The nature of truth

ulysses32

Was at a lecture recently where an argument broke out on the nature and existence of truth and truths.
One very competent speaker dismissed the notion of there being anything other than a singular truth, while the other argued for truths (plural) coloured by sociocultural standpoints. Anybody know any good readings on the nature of truth?

Landoflemon

I will start off by saying that I cannot suggest any reading material to back me up, as my background is in maths and engineering, but I find your question intriguing. Lets take maths as an example. To look at situations from a mathamatical point of view,so long as you are accurate, you will see nothing but truth, there are not varying degrees, and the truth is not relative to where it is being viewed from in terms of time and space.

I would be inclined to agree that there is only one truth in any particular situation, and that multiple truths are not possible, and are in fact contradictory to the nature of truth by their very existence.

Just my opinion.

BennyLava

What is truth?

Possibly there is one singular truth, but multiple interpretations of it, dependant on the perceptions of the observers

So to the OP I think both are correct

and as for maths
Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

ulysses32

BennyLava wrote: »

What is truth?

Possibly there is one singular truth, but multiple interpretations of it, dependant on the perceptions of the observers

So to the OP I think both are correct

and as for maths
Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Yes, I am aware of standpoint theory and differing interpretations of the same event/thing/etc in time and space but it still doesn't quite clear it up for me.

That is, if both sides are correct then aren't there two versions of the truth in this situation, i.e. truths regarding the nature of truth?

Joe1919

Nietzsche stated 'There are no facts, only interpretations'
Many see 'truth' as some kind of coherence or correspondence or matching between the human intellect or 'mind' and the 'world' and because there are different intellects or minds, there are different truths.(according to this reasoning).

There are many theories of 'truth'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

So when different people use the word 'truth', they are really saying slightly different things. i.e. your idea of truth may not be the same as my idea of truth.

Another view of truth (knowledge) is called Fallibilism, the doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken and this would probably be my position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism

One of the Christian concepts of truth is interesting and very coherent in it own way (imo). Aquinas argues that absolute objective truth is not possible for humans. 'Truth' is always subjective to some extent, as Aquinas says, it resides in the intellect.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm
And since our intellect is limited, our truth is also limited. Absolute 'Truth' can only be found in an absolute intellect (eg God) and as there is no 'absolute human intellect', there is no 'absolute truth' for the human.
Theists could argue that absolute truth is only possible in an absolute subjective being, such as God. Therefore God is the truth.
Nietzsche sort of goes along with this argument and then states that as the (monotheistic) God is dead (for him), so the truth is also dead. (He also argued that the whole idea of one singular 'truth' was related to monotheism.)

simplistic

Here is a good graph truth can be found where our minds over lap with reality.

http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/b001tluoto/reality1.jpg

Joe1919

simplistic wrote: »

Here is a good graph truth can be found where our minds over lap with reality.

http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/b001tluoto/reality1.jpg

A clever little diagram but perhaps with a twist.

The traditional correspondence view of the truth would be that the truth resides in that area of overlap (union) between the ‘objective reality’ and ‘my’ (or the persons) reality.i.e. The truth is where 'my' view of reality 'corresponds' with 'objective reality'

Now, some could argue that the diagram is basically right but one of the labels is wrong. The large common area labelled ‘objective reality’ is really the common area of ‘intersubjectivity’ and maybe perhaps only some objective reality and also contains our common cultures, traditions, languages, solidarity, social structures, scientific theories, religions etc, all of which are man made and subject to error. But how do we know objective knowledge from intersubjective opinion?

Secondly, do you notice that the common area (union) between ‘my reality’ and ‘objective reality’ is much bigger than the similar areas for the other persons (1 & 2). Now this is correct only in terms that we all perceive that we have a better grasp of reality than the other person, i.e. I think that I have a better view of reality than you have.
However this can not be objectively true i.e Everyone cant be right.(or have a better view)
However, everyone can think their right.
This larger area also could suggest that there is a certain inbuilt arrogance to the way we think about objective reality. ' My reality' is always greater (for me) than your reality. (In the picture, the 'My reality' union overlap area is larger than both Person 1 and Person 2 added together). So 'My truth' is not only greater than 'your truth' but is greater than the sum of all other peoples truths (Person 1 & 2)put together.

Hence the diagram is not an objective view of an 'objective view of reality' but a subjective view of an 'objective view of reality' and hence in itself is ‘subjective’ as many of our so called 'truths' tend to be.

ulysses32

Some very interesting possibilities in your responses. i find the venn diagram a great thinking tool for this one. Thanks.