top of page

What is the Truth?

12.08.2021



05
.
Download • 210KB

N. N. Ge "What is the truth?" Christ and Pilat.1890.

Pontius Pilate, exclaimed, addressing Jesus: “What is the Truth?”

The search for Truth has been one of the most fundamental issues of philosophy since time immemorial.

Philosophy distinguishes three main types of Truth: objective, absolute and relative.

Objective Truth, by definition, does not depend on man (example: The Earth revolves around the Sun).

Absolute Truth, by definition, is proven by science (example: 2 + 3 = 5).

Relative Truth, by definition, is partially true (example: for one person, the bus goes to the right, for another, the bus goes to the left).

In terms of our reasoning of mental images, Truth is objective, unique and, within the framework of duality, the opposite of a lie.


The closest to me is the definition of Plato’s concept (the eternal “eidos of truth”) where the Soul is connected to Truth by the Soul’s memories of its stay in the world of eternal ideas when it has not yet united with the body.

Truth may be a philosophical concept, but it has nothing to do with the concept of Philosophy.

As I understand, Truth is a natural product of the act of Creation made by the Creator. Truth is a virtuous attribute of the Creator.

The following definition of Truth can be given in this case.

The Truth is the totality of agreed thought images.

Thus, a Lie is a set of inconsistent mental images.

In turn, mental images are a set of coordinated quanta of information.

All quanta of information together are God.


How does this definition of Truth correspond to the above examples?

Let’s analyze an example of objective Truth: “The Earth revolves around the Sun”.

This kind of Truth does not depend on man, but a man, nevertheless, gives its definition. OK then … The Earth is a material object where humans can move around. From man’s point of view, the Earth is an objective concept that does not depend on man. The object Earth represents a certain mental image. The concept of rotation, that is, the movement of each material point of the object around the considered center of mass, is also an objective concept representing a certain mental image. The definition of around is associated in humans with the movement of one material object relative to another material or imaginary object within a conditional distance (along a circular or elliptical trajectory). A certain mental image also corresponds to the concept of around. The Sun is an object that represents a certain mental image, just like the Earth. However, to touch this object may not be possible, thus we have to trust only indirect data.

So, is there a consistent set of mental images when we say: “The Earth revolves around the Sun.” This set of mental images is consistent with common sense, unlike the imagery of “The Earth revolving around Proxima Centauri” (although it cannot be completely ruled out), but is this set an objective Truth? Thanks to the work of Nicolaus Copernicus, the above totality is rather absolute Truth, if we rely on the three main types of Truth identified above. Although an educated person may consider it as an objective Truth that the Earth revolves around the Sun, for an ordinary person the opposite is obvious, that the Sun revolves around the Earth. For this reason, a more successful example of objective Truth is the one where the Truth can actually be objectively verified. For example, the Volga River flows into the Caspian Sea.

Let’s analyze our example of absolute truth: 2 + 3 = 5.

Arithmetic certainly offers the most illustrative and successful examples for proving absolute truth.

The numbers 2, 3 and 5 have a numerical value that is quite understandable to everyone, associated with the number of accountable items. According to the simple understanding of any adult, TWO apples have an unambiguous mental image.

The “+” (plus) sign is basically a graphical symbol of the arithmetic action of addition, that is to increase something. The mental image associated with this mathematical symbol has an unambiguous meaning.

The “=” (equal to), since its first application, has been a mathematical symbol denoting the equality of what is to the left of the sign to what is to the right of the sign. The equal sign has the same meaning in the image of arithmetic operations. The mental image associated with this mathematical symbol has an unambiguous meaning.

Thus, the set of mental images: 2 + 3 = 5 is True, provided that this is a set of coordinated mental images. For instance, the set of mental images: 2 + 4 = 5 is not True due to the inconsistency of symbols.

I draw your attention to the fact that in the given example, Truth is not the number 5, but a set of coordinated mental images (as in the first example).

Let’s analyze our third example of relative Truth: for one person, the bus goes to the right, for another, the bus goes to the left.

Two people (person No. 1 and person No. 2) stand opposite each other and look at each other. A bus passes between them. For person No. 1, the bus goes to the right, for person No. 2, the bus goes to the left. It would seem that there is one truth, but there is a contradiction…

Person No. 1 and person No. 2 are certain mental images, adjusted for the gender of the person. A moving bus also seems to have a certain mental image, if you do not go into the details of its design. And this generalized mental image of a single bus passes between people: past person No. 1 from left to right and past person No. 2 from right to left.

In my opinion, there is no contradiction here if we consider this event separately as two sets of coordinated mental images.

Person No. 1 watches a bus passing by from left to right: Truth No. 1. At the same time, person No. 2 watches the bus passing by from right to left: Truth No. 2. We have two Truths that do not contradict each other.

The examples of philosophical definitions (objective, absolute and relative) of Truth we have considered allow us to combine them into one definition.


Recent Posts

See All

28.12.2022 French writer and philosopher Montaigne (French Michel de Montaigne, Les Essais, 1581) said: "Stupidity is a disease, which never affects those who see it in themselves...". So it is with b

30.12.2022 Французскому писателю и философу Монтеню (франц. Michel de Montaigne, Les Essais, 1581) принадлежат слова: «Глупость – болезнь, которой никогда не страдает тот, кто её видит в себе …». Так

20.08.2022 This quality is less and less common in today's world, but is increasingly the subject of discussion by legislatures. All the more so, I wanted to express what, at least I believe, the conc

bottom of page