Which philosopher is closest to the truth about the truth?

Answer 1

well if we knew that then we would all know the truth

so i really dont know sorry

Answer 2

Most philosophers get caught up in the overwhelming implications of answering any question. They believe that to define one thing, several other terms, concepts, words, and arguments much take precedence first. However, no one philosopher has suceeded in describing the Truth...for the truth lies in Emptiness, in no-mind, in Oneness of all things. Every person reaches out for Truth, but few actually Understand it. Many try by writing beautiful books, great stories, long arguments and papers, and even holding several discourses with others. Long story short, the Truth lies Within. If you let everything go, everything is understood - before thought, before being, within self...many call this Light, or God, or Buddha-nature. Truth is, it is all of these, and none. :)

Answer 3

Theory and Truth: Philosophical Critique within Foundational
Science. Lawrence Sklar. Oxford University Press.
Many of the undergraduates I teach are attracted by the heady
idea that truth is "relative to us" and reality is "dependent on our
minds". This idea is not just confined to philosophy
undergraduates. A veritable army of philosophers, historians, and
sociologists of science has been working over the last forty years
to persuade us that science itself does not deliver objective truths,
but is rather an elaborate social construction that creates the
reality it purports to study. It is a dismal reflection on academic
fadism that this form of scepticism has become the prevailing
orthodoxy in science studies.
The two books under review seek in quite different ways to
counter this prevailing scepticism with a defence of a realist view
of scientific theories. Both books argue that scientific theories aim
at the truth and, when successful, represent the world as it really
is. Many science sceptics will view the project of these books as
naïve or misguided. However, both authors have impressive
credentials as scholars of science. Sklar has written a number of
prize-winning books about the structure of the physical sciences.
The present book is a revised version of his John Locke lectures
delivered at Oxford in 1998. Niiniluoto is a respected philosopher
of science who has long advocated the importance of the notion
of truthlikeness or closeness-to-truth to the methodology of
science. His book deploys the results of his technical studies of
truthlikeness in an informal defence of what he calls "critical
scientific realism".
Many of the elements of this "critical scientific realism" are
parts of a familiar realist package of doctrines: physical reality is
mind-independent; truth is a non-epistemic property of sentences
or thoughts consisting in their correspondence to features of
reality; even if currently accepted scientific theories will prove to
be false, they may still be truthlike or close-to-the-truth; and
scientific progress consists in the development of theories that are
more and more truthlike. There are, however, a few surprise

Answer 4

Read.



http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-revision/

Answer 5

Philosophers are widely excepted in science for leading the way to the truth, so that people can have another perspective of something that they never dreamed of.
For example, Albert Einstein named Hume as a major influence when he came up with his theory of relativity.

Answer 6

You know, science at one time was called, "natural philosophy." That was when it was in its infancy, and the real scientific methods of observation, experimentation, and independently repeatable results weren't really developed yet.
Once the full scientific method was developed and recognized, there was a split between science and philosophy -- most scientists recognized that "pure" philosophy (which is thought and reasoning without experiment, observation, or verifiable and repeatable evidence) can never find "truth." They also recognized the difference between "truth" and "fact." While philosophy is still considered valuable, most intelligent thinkers today agree that only the scientific method can provide "fact" -- not philosophy, which can at best provide "truisms" mostly relevant to their own time period.

So -- no philosopher is close to the truth about truth :)

Answer 7

Well, technically, truth would be defined as something that is unwavering, something that is concrete in knowing, something that isn't able to be altered. Therefore, there cannot exist more than one "truth" concurrently, especially streaming from more than one individual. The truth, though, is that one cannot know the truth because it is [nearly] impossible to know everything. Sorry, but you must be a little agnostic to let this question go.

Answer 8

It doesn't matter..

first of all- no one will ever agree on one truth

and secondly- if EVERYONE agreed on one idea of the truth, it still doesn't necessarily mean that it is the truth

thirdly- u cant handle the truth. just kidding, actually maybe i'm not..hmmmm interesting...

can i have 10 points?

good luck with search of the truth x

Answer 9

The greatest 'pilosopher' is God himself. Jesus says "Iam the Truth, the Way and the Life no-one can come to the Father except through me". Find out for yourself in true sincerity of heart and you will find the answer.

Answer 10

Philosophy: Unintelligible answers to insoluble problems.
Henry B. Adams

True philosophy invents nothing; it merely establishes and describes what is.
Victor Cousin

Answer 11

Me!
If you don't believe it is me, as ME, and I will tell you it is ME.
{sorry for the cheekiness, but let's face it, most people have the notion they know it all, and the least informed, the least intelligent, the more they think themselves correct. Silly prats are too stupid to consider the views and opinions of anyone but themselves.