In the words of the great Heraclitus, ”a hidden connection is stronger than an obvious one”. This implies that the debate between truth and false is seemingly obvious but in a deeper context, sets us well on the way of uncovering hidden nuggets of thinking such as the mapping of our moral co-ordinates and negotiating our sense of individuality outside this impenetrable flux that characterises the world today. First, I am going to build my essay on an analogy of building a house.
First I will lay the foundation by identifying the key variables in the essay- the true, the false and depending on the credibility of the distinctions, everything that lies between these two ends. Truth- its very meaning, pursuit, legitimacy and definition is, to a large extent, central to a huge bit of human intellectual development. We often quench this need for the truth by searching within a large variety of areas such as our community and principles prescribed by our religious and cultural beliefs.
At the other end of the prism is what we know familiarly as all that is False. It is merely human tendency to polarise these two extremities and gauge the worth of all human activity in the manner similar to a touchstone where everything we do, or everything we know, or presume is either right or wrong. While this frame of thought is quite popular, the contrast with the opinion set down by the topic is stark. The topic, by itself is similar to archaic Buddhist principles that are tied to the idea that there are indeed no absolute distinctions between the true and the false.
The topic is also lacking in the sense that it raises a lot of problems because of the wholesale approach in the description of these ‘truths’ as suggested by it. It proposes a valid proposition but fails to elaborate on it extensively. Moreover, the topic relates the true and false but it fails to reveal much about the nature of the ‘distinctions’ between the two. This gives scope to two very different readings of the topic: first, ‘There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false’ and also ‘There are absolutely no distinctions between what is true and what is false.
‘ It is imperative that we understand the difference between the two so that we can properly rationalise the validity of many of our thoughts and judgements. I will delve into articulating my point of view using the various ways of knowing and areas of knowledge like history and the arts. Since all knowledge has to pass our subjective minds to finally become knowledge, we can all knowledge as a blend between objectivity and subjectivity. The topic of the essay itself is penned in such a manner that it, to a large degree, acknowledges the blur within the disjoint between what is true and what is false.
It already negates the existence of a single yet plausible ‘objective truth’. Hence, what differs between the two readings established earlier is the limit to which community and various knowledge communities may rely on subjectivity in their pursuit of knowledge. In this regard, the first reading encourages some extent of objectivity unlike the second. ‘There are absolutely no distinctions between what is true and what is false’ is purely a subjectivist’s opinion regarding truth. Although this is a very common subconscious belief, we still have to recognise the various implications.
What needs to be considered here is that there is no such OBJECTIVE truth. The idea being proposed is that truth is, by principle mutable, changed according to any resolution achieved either individually or in accordance to any vast consensus agreed on by society. This is the type of truth which we usually handle daily in all aspects of our lives highly subjective to thought and perspective. This sort of truth is praised by Alfred Whitehead who said, ‘There are no whole truths, all truths are half truths….
It is trying to treat them as truths that play the devil’. In such a scenario we see that the view of the absolute changes from person to person. Moreover this implies that each opinion is valid and there is no correct view that shares universal commonalities in belief. Impractical, as it is to carve out all our knowledge systems by ourselves, it may sometimes prove beneficial to rely on some subjective truths under the assumption that objective truth exists not too far away.