Philosophically, there has been a long standing battle between two types of perfection, two "bests", if you will. Perfection, or that which is labeled the "best", by definition implies that there is nothing better, or nothing more appropriately suited. We see these concepts applied daily to an assortment of things: one can achieve perfect marks on an assessment, or one can perform better than her classmates on any given assignment, and consequently she has done "the best". Now, the latter does not imply that she was perfect, nor does the former imply that she was best. A young woman can score higher than her classmates without achieving a perfect score, but she can also receive a perfect score, one of many, and by consequence not have outperformed her classmates. It is somewhat complicated. And increasingly more so when we seek perfection amongst things that are seemingly a matter of opinion or are far more difficult to measure than the marks on a test. For these reasons, the second notion of perfection was philosophically born. Not perfection or best as it is compared to its opposition, but perfection or best as it stands in the eye of the beholder, a subjective perfection of sorts. Thus we were faced with an entirely different question. Is Stanford the best university, or is it simply the best university for any one individual but not others? Is he the perfect man, or is he simply perfect for her, while not being perfect for anyone else. Navigating these two types of perfection leaves us with an interesting outcome. Either perfection is applicable to all, or one, but either way, it is objective. Perfection still represents a pinnacle, whether it is for the group or the individual.
But when we begin seeking answers to questions like the ones above, we run into a new philosophical quagmire of sorts. If perfection is in fact in the eye of the beholder than that also means that questions like the ones above have multiple right answers, as they apply to each person specifically, and thus, the truth seems to change with the individual. My wife is the perfect woman for me, and not others, in the way that I hope I am perfect for her, but no one else. Does this line of thinking then suggest that we each have our own truth, and that truth is different for each individual? Well, in some ways, yes, but in other ways, no. It may be true that Stanford is the perfect university for one person and not the other, but that does not mean that Stanford is both the perfect university, and not, simultaneously. Rather, each situation must be looked at individually, and thus, truth applies to each situation separately. Stanford is the perfect university for Steve. Stanford is not the perfect university for Janna. Every account of truth is separate from the one that comes before it, and consequently any that follow. Therefore, there is no such thing as "my truth" or "your truth", there is simply "the truth". And that truth applies to any and all individuals. For this reason we need to allow these concepts to die. Truth is fact and therefore if we allow each individual to establish their own facts, we run the risk of implementing an assortment of problematically subjective issue, including but not limited to appropriate behaviour and morality in general. For this reason it is far more accurate to claim one's "experience" or "opinion" instead of one's "truth", all the while knowing that our experiences or opinions might not be right, while the truth, by definition, always is.
So how do we know this to be the case? Well, if we subject it to a little experimentation, the findings are actually quite interesting. Like perfection, there are two potential approaches to truth: universalism and relativism. The former suggests that truth is universally applicable across time, culture, and each individual. Relativism, on the other hand, asserts that there is no absolute truth. Truth is subject to change from one time period to the next, one culture to the next, and one individual to the next. To better understand this, we take a brief journey into the findings of Einstein and what he referred to as the theory of general relativity. In short, he presented three claims. First, time and space were created/existed simultaneously and thus were subject to the same rules creating what is known as a time/space continuum. Second, as we move through the time/space continuum, our perspective of events changes. And finally, massive objects have the ability to distort or manipulate the time/space continuum. Essentially, the second two points work together to prove the first one, and if we subject the second two points to even the slightest examination, they are easily confirmed. If you are looking up at a commercial airliner flying across the sky, it appears both small and slow. But when watching a private jet take off right in front of you, it appears both big and fast. The reality of the matter though is that the commercial liner is both bigger and faster than that "big"/"fast" private jet. Furthermore, if you are standing on the side of the highway watching cars go by they appear to be traveling quite a bit faster than when you are driving next to them although they are going the same speed. One's location in the time space continuum impacts their perspective on events. However, the manipulation of perspective is not where the theory stops. In fact, Einstein went on to realize that large objects in the time/space continuum could literally impact time and space. For example, if a planet is close enough to a black hole, or for some other reason has a higher gravitation pull than that of earth, time will move more slowly there than it does here. For this reason, we understand the difference in the passage of time between the center of the universe (where gravity is massive) and that of earth to be 1second to 1,000,000,000,000 seconds. In other words, for each second that passes at creation, one million million seconds pass here.
The concept of philosophical relativism has attempted to apply these same rules to the concept of truth. It suggests that truth can change from place to place, or from one individual to the next. It throws away the notion of absolute truth like Einstein would have thrown away the idea of absolute time. However, this is massively problematic. Unlike time and space, truth can not change or be manipulated. Yes, our perspective of truth can be altered, but that doesn't change truth itself. Just because I think something is true or believe it to be true, that doesn't make it true. And this is where relativism loses its footing. Not only does it go against the logical law of non-contradiction (the assertion that two opposing concepts can not both be true in the same time and in the same place) but it is also self-defeating in its nature. Relativism claims that there is not absolute truth, but that in and of itself is an absolute truth... Ultimately, we need to separate truth from our beliefs and not make the mistake that they are one in the same.
Relativism tricks us into thinking that the path we are following is the right one, simply because we are on it, or what we have come to believe is accurate simply because we are entitled to believe what we want. However, we must learn to reasonably separate these notions. You are entitled to walk the path you have chosen, or to hold the beliefs that you do, but that does not make it the right path or an accurate belief. Relativism cuts short a pursuit that should be continuous. Truth is sometimes elusive and the quest is worth while.
So this is what we know. You are entitled to your beliefs, perceptions, opinions, and experiences. In fact, it is incredibly important to have and develop those things. But you also need to understand that you are not entitled to force those opinions/beliefs on others, and you also need to understand that those things are separate from the truth. We must be open-minded to the fact that we may be wrong. Now, we may also be right, our opinions and beliefs could be accurate, but simply having them doesn't make them right or true. Truth exists outside of them, and while they may occasionally align, one does not create the other. Allow this image to serve as an example:
On the left we can see you (or us, or whomever) and all the things that you should have: experiences, opinions, beliefs and experiences. But then we have this giant lightening bolt separating those things from the truth. The truth either is or it isn't (is/isn't) it is not subject to the things you think or believe.
And that is where we are left philosophically regarding the notion of truth. While we may think something to be true, simply thinking it doesn't make it true. The truth exists outside of us, whether or not we ever find it, but it is still worth seeking.
No comments:
Post a Comment