04 November 2007

Criteria of truth


 Criteria of truth

If someone believes something, they think that it is true, but they may be mistaken. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, a man thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and he attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. It could be said that the man believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true.

The Aristotelian definition of truth states:

"To say of something which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true."


chelle carpiso said...

you always make me think ra... ciao

jeffrey castro said...

but my friend, there is no such thing as absolute truth (huwag mo kong hihiritan ng God and religion in relation to this matter, please!) ... what aristotle failed to include in his definition of truth is that a certain truth is time-bound. what may be true now may not be true tomorrow and vice versa. this brings us to the scenario that the gravity of truth is dampened over time, and such, makes it vulnerable to disputes and further counter-arguments. hegel would always say that the history of man is paved by struggles of and for truths. this dialectic struggle is the base and foundation of knowledge and discovery. and man would always credit even the falsity of something in defining knowledge.

rah oibas said...

I think there's such thing as absolute truth (and that is God [JOKE!])
"You are correct, it is always bound by time. What may be true today, may not be true tomorrow; just like love, here today, gone tomorrow. Aristotle, I speculate, talks about the more pragmatic definition of truth such that: when you cut your self you bleed. It de-enchants us, makes us more careful of accepting what 'knowledge' is - which must be based on facts, actually predictable and consistent.
On the other hand, it seems to me that there may be Absolute Truth - it is the truth that will set us free; we are not entitled to it because we can't handle it.

"Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth. " - Few Good Men

jeffrey castro said...

i understand what you speak of, that Aristotle talks about knowledge of the "here and now." pragmatic indeed... but adhering on Aristotelian pragmatism denies the existence of the Absolute Truth that you speak of. the Absolute Truth lies in the realm of the ideal, which can be attained through refining truths in the realm of the real. technically speaking, we can safely assume that we know one Absolute Truth, a natural law. we all know that when you are on Earth, there is a force that pulls all matter together in the center of the ground at the speed of 9.8 meters per second. this is gravity, one of the Absolute Truths i safely speculate. the certainty of human existence in the attainment of the Absolute Truth is not impossible, for human knowledge, limited as it is, will always result to survival and sustenance in its achievement of the greater good.

***but albert camus would say otherwise, of course.. "whilst we exist in a dualism, we cannot live in paradox. we value our lives and existence so greatly while knowing that eventually we will die and ultimately our efforts are meaningless..." however, there's always an co-existential counter-argument for his thoughts... hehehe... =)