Man cognizes the world, society and himself with one goal - to know the truth. And what is truth, how to determine that this or that knowledge is true, what are the criteria for truth? This article is about this.
What is truth
There are several definitions of truth. Here are some of them.
- Truth is knowledge that corresponds to the subject of knowledge.
- Truth is a truthful, objective reflection in the mind of a person of reality.
Absolute and Relative Truth
absolute truth - this is a complete, exhaustive knowledge of a person about something. This knowledge will not be refuted or supplemented with the development of science.
Examples: man is mortal, twice two is four.
Relative truth - this is knowledge that will be replenished with the development of science, since it is still incomplete, does not fully reveal the essence of phenomena, objects, etc. This happens due to the fact that at this stage of human development, science cannot yet reach the final essence of the subject being studied.
Example: first, people discovered that substances consist of molecules, then of atoms, then of electrons, etc. As we can see, at each stage in the development of science, the idea of an atom was true, but incomplete, that is, relative.
Difference between absolute and relative truth lies in how fully this or that phenomenon or object is studied.
Remember: absolute truth has always been relative at first. Relative truth can become absolute with the development of science.
Are there two truths?
Not, there are no two truths . There may be several points of view on the subject being studied, but the truth is always the same.
What is the opposite of truth?
The opposite of truth is delusion.
Delusion - this is knowledge that does not correspond to the subject of knowledge, but is accepted as truth. The scientist believes that his knowledge of the subject is true, although he is mistaken.
Remember: Lying- not is the opposite of truth.
Lie is a category of morality. It is characterized by the fact that the truth is hidden for some purpose, although it is known. W delusion same is not a lie, but a sincere belief that knowledge is true (for example, communism is a delusion, such a society cannot exist in the life of mankind, but whole generations of Soviet people sincerely believed in it).
Objective and subjective truth
objective truth - this is the content of human knowledge that exists in reality and does not depend on a person, on his level of knowledge. This is the whole world that exists around.
For example, much in the world, in the Universe exists in reality, although humanity has not yet known this, perhaps it will never know, but all this exists, an objective truth.
subjective truth - this is the knowledge received by mankind as a result of its cognitive activity, this is all that in reality that has passed through the consciousness of a person, understood by him.
Remember: objective truth is not always subjective, and subjective truth is always objective.
Truth Criteria
Criteria- This is a word of foreign origin, translated from Greek kriterion - a measure for evaluation. Thus, the criteria of truth are the grounds that will make it possible to verify the truth, accuracy of knowledge, in accordance with their subject of knowledge.
Truth Criteria
- sensory experience is the simplest and most reliable criterion of truth. How to determine that an apple is tasty - try it; how to understand that music is beautiful - listen to it; how to make sure that the color of the leaves is green - look at them.
- Theoretical information about the subject of knowledge, that is, theory . Many objects are not amenable to sensory perception. We will never be able to see, for example, the Big Bang, as a result of which the Universe was formed. In this case, theoretical study, logical conclusions will help to recognize the truth.
Theoretical criteria of truth:
- Compliance with logical laws
- Correspondence of truth with those laws that were discovered by people earlier
- Simplicity of formulation, economy of expression
- Practice. This criterion is also very effective, since the truth of knowledge is proved by practical means. .(There will be a separate article about the practice, follow the publications)
Thus, the main goal of any knowledge is to establish the truth. This is what scientists are dedicated to, this is what each of us is trying to achieve in life: know the truth whatever she touches.
In order to understand whether there is an absolute/universal truth, we should start by defining truth. According to the dictionary, truth is defined as “correspondence to reality; statement proven or accepted as true. Some people argue that there is no true reality - only subjective views and judgments. Others argue that absolute reality or truth must exist.
Proponents of one point of view argue that there are no absolutes that define reality. They believe that everything is relative and thus no actual reality can exist. Because of this, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority on which to base decisions about what is positive and what is negative, right or wrong. This view leads to "situational ethics" - the belief that "right" or "wrong" depends on the situation. In this case, what seems right at a certain moment or in a certain situation will be considered right. This kind of ethics leads to a mentality and a way of life in which what is pleasant or convenient is right, and this, in turn, has a destructive effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, which creates a society in which all values, beliefs, lifestyle and truth are absolutely equivalent.
Another view assumes that absolute reality or standards that determine what is fair and what is not, actually exist. Thus, depending on these absolute standards, actions can be defined as right or wrong. If there were no absolutes, no reality, chaos would reign. Take, for example, the law of attraction. If it wasn't absolute, you could take one step and be high in the air, and next time you wouldn't even be able to move. If 2+2 did not always equal four, it would have devastating consequences for civilization. The laws of science and physics would be meaningless, commercial activities would be impossible. What a mess that would be! Fortunately, two plus two always equals four. Absolute truth exists and can be found and understood.
The claim that there is no absolute truth is illogical. However, many people today support a cultural relativism that denies any type of absolute truth. People who claim that there is no absolute truth should be asked, "Are you absolutely sure about this?" By answering "yes", they will make an absolute statement that implies the existence of absolutes. That is, in fact, the statement about the absence of absolute truth is itself absolute truth.
In addition to the problem of internal contradiction, there are several other logical problems that must be solved in order to believe in the absence of absolute or universal truth. One is that people have limited knowledge and mental capacity and therefore cannot make absolute negative statements. According to logic, a person cannot say: “There is no God” (although many say exactly that) - in order to assert this, he must have absolute knowledge of the entire Universe, from beginning to end. Since this is not possible, the most logical formulation would be: "Based on the limited knowledge that I have, I do not believe that God exists."
Another problem is that the rejection of absolute truth does not stand up to what our own conscience, our experience, and what we observe in the real world tells us. If there is no absolute truth, then ultimately there is nothing right or wrong. Just because something is right for me doesn't mean it will be right for you as well. Although on the surface this type of relativism seems very attractive, giving each person the opportunity to set his own rules in life and do what he thinks is right. However, sooner or later one person's rules will conflict with another's rules. Imagine what happens if I decide that I can ignore traffic lights even if they are red? By doing this, I endanger the lives of many people. Or perhaps I will decide that I have the right to rob you, when you will find it completely unacceptable. If there is no absolute truth, absolute standards of what is right and wrong, and everything is relative, then we can never be sure of anything. People will do what they please - kill, rape, steal, cheat, cheat, and so on, and no one can say that this is wrong. There will be no government, no laws, no justice, because the majority of people will not have the right to elect and set standards for a minority. A world without standards would be the scariest place imaginable.
From a spiritual standpoint, this type of relativism leads to religious confusion, suggesting that there is no true religion and there is no correct way to establish an intimate relationship with God. That is why today there are often people who simultaneously believe in two diametrically opposed religions. People who do not believe in absolute truth follow a universalism that teaches that all religions are equal and that they all lead to heaven. In addition, people who prefer this worldview will strongly oppose Christians who believe the Bible when it says that Jesus is “the way and the truth and the life” and that He is the highest manifestation of truth and the only way to heaven. (John 14:6).
Tolerance has become a single key value of society, a single absolute truth, and, therefore, intolerance is a single evil. Any dogmatic belief - especially the belief in the existence of absolute truth - is regarded as intolerance, an absolute sin. Truth-deniers often say that it's good to believe what you want, as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on others. But this opinion is a belief about what is right and wrong, and its proponents most certainly make attempts to impose it on others, thereby violating the principles they uphold. They just don't want to be held accountable for their actions. If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards, and then we are responsible according to them. This responsibility is what people are actually trying to avoid by denying the existence of absolute truth.
The rejection of absolute truth and the universal cultural relativism that comes from it is logical for a society that follows the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. If evolution is true, then life has no meaning, we have no purpose, and there can be nothing absolutely right or wrong. A person has the right to live as he pleases, and is not obliged to answer to anyone for his actions. And yet, no matter how far sinful man is willing to go in denying the existence of God and His truth, he will still face His judgment someday. The Bible says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth with unrighteousness. For what can be known about God is clear to them, because God has shown them. For His invisible, His eternal power and Divinity, from the creation of the world through the consideration of creations are visible, so that they are unanswerable. But how, having known God, they did not glorify Him as God, and did not give thanks, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened; Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:18-22).
Is there any evidence for the existence of absolute truth? First, evidence of the existence of absolute truth manifests itself in our minds. Our conscience tells us that the world must be built "a certain way," that certain things are right and others are wrong. It helps us understand that there is something wrong with suffering, hunger, rape, pain and evil. It makes us realize that there is love, nobility, compassion and peace that we should strive for. This applies to all people who have lived at all times, regardless of their culture. The role of human consciousness is spoken of in Romans 2:14-16: “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what is lawful, then, having no law, they are their own law: they show that the work of the law is written in them in hearts, to which their conscience testifies and their thoughts, now accusing, now justifying one another, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secret deeds of men through Jesus Christ.
The second proof of the existence of absolute truth is found in science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, it is the exploration of what we know and the attempt to know more. Therefore, all scientific research must necessarily be based on the conviction that there is an objective reality in the world around us. What could be explored without absolutes? How would one know that the conclusions drawn are correct? In fact, the laws of science must be based on the existence of absolute truth.
The third proof of the existence of absolute truth is religion. All the religions of the world strive to convey the meaning and definition of life. They are born from the fact that humanity is striving for something more than just existence. Through religion people seek God, hope for the future, forgiveness of sins, peace and answers to our deepest questions. Religion is truly proof that humanity is not just an advanced animal species. This testifies to a higher purpose, as well as to the existence of a purposeful creator who put the desire to know him into the human mind. And if the creator really exists, then he is the standard for absolute truth, and this truth is based on his authority.
Fortunately, we have such a Creator, and He has revealed His truth through His Word, the Bible. If we want to know the truth, the only way to do it is through a personal relationship with the One Who is the Truth - Jesus Christ. “Jesus said to him: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). The fact that absolute truth exists indicates to us that there is a Lord God who created heaven and earth and revealed Himself to us so that we can know Him personally through His Son Jesus Christ. This is the absolute truth.
When writing this answer on the site, materials from the got site were partially or completely used Questions? org!
The owners of the Bible Online resource may partially or not at all share the opinion of this article.
The concept of truth is complex and contradictory. Different philosophers, different religions have their own. The first definition of truth was given by Aristotle, and it has become generally accepted: Truth is the unity of thought and being. I will decipher: if you think about something, and your thoughts correspond to reality, then this is the truth.
In everyday life, truth is synonymous with truth. “Truth is in wine,” said Pliny the Elder, meaning that under the influence of a certain amount of wine, a person begins to tell the truth. In fact, these concepts are somewhat different. truth and truth- both reflect reality, but truth is more a logical concept, and truth is sensual. Now comes the moment of pride in our native Russian language. In most European countries, these two concepts are not distinguished, they have one word ("truth", "vérité", "wahrheit"). Let's open the Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by V. Dahl: “Truth is ... everything that is true, authentic, accurate, fair, that is; ... truth: truthfulness, justice, justice, rightness. So, we can conclude that the truth is a morally valuable truth ("We will win, the truth is with us").
Theories of truth.
As already mentioned, there are many theories, depending on philosophical schools and religions. Consider the main theories of truth:
- empirical: truth is all knowledge based on the accumulated experience of mankind. Author - Francis Bacon.
- sensationalistic(Hume): Truth can only be known by sensation, sensation, perception, contemplation.
- Rationalist(Descartes): all truth is already contained in the human mind, from where it must be extracted.
- Agnostic(Kant): truth is unknowable in itself ("thing in itself").
- Skeptical(Montaigne): nothing is true, a person is not capable of obtaining any reliable knowledge about the world.
Truth criteria.
Truth Criteria- these are the parameters that help to distinguish truth from falsehood or error.
- Compliance with logical laws.
- Compliance with previously discovered and proven laws and theorems of science.
- Simplicity, general availability of the wording.
- Compliance with fundamental laws and axioms.
- Paradoxical.
- Practice.
In the modern world practice(as a set of experience accumulated by generations, the results of various experiments and the results of material production) is the first most important criterion of truth.
Kinds of truth.
Kinds of truth- a classification invented by some authors of school textbooks on philosophy, based on their desire to classify everything, sort it out and make it publicly available. This is my personal, subjective opinion, which appeared after studying many sources. Truth is one. Breaking it down into types is stupid, and contradicts the theory of any philosophical school or religious teaching. However, truth has different aspects of(what some see as "kinds"). Here we will consider them.
aspects of truth.
We open almost any cheat sheet site created to help pass the exam in philosophy, social science in the "Truth" section, and what will we see? Three main aspects of truth will stand out: objective (one that does not depend on a person), absolute (proven by science, or an axiom) and relative (truth from only one side). The definitions are correct, but consideration of these aspects is extremely superficial. If not to say - amateurish.
I would single out (based on the ideas of Kant and Descartes, philosophy and religion, etc.) four aspects. These aspects should be divided into two categories, not dumped all in one heap. So:
- Criteria of subjectivity-objectivity.
objective truth is objective in its essence and does not depend on a person: the Moon revolves around the Earth, and we cannot influence this fact, but we can make it an object of study.
subjective truth depends on the subject, that is, we explore the Moon and are the subject, but if we did not exist, then there would be neither subjective nor objective truth. This truth is directly dependent on the objective.
The subject and object of truth are interconnected. It turns out that subjectivity and objectivity are facets of the same truth.
- Criteria of absoluteness-relativity.
absolute truth- the truth, proven by science and beyond doubt. For example, a molecule is made up of atoms.
Relative truth- what is true at a certain period of history or from a certain point of view. Until the end of the 19th century, the atom was considered the smallest indivisible part of matter, and this was true until scientists discovered protons, neutrons and electrons. And in that moment, the truth changed. And then scientists discovered that protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. Further, I think, you can not continue. It turns out that the relative truth was absolute for a certain period of time. As the creators of The X-Files convinced us, the truth is somewhere nearby. And yet where?
Let me give you one more example. Seeing a photograph of the Cheops pyramid from a satellite at a certain angle, it can be argued that it is a square. And a photo taken at a certain angle from the surface of the Earth will convince you that this is a triangle. In fact, it is a pyramid. But from the point of view of two-dimensional geometry (planimetry), the first two statements are true.
Thus, it turns out that absolute and relative truth are as interconnected as subjective-objective. Finally, we can conclude. Truth has no types, it is one, but it has aspects, that is, what is true from different angles of consideration.
Truth is a complex concept, which at the same time remains single and indivisible. Both the study and understanding of this term at this stage by a person has not yet been completed.
ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE TRUTH - categories of dialectical materialism that characterize the process of development of knowledge and reveal the relationship between: 1) what is already known and what will be known in the further process of the development of science; 2) by what in the composition of our knowledge can be changed, refined, refuted in the course of the further development of science, and by what remains irrefutable. The doctrine of Absolute and Relative Truth gives an answer to the question: "... can human ideas expressing objective truth express it at once, entirely, unconditionally, absolutely, or only approximately, relatively?" (Lenin V. I. T. 18. S. 123). In this regard, absolute truth is understood as complete, exhaustive knowledge about reality (1) and as that element of knowledge that cannot be refuted in the future (2). Our knowledge at each stage of development is conditioned by the achieved level of science, technology and production. With the further development of knowledge and practice, human ideas about nature are deepened, refined, and improved. Therefore, scientific truths are relative in the sense that they do not provide complete, exhaustive knowledge about the area of subjects under study and contain elements that, in the process of developing knowledge, will change, be refined, deepened, replaced by new ones. At the same time, each relative truth signifies a step forward in the cognition of absolute truth; if it is scientific, it contains elements, grains of absolute truth. There is no insurmountable line between absolute and relative truth. From the sum of relative truths, absolute truth is added. The history of science and social practice confirms this dialectical character of the development of knowledge. In the process of development, science more and more fully reveals the properties of objects and the relationship between them, approaching the knowledge of absolute truth, which is confirmed by the successful application of theory in practice (in public life, in production, etc.). On the other hand, previously created theories are constantly refined and developed; some hypotheses are refuted (for example, the hypothesis of the existence of the ether), others are confirmed and become proven truths (for example, the hypothesis of the existence of atoms); some concepts are eliminated from science (for example, "caloric" and "phlogiston"), others are refined, generalized (cf. the concepts of simultaneity, inertia in classical mechanics and in the theory of relativity). The doctrine of absolute and relative truth overcomes the one-sidedness of metaphysical concepts that declare each truth to be eternal, unchanging ("absolute"), and the concepts of relativism, which assert that any truth is only relative (relative), that the development of science only testifies to a change in successive delusions. and that therefore there is not and cannot be absolute truth. In reality, according to Lenin, “any ideology is historical, but what is certain is that any scientific ideology (unlike, for example, religious) corresponds to objective truth, absolute nature” (T. 18, p. 138).
Philosophical Dictionary. Ed. I.T. Frolova. M., 1991, p. 5-6.
At any time, a person tries to determine for himself what truth is. How many times a person has tried to determine the veracity, the truth of a judgment, statement, and the same number of times faced with the complexity of this issue. The problem of the truth of knowledge, the criteria of truth, has long interested outstanding minds. And even now, not a single field of knowledge can do without solving this problem for itself, regardless of whether it is based on the so-called axioms or on continuously changing and clarifying foundations.
The purpose of this work is to present the concepts of objective, absolute and relative truth, which most fully characterize the procedural nature of truth.
The very concept of "truth" is one of the most important categories of epistemology as a science of the relationship between subject and object. Indeed, one of the simplest definitions of truth is its definition as the correspondence of subjective knowledge about an object to the object itself, that is, truth is adequate knowledge about an object. This conception of truth is called classical and is the most ancient and at the same time the simplest. For example, even Plato owns the following characteristic of the concept of truth “... the one who speaks about things in accordance with what they are, speaks the truth, the same one who speaks about them otherwise, lies ...”.
Similarly characterizes the concept of truth and Aristotle in his work "Metaphysics": and to say that what is and what is not is is to say the truth.”
It is important to note that the supporters of the classical concept of truth are characterized by the belief that its defined goal - the correspondence of thoughts to reality - can be achieved relatively simply, that is, there is some intuitively clear and undoubted criterion that allows you to establish whether thoughts correspond to reality or not. This belief is based on the belief in the possibility of bringing thoughts into a simple one-to-one correspondence with reality. However, it is not at all obvious that a person really has such an opportunity; on the contrary, it is rather an unattainable ideal of the cognitive process.
The concept of truth
The origins of the so-called classical philosophical conception of truth date back to antiquity. For example, Plato believed that "he who speaks of things in accordance with what they are, speaks the truth, the same who speaks of them differently, is lying." For a long time, the classical concept of truth dominated the theory of knowledge. In the main, she proceeded from the position: what is affirmed by thought really takes place. And in this sense, the concept of the correspondence of thoughts to reality coincides with the concept of “adequacy”. In other words, truth is a property of the subject, consisting in the agreement of thinking with itself, with its a priori (pre-experimental) forms. So, in particular, believed I. Kant. Subsequently, truth began to mean the property of the ideal objects themselves, irrespective of human knowledge, and a special kind of spiritual values. Augustine developed the doctrine of the innateness of true ideas. Not only philosophers, but also representatives of private sciences are faced with the question of what is meant by reality, how to perceive reality or the real world?
Materialists and idealists identify the concept of reality, reality with the concept of the objective world, that is, with that which exists outside and independently of man and mankind. However, the person himself is a part of the objective world. Therefore, without taking into account this circumstance, it is simply impossible to clarify the question of truth. Taking into account the directions in philosophy, taking into account the originality of individual statements expressing the subjective opinion of a particular scientist, truth can be defined as an adequate reflection of objective reality by the cognizing subject, in the course of which the cognized object is reproduced as it exists outside and independently of consciousness. Consequently, truth enters into the objective content of human knowledge.
But as soon as we are convinced that the process of cognition is not interrupted, then the question arises about the nature of truth. After all, if a person perceives the objective world in a sensual way and forms ideas about it in the process of individual cognition and his mental activity, then the question is natural - how can he make sure that his statements correspond to the objective world itself?
Thus, we are talking about the criterion of truth, the identification of which is one of the main tasks of philosophy. There is no consensus among philosophers on this issue. The extreme point of view boils down to a complete denial of the criterion of truth, because, according to its supporters, truth either does not exist at all, or, in short, it is characteristic of everything and everyone.
Idealists - supporters of rationalism - considered thinking itself as a criterion of truth, since it has the ability to clearly and distinctly present an object. Philosophers such as Descartes and Leibniz proceeded from the idea of the self-evidence of the original truths comprehended with the help of intellectual intuition. Their arguments were based on the ability of mathematics to objectively and impartially reflect the diversity of the real world in its formulas. True, this raised another question: how, in turn, to be convinced of the reliability of their clarity and distinctness?
Logic, with its rigor of proof and its irrefutability, should have come to the rescue here. So, I. Kant allowed only a formal-logical criterion of truth, according to which knowledge must be consistent with the universal formal laws of reason and reason.
But the reliance on logic did not eliminate the difficulties in the search for a criterion of truth. It turned out to be not so easy to overcome the internal consistency of thinking itself, it turned out that sometimes it is impossible to achieve formal-logical consistency of judgments developed by science with initial or newly introduced statements (conventionalism). Even the rapid development of logic, its mathematization and division into many special areas, as well as attempts at a semantic (semantic) and semiotic (sign) explanation of the nature of truth, did not eliminate the contradictions in its criteria.
Subjective idealists - supporters of sensationalism - saw the criterion of truth in the direct evidence of the sensations themselves, in the consistency of scientific concepts with sensory data. Subsequently, the principle of verifiability was introduced, which got its name from the concept of verification of a statement (checking its truth). In accordance with this principle, any statement (scientific statement) is meaningful or meaningful only if it can be verified. The main emphasis is placed on the logical possibility of clarification, and not on the actual one. For example, due to the underdevelopment of science and technology, we cannot observe the physical processes taking place in the center of the Earth. But by means of assumptions based on the laws of logic, one can put forward a corresponding hypothesis. And if its provisions turn out to be logically consistent, then it should be recognized as true.
It is impossible not to take into account other attempts to identify the criterion of truth with the help of logic, which are characteristic in particular for the philosophical trend called logical positivism. Supporters of the leading role of human activity in cognition tried to overcome the limitations of logical methods in establishing the criterion of truth. The pragmatic concept of truth was substantiated, according to which the essence of truth should be seen not in accordance with reality, but in accordance with the so-called “final criterion”. Its purpose is to establish the usefulness of truth for practical actions and actions of a person. It is important to note that from the point of view of pragmatism, utility in itself is not a criterion of truth, understood as the correspondence of knowledge to reality. In other words, the reality of the external world is inaccessible to a person, since a person directly deals with the results of his activity. That is why the only thing that he is able to establish is not the correspondence of knowledge to reality, but the effectiveness and practical usefulness of knowledge. It is the latter, acting as the main value of human knowledge, that deserves to be called truth.
And yet philosophy, overcoming extremes and avoiding absolutization, has approached a more or less correct understanding of the criterion of truth. It could not have been otherwise: if humanity faced the need to question not only the consequences of the momentary activity of this or that person (in some, and often, cases very far from the truth), but also to deny their own centuries-old history, life would be impossible to perceive differently, how absurd.
objective truth
Evaluation of what is comprehended is a necessary element of knowledge. Thanks to the assessment, a person selects the received knowledge in accordance with its truth or falsity, its applicability in practical activities. It determines the inclusion or non-inclusion of the acquired knowledge, determines its capabilities and impact on a person and the spiritual activity of a person. Therefore, not only epistemological, but also practical, ideological, and moral criteria serve as the basis for evaluation. Evaluation is included in the cognitive process. In their activities, scientists not only evaluate their own methods and scientific results, but also focus on a possible reaction from the scientific community, authorities, and the church. At its core, any knowledge is a search for truth. The problem of the truth of knowledge is important in any kind of cognitive activity. Therefore, the most important basis for evaluating knowledge is its truth. Truth is an absolute cognitive value. Giordano Bruno in his dialogue “The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast” wrote: “Truth cannot be suppressed by violence, it does not rust behind the antiquity of years, it does not diminish when hidden, it is not lost when spreading, because reasoning does not confuse it, time does not sharpen it, does not hide the place, darkness does not absorb the night, does not obscure the twilight.