Since most of my posts here will involve issues that border on or involve truth, I think we should come to an agreement on what that means. I apologize for the length, but issues of value often take time to understand, and I hope to not waste your time or mine with issues without value.
Some say that truth is an illusion or that it doesn't exist at all. Rarely is this said blatantly - the weight of incredulity is too heavy for such a statement - but subtle shadings of deceptive or incomplete thought often go unnoticed by the vast majority of society.
What do I mean by truth? Merely, that which accurately reflects reality. That which disagrees with reality is untrue, and everybody easily recognizes and dislikes being treated in ways which don't correspond or reflect reality. If you work 40 hours and are paid for 20, not many will agree that the employer's decision merely reflects their perspective, which is as valid as any other. Indeed, if you really work 40 hours, then you should be paid for 40 hours, true?
However, when claims are made that are less easily testable, most are willing to believe that all perspectives are equally valid. I have heard it said that all religions are equally true and all lead their followers to God, and many people allow this to be said, whether out of tolerance or outright foolishness, I cannot say, but this claim is logically impossible. If Judaism says Jesus was not the Messiah and Christianity says he was, one of them has to be wrong. If Islam says that Mohammed is the most important prophet and Buddhism claims that that title goes to the Gautama Buddha, they may both be wrong (it could be somebody else entirely), but they may not both be right. This is because of the law of non-contradiction, which states that a thing cannot be A and not-A at the same time and in the same way. This seems self-evident when stated in this way, but far too often, casual thinking (which we are all guilty of from time to time) does not push this far in testing ideas.
As I mentioned at the top, the weight of incredulity prevents direct statements of the law of non-contradiction, but indirect allusions and incomplete thought processes often lead to statements such as "this is true to me," and "that's your opinion." While it is true that some matters aren't matters of truth - strawberry milkshakes are better than chocolate, for instance - these matters of preference don't negate the reality of matters of truth. If I say that I prefer chocolate over strawberry, I'm making a statement of preference and truth, and in fact it is a statement of untruth (I don't like chocolate very much), which as I stated before, are often easier to identify than statements of truth.
In conclusion, I hope that I have at least given you something to ponder and I trust you will let me know if you disagree with me. Thanks for reading!
1 comment:
I think that your ideas on truth are accurate. I liked the comments you made about something can not be A and not A at the same time, talking about the common religious belief that there are many ways to God. I would like to say however, that you cloud the issue if you speak everything like it is the truth. Ideas are ideas and truth is truth. If people think that you believe all your ideas to be truths they stop listening to the ones that really matter and start writing you off as someone that likes to hear himself talk instead of a wise man with lots to offer. (which I know you are). Your comment made before the real meat of your idea, "subtle shadings of deceptive or incomplete thought often go unnoticed by the vast majority of society", May in fact be offensive to a reader and make them stop reading or view you as a jerk. This would be unfortunate as what you said after that comment was worth reading. I just fear some people would shut off before they even got to the real point you were trying to make. Seeing as this is your blog and you get to write whatever you want my comment may mean nothing to you.
Post a Comment