Seems to me that truth is something fundamental. Something that is unchanging and is seen as the same from anyone's perspective. Reality, on the other hand, is based completely on our own perceptions and place in life. Our perception of reality may be completely opposite of the truth.
If we could hook our brains up to a computer that could put us in a virtual world (aka The Matrix) -- that would be our reality. We would perceive it as the real world -- but in actuality, we'd be floating in a chamber full of liquid with tubes sticking out everywhere.
When we say something is the truth, or a fact, we are saying that it is so, regardless of perspective. Why is it, then, that there continually appear to be conflicting truths in the world, particularly in areas such as religion, politics and the like? Is one right, and the other wrong? Are they all right, or all wrong?
Even with things that are regarded as scientic facts or truths, we measure all those things through our perceptions. The fact that we can consistently measure the same things, that we can seem to understand cause and effect is somewhat reassuring. But are there other observers that may disagree with our truths? According to general relativity, different observers may have different opinions about the order in which events occur -- and yet they are all correct within their own frame of reference.
So, can we say for certain that truth and reality are different?
jbravo
7 Comments
http://www.etext.org/Zines/Quanta/illusions.html
"Truth" might be a different matter entirely. And we might need to break "truth" down into two categories, "TRUTH" and "truths."
Most sane people (IMHO), when witnessing some sort of event, can agree at least on the basics: something happened. Maybe we can even agree on some of the major details. This is evidence that there is, in fact, an objective reality. Our senses, our intelligence, and our language allow us to compare our perceived realities to see what matches and what doesn't match. As I said, most of the time (not all of the time) many of the details (not all of the details) match.
The reasons why are too elementary to go into, and I'm sure you know all about them already.
But we have, through our senses, our intelligence, and our language, devised a method for measuring aspects of reality, empiricism. Empiricism allows us to point to things -- events, phenomena, etc. -- and be able to agree with a fair amount of certainty, "such and such happened, in this way, at this place, at this time." These empirically validated agreements become "facts." Voila!!! We can build a bridge or go to the moon, because certain facts have been isolated, certain characteristics of the physical world have been validated.
"Truth" is a bit trickier. "Telling the truth" means nothing more than giving an accurate account of something in terms of your perceived or subjective experience of reality. A person can be factually inaccurate and still be "telling the truth." There is, to be sure, a relationship between fact and truth, but it is not a determining relationship. Of course, we want every word that every person utters to be an accurate representation of objective reality, but that is impossible. And we certainly have the right, when someone deliberately represents reality inaccurately (i.e., "lies"), to be angry about that.
Then there is "TRUTH." "TRUTH," as you indicated, is universal and unchanging. That's why it is such a problem for us in a world where we tend not to trust what is not new. What is universal and unchanging appears artificial, arbitrary, rehearsed, and oppressive. It seems manipulative.
Yet we still, at the very least, give lip service to universal and unchanging ideas. We call them "values." Equality is one. Freedom is one. Individualism is one. We believe in these abstract concepts simply because we choose to: they allow us, we believe -- and rightly so -- to be fully who we are, to live to the fullness of our potential.
So, it's not as though we've given up entirely on universal values. Yet we have difficulty with TRUTH.
The values we believe in, however, ARE out TRUTH. We believe in equality, not because it is convenient, but because it is true. We believe in freedom, not simply so we can do whatever we want, but because it is true. We believe in the value of individualism, not merely so we can express oursleves in a way that is different from others, but because it is true.
TRUTH, in this sense, is both more fundamental and more abstract and ethereal than "truths" or "facts." It is, I believe, far more impoprtant.
"Truth" might be a different matter entirely. And we might need to break "truth" down into two categories, "TRUTH" and "truths."
Most sane people (IMHO), when witnessing some sort of event, can agree at least on the basics: something happened. Maybe we can even agree on some of the major details. This is evidence that there is, in fact, an objective reality. Our senses, our intelligence, and our language allow us to compare our perceived realities to see what matches and what doesn't match. As I said, most of the time (not all of the time) many of the details (not all of the details) match.
The reasons why are too elementary to go into, and I'm sure you know all about them already.
But we have, through our senses, our intelligence, and our language, devised a method for measuring aspects of reality, empiricism. Empiricism allows us to point to things -- events, phenomena, etc. -- and be able to agree with a fair amount of certainty, "such and such happened, in this way, at this place, at this time." These empirically validated agreements become "facts." Voila!!! We can build a bridge or go to the moon, because certain facts have been isolated, certain characteristics of the physical world have been validated.
"Truth" is a bit trickier. "Telling the truth" means nothing more than giving an accurate account of something in terms of your perceived or subjective experience of reality. A person can be factually inaccurate and still be "telling the truth." There is, to be sure, a relationship between fact and truth, but it is not a determining relationship. Of course, we want every word that every person utters to be an accurate representation of objective reality, but that is impossible. And we certainly have the right, when someone deliberately represents reality inaccurately (i.e., "lies"), to be angry about that.
Then there is "TRUTH." "TRUTH," as you indicated, is universal and unchanging. That's why it is such a problem for us in a world where we tend not to trust what is not new. What is universal and unchanging appears artificial, arbitrary, rehearsed, and oppressive. It seems manipulative.
Yet we still, at the very least, give lip service to universal and unchanging ideas. We call them "values." Equality is one. Freedom is one. Individualism is one. We believe in these abstract concepts simply because we choose to: they allow us, we believe -- and rightly so -- to be fully who we are, to live to the fullness of our potential.
So, it's not as though we've given up entirely on universal values. Yet we have difficulty with TRUTH.
The values we believe in, however, ARE our TRUTH. We believe in equality, not because it is convenient, but because it is true. We believe in freedom, not simply so we can do whatever we want, but because it is true. We believe in the value of individualism, not merely so we can express oursleves in a way that is different from others, but because it is true.
TRUTH, in this sense, is both more fundamental and more abstract and ethereal than "truths" or "facts." It is, I believe, far more impoprtant.
Ooops. Sorry. I put myself to sleep....
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)