From: along@vcd.hp.com (Anthony Long)
Subject: Re: Truth
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:09:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

William D Yang (wyang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: Hallo, Kateri (and the rest of alt.sex!)
: 
: In article <1992Dec5.000321.11566@midway.uchicago.edu> moh2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
: 
: [In response to David Barrett's account of 'truth']
: 
: > You are confusing truth and fact.
: > 
: > Facts can be known, at least within the framework of science that most
: > of us share.  (although, being a skeptic, I doubt even that).
: > 
: > Truth, on the otherhand, is wholly subjective, and inherently
: > unprovable.  You may reach a consensus, as when the majority of people
: > in the US believe in monogamy, and hence bigamy is unconstitutional
: > (see, I'm not completely off-topic yet!), but you can never prove a
: > 'truth'.  
: 
: Hmmmm.  While you CAN define these words in this way, and do it
: meaningfully, I tend to think there's more explanatory value in
: claiming that 'truth' is a reflection upon a 'state of affairs' as a
: claim about value, Kateri.  
: 
: One can prove a few 'truths' -- I can prove that within the system of
: classical logic, if one affirms the antecedent of a conditional claim

	OK, here's my $.02:

	I would postulate maybe four levels of "truth". Each is in
common use, but "ascending" levels require proportionately higher
levels of *faith* to accept as truth (meaning that what is "true" to
one person will either not be or not appear to be true to another). The
amazing thing is that the more transcendent levels of "truth" are battled
over the most fiercely!

	1) Physical/mathematical fact: this is a rock, I am a person,
1+1=2, this book is open, etc.--these are never argued on the factual level,
only for philosophical fodder (am I *really* a person, or am I just
imagining it?). If *anything* is factual, we at least know that we exist,
etc. etc.
	2) Scientific theory: evolution, atomic theory, the nature of the
universe--as the centuries go on, we hopefully understand more about
how things are put together and what makes them tick. Eventually, theory
becomes accepted as fact, either by physical proof (the world is round)
or by consensus given certain evidence (evolution). But theory is always
a bit elusive, so faith is required to label it "truth", and not all
will agree: e.g. evolution, big bang, etc. Here the tag "truth" has
departed from the empirical one level, but "believers" will still fight
to the death defending their "truths", will they not?
	3) Social theory: this is where the Big Battles are fought!
Thomas Jefferson penned: "We hold these *truths* to be self evident: that
all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain 
inalienable rights...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." (or
words to that effect). We in alt.sex, of course, believe that "sex is
great, the more the better, and anyone who doesn't agree is a weenie or
worse!" :-) But, by now, the nature of truth has left its' empirical 
moorings altogether, and is in the subjective, philosophical, relative,
and changing realm. Who said that human rights are inalienable or self-
evident? Why...uhhh...the Declaration of Independence, that's who! Well,
you can bet that what we perceive to be truth today morally or philosoph-
ically was inconceivable to most cultures of the not too distant past,
and still is to many! Does that mean that these concepts are not "truths"?
Hmmm...possibly we might acknowledge "true for us, here, now", and
accept a modified definition of truth that is culturally, socially, and
individually perceived and defined, and will not be universally apprehended.
Example: civil rights, "all men are created equal": 200 years ago, this
was "true" in this country only for whites, certainly not for gays or
others who were "immoral" (more perceived "truth"). Today: we *believe*
that all human beings should be treated equally and it is wrong to dis-
criminate! Truth? Well, yes, for us today it is (just don't suggest that
the founding fathers saw thing that way!).
	4) The "highest" level we could call "Truth": it is considered
the most transcendent, but also the most inaccessible. Dolphins and mice
are privy, of course! :-) This is God, the Answer, the Path, the Absolute,
and a million other things which describe what is unseeable and indescribable!
To an existentialist such as Camus it was finding the meaning and purpose
of self-actualization of life itself in the midst of a plague (apologies
to existentialists if this is a poor representation!). To Moses it was
Jehovah God revealing himself in a burning bush, a cloud-covered mountain,
a pillar of fire and smoke. To the christian it is the inner "knowledge"
that God exists, loves humanity, and sent Jesus to die for us. To the
Hindu it is the knowledge that at the end of the cycles of life awaits
Nirvanah. To the Greeks and Romans it was that Zeus and all the others
were in charge (even if they were constantly fighting among themselves!).
Is there any truth to any of this? I think it's *true* to say that we won't
know for sure in this life! I may disagree vehemently with anyone who
claims knowledge of this transcendent Truth, I may claim more Truth, I 
may claim that there is no Truth, but I won't really know until I know!
In the meantime, as each is persuaded, to him that is truth. (What *do*
those dolphins and mice know, anyway?) (apologies to the unlearned--those
who have not learned the Secrets of the Hitchhiker's Guide).

	Sadly enough, the fiercest battles are fought over things that
we will never in this life be able to agree on!
	Oh, well. So much for my $.02.


			Peace,
	
				Tony