.. ither a very ridiculous notion or a very scary concept if he is correct. Since men create words and the words create the truth, truth then is a relative term. The coherence theory also concerns the meaning of knowledge. It states that a proposition’s truth consists in its fitting into a coherent system of propositions.
Beliefs cover everything and do not contradict each other. The coherence theory is undoubtedly the better theory even here if only because there is an elegant economy in having a single over-arching theory of truth that encompasses all situations. I believe that Marx has stayed consistent with the coherent theory. Whether he was right or wrong is not necessarily the point here, the point is that he did not contradict himself within his own writings. Instead of following all the historical writings, Marx decides to institute a whole new system by eliminating all truths and establishing a system without any truths.
Since Communism contradicts all the previous philosophies, Marx creates this system so that there is no grey area. Many who found themselves in the grey area were usually not heard from again. This brings us to a philosopher that followed the ideas of Stalin or even Clinton when it comes to truth. Machiavelli views the nature of man as a selfish animal. If we are selfish then it only makes sense that all truth would be distorted and vague. Truth is never simple with Machiavelli and will always be construed as a man’s weakness.
Simple virtues make a man vulnerable while a mans vices will help him to survive. Embracing non-truths is the key for success according to Machiavelli. If my notion is correct that most of the truths that we come across are inherent is correct, then Machiavelli is very wrong. His methods are accurate, however he has us to believe that stealing could be worse than murder. The nature of truth has been linked with the good and the beautiful as one of man’s supreme values.
The pursuit of truth is indistinguishable in practice from the pursuit of knowledge, whether about the environment, nature, ethnical duties and ideas, or the relation to the divine. It has been doubted whether the nature of truth, is humanly attainable. Truth has been linked with the Good and the Beautiful as one of man’s supreme values. The pursuit of truth is indistinguishable in practice from the pursuit of knowledge, whether about the environment, nature, ethnical duties and ideas, or the relation to the divine. It has been doubted whether knowledge, or known truth, is humanly attainable.
The truth is often disagreeable, because it fails to support prejudice or myth. The pursuit of truth tends to be suppressed as a dangerously revolutionary force. Some philosophers reject the question What is truth? with the observation that attaching the claim it is true that to a sentence adds no meaning. The use of the word true is essential when making a general claim about everything, nothing, or something, as in the statement most of what he says is true. Rousseau believes that truths only come out in social situations.
He developed a political system so that these truths will come out. I guess if we do not understand something we just change it so that it fits what it is that you believe. Isn’t that the opposite of truth? If we devise a new system so that we can develop new truths than we are rejecting the truths that are already in place. Aristotle would have us believe that truth exists within the combination of ideas. The same would go for falsity.
Truth or falsehood cannot exist when the ideas are isolated. So according to Aristotle there are only a handful of truths in the universe. The rest are just relative depending upon the context in which you use them. When I think of simple truths I think of the book All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. Everything was so simple when we were young.
Right from wrong was always inherent and if we were ever questioned for something, we usually knew we were wrong before the teacher questioned us. The older we are the more complicated everything gets. That is why God refers to children when he tells people to come to him. They are so humble and can tell right from wrong, generally speaking. Lets break down the philosophers from complex to very simple notions, in terms of truth.
Locke believes there are no truths because there are no innate ideas. Hobbes believes that words are arbitrary and because words create truth, truth is arbitrary. This can be explained by saying a set of words is true when it expresses a true thought. Rene Descartes, once said, I am, [therefore] I exist. This statement contains the only truth found for certain in our natural experience that, as conscious beings, we exist. Whether we are our own creators, a creation, or the object of evolution, as long as we know that we think, we prove to exist. Descartes claims, But certainly I should exist, if I were to persuade my self of something. Our existence is a truth, and may be the only truth, that we know is certain . Rousseau would have us believe that truths can only be established in social situations, along with Aristotle who believes that truth cannot be isolated.
Machiavelli brings us a little closer in a twisted way. He believes in telling lies to get what you want. He doesn’t try to throw vague ideas at you, he just wants you to use effectual truths. Karl Marx gives us clear ideas of what he wants us to do. Just throw out the whole system and start over. He wants to create a system that does not involve truths.
No more deception, everyone is on the same playing field. Truth is a very simple and handy concept. It is correspondence of a pictorial or symbolic representation to the thing being represented. We may search for the answer until the end of time, when God says to us that the only truths are in him. He may tell all these philosophers that the answer was right in front of them and that they should have never led his children astray.
All I know is Jack Handy said it best when he said: To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And, at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between, plus some things I can’t remember, all rolled into one big thing. This is truth, to me. Every object is ruled self-contradicting which can be opposed by questioning its perception and even the existence for its use.
Our experiences from our natural existence gives us a bias of all that is true. The ideas that we encounter are determined true by personal evaluation in the associations of those ideas with ourselves. I am, [therefore] I exist, may be the only statement with any validity of our certainty. This is an essay that I was going to use for my 1st year Philosophy class, until I noticed that I hadn’t addressed the question properly, however All the information is correct and useful, This just needs some fixing up. If you want a shorter version, refer to my Essay posted earlier by Anonymous Titled, “Truth”.
Mike Philosophy Essays.