement worth thinking about

Best Regards.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

P.S.

Wow!, @Mzungu... Are you studying Philosophy?? What an interesting and most intelligent thread.

Congrats.

Click to expand...

Thank you!
And no *lol*, I have nothing to do with philosophy. I'm a nurse and currently going to become a 'nurse educator' (teacher for nursing students). But even there I stumble about theories of knowledge and truth everywhere.

Well...

6. I don’t care about what the ultimate truth is, as long as what we are searching for helps to fulfil the needs of human kind. (Marx, Horkheimer etc...)

Click to expand...

I don't think an ultimate truth exists.
That would mean a static world.
And the world is dynamic.
Truth changes through time and space.

@ the OP Mzungu.....

8. Shut up! Everything is propaganda, this thread is bull shit! haha (your name is Reinhaert and you can leave this discussion NOW!)

Click to expand...

You didn't mean me, do you? :grin:

i agree with number 2

I cannot choose any option. Probably the truth exists and to find her is to reach the perfection, an unattainable target for the human mind, which can make a detour and approach the truth, but not reach her fully, because of doing it it would turn the truth into lie into chaos and the destruction would come, so that the best thing is to live constantly in chasing the truth, not reaching her, not because let's not want, rather because it is not impossible.

I think there are as many truths as there are people... Or at least epistemological systems. However, in most societies there is a general truth (and epistemological system) around which the construct of it is based. For example the dominant ontological method today (in Western society) is the scientific method. However, in this postmodern world, the very notion of truth is being rejected or "relativised".... as Nietzsche predicted with his notions of perspectivism and nihilism. I, for myself, try to understand most of the ontological (and ethical) "methods"; scientific, religious, magical, and all in between, and regard them as equals. However, just because there are many truths doesn't mean they don't exist. Truth is multivalent, but not for that reason less palpable. It is... multipalpable

Well.. I try it the other way...

1. With the usage of logic alone we can find ultimate truth! (de Spinoza, Descartes, Kant etc...)

Click to expand...

A simple question.. What is the use of life?
If there is only logic, why would parents get children?

It costs them loads of money and care, and in the end they die anyway!
Your children may have children again, but you don't have any control about that, so logically it's wasted energy and resources.

Logic alone is a bad idea. A dream. Not rational. Humans don't function that way.
I like the idea that logic isn't rational.. Because rationality takes the environment you live in into account.
Pure logic doesn't.

So, case 1 is out of order for me.

I think that "pure" truth is out there and theoretically acquirable by a sort of Lockean combination of logic and empirical study. Humans are closer to mastering logic, however, than they are to mastering empirical study, as our sensory input is limited to that which we evolved. So, we are good at making deductions based on what little we know, but are quite limited in our abilities to actually pick up information to feed into that logic machine.

Another drawback is that, even though we have created quite refined systems of logic, we frequently misuse it and build in systematic errors, which can lead to a false impression that logic itself is flawed. Similarly, the fact that we have different personal "truths" leads to the false impression that there is no ultimate truth. The problem here is a clash between philosophical concepts of "truth" and "logic" and common use of the terms "truth" and "logic." In fact, I would argue that the common use of the terms are the more useful for the human condition... basically, saying that we use "logic" to find the "truth" tends to mean, and should mean, that we think about problems to find find solutions, not that we deduce the pure truth through pure logic. The latter should be reserved to hypotheticals, like that which we are discussing right now.

So I go with 2, with 5-7 having worthwhile points. As usual, Locke, Wittgenstein, and Darwin are influences on my thinking.

As Sparkey tells:

I think that "pure" truth is out there and theoretically acquirable by a sort of Lockean combination of logic and empirical study. Humans are closer to mastering logic, however, than they are to mastering empirical study, as our sensory input is limited to that which we evolved. So, we are good at making deductions based on what little we know, but are quite limited in our abilities to actually pick up information to feed into that logic machine.

Click to expand...

It's about possibility 2

2. With the usage of logic AND empirics we can find ultimate truth! (Bacon, Locke, Berkeley etc...)

Click to expand...

Well, empirics..

There are many human beings that never understand what they see.
Did you ever see a lightning flash?

Did it go up or down?

You can't see what happens, it's just too quick!

What you see isn't what happens!

An empirical evidence is only true under scientifically sound conditions.

There goes theory #2 down the drain!

Carlos said:

I cannot choose any option. Probably the truth exists and to find her is to reach the perfection, an unattainable target for the human mind, which can make a detour and approach the truth, but not reach her fully, because of doing it it would turn the truth into lie into chaos and the destruction would come, so that the best thing is to live constantly in chasing the truth, not reaching her, not because let's not want, rather because it is not impossible.

Click to expand...

That is basically option #3.

Asturrulumbo said:

I think there are as many truths as there are people... Or at least epistemological systems. However, in most societies there is a general truth (and epistemological system) around which the construct of it is based. For example the dominant ontological method today (in Western society) is the scientific method. However, in this postmodern world, the very notion of truth is being rejected or "relativised".... as Nietzsche predicted with his notions of perspectivism and nihilism. I, for myself, try to understand most of the ontological (and ethical) "methods"; scientific, religious, magical, and all in between, and regard them as equals. However, just because there are many truths doesn't mean they don't exist. Truth is multivalent, but not for that reason less palpable. It is... multipalpable

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is the view I try to identify myself with, too!
Lyotard was talking about "games". Each search and definition of truth is like a game, and we have to agree upon what sort of game we want to play, and place rules for each game. Problem of course is, in order to be successful in the end, we have to find enough people who understand this fact and who are consistent on the games we are playing.

Reinaert said:

You didn't mean me, do you? :grin:

Click to expand...

Well...
At least I'm giving you a certificate for 'improved behaviour' during the last few months :grin:

I agree with your observation, Reinaert became more "civilized" these days.

Do you think he could be mellowing with age? Like a fine wine maybe?:grin: