we were discussing this in class today, and i left not really understanding how truth could be a value instead of a concrete object, separated from ourselves, and having light from within. pleas help!
2007-07-24 02:37:24 · 6 answers · asked by donya d 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
You're questioning. That is the beginning of wisdom.
Suppose you say you're going to do your homework one day. But when you get home you find that something has happened to a member of your family and you have to now spend time in a way that doesn't allow you to complete your homework. The next day you say to your professor, you meant to do your homework but something kept you from doing it. He says, you're not telling the truth, you lose a grade point. How do you prove the truth of your intention to do your homework? The answer is you really can't.
The truth of that intention lives only within you. Truth is mostly by agreement; those who heard you say you intended to do your homework, may agree that you have told the truth about your intention. Then by logically following along, may agree that you were prevented from doing it based on the magnitude of the family crisis that caused the interruption. Alternately, they may believe that you lied at the time you said you intended to do you homework.
However, unless people were informed of your intention beforehand, and can clearly see that you made a best effort to fulfill on your intention, the likelyhood is that no one will agree that it is true that you intended to complete your homework.
If you follow that logic, you can see that your intention is what forms the truth. Whatever is happening in the world, by forming an intention and sharing that with the people around you, you actually create the truth. What you think is true, is true, because you have thought it. And what others believe is true, becomes true for you, if you agree to it.
In this way we participate in creating what is true. So truth is not a concrete thing outside ourselves.
2007-07-24 03:09:06 · answer #1 · answered by livemoreamply 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think of it this way. Treat truth like historians are now treating history, as a relative thing.
Just as we are understanding that historical acts and facts are open to interpretations that conflict, so too does truth have an interpretive element.
Let us take a concrete example. The American Revolution, in the united states was held as a historical truth of the indivisibility of human rights.
However, to the British perspective, it was simply an illegal rebellion by citizens of the Empire.
Now, whose perspective is true? The answer, Both. The American POV is true, because they perceive the facts of the War in terms of equitable Human rights. The British POV is true, because it was a rebellion.
In the Same way, "TRUTH" is relative. On another example, let us take a moral quandary. To some, there is a Truth that Gay lifestyles and sexual preferences are wrong. This is a truth to them.
Yet, in the Gay and Gay friendly community, the Truth is that it is right. From there own perspectives, each feels - and has 'facts' to back themselves up- that they hold the truth. But that truth is only tenable in the specific worldview of that social group, not amongst all social groups everywhere.
That is how truth is a value concept and not a universal concrete constant.
2007-07-24 03:05:59 · answer #2 · answered by Shai Shammai 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Remember that the word, 'value', connotes an abstract ideal. Truth has been generally relegated to provable external facts or ideas about aspects of our shared reality, i.e. objectified outside ourselves.
But, more significantly, truth is unique to each individual in that we each inherently long for an ideal abstract experience, which is the truth about us and we innately seek to realize despite the limiting processes of socialization.
Regarding objective truth, "According to Marcel, truth is only a single aspect of reality, and is not the whole of reality. Truth may emerge from reality, but reality is more than truth. The fulfillment of truth, or the totality of all truths, may produce an inclusive reality. The universe may realize itself in the fulfillment of truth. However, the universe may also include things which are lacking in truth. Truth is both immanent and transcendent."
Philosophy still struggles with the conundrum re: truth that only theology has directly tackled as a psychological link to physical reality. Marcel has intuited this broader significance of "truth."
2007-07-24 03:18:55 · answer #3 · answered by MysticMaze 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think of the truth as a qualitative experience,rather than something quantitative-- and this distinction is the key. We think of something being true because it is factual or empircal (truth is correlated to problem solving), Marcel is hoping to expand our understanding of the truth from this reduction, to something akin to an epiphany that arises from the mystery of existence itself-- something that seizes hold of an individual. Further, we wants to rescue truth from subjectivity, but at the same time recognize how the indivdual comes to an apprehension of the truth-- the truth is apprehended through a lively play between the subject's realization and the objectivity of the truth as it makes itself known to the us.
2007-07-24 02:47:55 · answer #4 · answered by Timaeus 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Truth is, no matter what Marcel thinks it to be.
2007-07-24 06:56:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think on this expression: One man's junk is another man's treasure. Just apply truth to it.
One man's truth is an another man's lie
2007-07-24 02:45:56 · answer #6 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋