+1.1.jpg)
As a practice task for my TOK class, we were all given an essay topic to plan individually. Here are my thoughts on the topic, after discussion with Bradley Joubert. They are a little disjointed, but interesting none the less...
TOPIC: "There are no absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false."
-I could discuss the difference between reletive and absolute certainty.
-Is absolute certainty impossible? Is it only reletive certainty that can be achieved?
-Reletive certainty always has an aspect of doubt to it. Does the possibility of doubt about something, no matter how small the posibility, mean that absolute truths are impossible and thus there can be no absolute distinctions between true and false?
All of my thinking so far, though, has been dependant on the assumption that truth is particular to the individual. This assumption itself, however, can be bought into question.
Wikipedia's Epistemology page states that "...epistemology defines knowledge as being of the truth..." This would indicate that knowledge cannot exist without truth. From the definition, one can extract that truth is particular to the individual - otherwise, how is it possible that knowledge can exist, even when it is based on what we now know to be incorrect?
An example of this kind of knowledge would have been of people "knowing" the earth was flat. Back many years ago, this knowledge was justified, true and belived. According to Plato's definition of knowledge, it is possible for knowledge (a justified, true belief) to exist, even if the "true"ness of that knowledge changes from person to person.
This is all a fairly shaky foundation, but a foundation none the less, for drawing the conclusion that, in fact knolwedge is particular to the individual.
So, now that we can assume that knowledge and therefore truth is particular to an individual, and we know that no human can be absolutely certain of anything (only reletively certain), it can be said that there are no absolute boundries between truth and falsity.
This proves correct when truth is particular to the individual due to the unattainability of absolute certainty as discussed above. Because there is always room for error, there is always a hazy line between true and false - nothing is absolute.
Does this theory prove correct for the idea of "universal truths" as well? Assuming we define "universal truth" as something that is true independant of human input, perhaps not. Why? Because maybe certainty, reletive or absolute, is something manufactored by humans. but, thats another discussion. For now, adios!
Justin, you have made some very good comments, which could be developed nicely into a full-blown essay.
ReplyDeleteBe careful to stay focused on the topic. You are required to explore what we find when we try to make an absolute distinction between what is true and what is false. This of course raises the definition of what is true and what is false, as you rightly point out. So the question really is about distinguishing absolutely between true and false. In other words is there a grey area? is there an area where something is sometimes true and sometimes not true? if something isn't true, must it be false?
Good thinking here overall, though. I like your work.