In order to understand whether there is an absolute/universal truth, we must start with the definition of truth. According to the dictionary, truth is defined as “correspondence to reality; a statement proven or accepted as true.” Some people argue that there is no true reality - only subjective views and judgments. Others argue that absolute reality or truth must exist.
Proponents of one point of view argue that there are no absolutes that define reality. They believe that everything is relative and thus factual reality cannot exist. Because of this, ultimately there are no moral absolutes, no authority upon which to base decisions about what is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to "situational ethics" - the belief that "right" or "wrong" depends on the situation. In this case, what seems right at a certain moment or in a certain situation will be considered correct. This kind of ethics leads to a mentality and a way of life in which what is right is what is pleasant or convenient, and this in turn has a destructive effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, creating a society in which all values, beliefs, lifestyles and truth are absolutely equal.
Another view suggests that absolute reality or standards that determine what is fair and what is not, actually exist. Thus, depending on these absolute standards, actions can be defined as right or wrong. If there were no absolutes or reality, chaos would reign. Take the law of attraction for example. If it weren't absolute, you could take one step and find yourself high in the air, and the next time you wouldn't even be able to move. If 2+2 did not always equal four, it would have devastating consequences for civilization. The laws of science and physics would be meaningless, and commercial activity would be impossible. What a mess that would be! Luckily, two plus two always equals four. Absolute truth exists and can be found and understood.
The claim that absolute truth does not exist is illogical. However, many people today support cultural relativism, which denies any type of absolute truth. People who claim that there is no absolute truth should be asked: “Are you absolutely sure about this?” By answering “yes,” they are making an absolute statement, which presupposes the existence of absolutes. That is, in essence, the statement that there is no absolute truth is itself an absolute truth.
Besides the problem of internal contradiction, there are several other logical problems that must be solved in order to believe that there is no absolute or universal truth. One is that people have limited knowledge and mental capacity and therefore cannot make absolute negative statements. According to logic, a person cannot say: “There is no God” (although many say just that) - in order to assert this, he must have absolute knowledge about the entire Universe, from beginning to end. Since this is impossible, the most logical formulation would be: “Based on the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe that God exists.”
Another problem is that the rejection of absolute truth does not stand up to what our own conscience tells us, our experience, and what we observe in the real world. If absolute truth does not exist, then ultimately nothing is right or wrong. Just because something is right for me doesn't mean it will be right for you too. Although upon superficial examination this type of relativism seems very attractive, giving each person the opportunity to set his own rules in life and do what, in his opinion, is right. However, sooner or later one person's rules will begin to conflict with another person's rules. Imagine what would happen if I decided that I could ignore traffic lights, even if they were red? By doing this I endanger the lives of many people. Or perhaps I will decide that I have the right to steal from you, while you will consider it completely unacceptable. If there is no absolute truth, no absolute standards of what is right and what is wrong, and everything is relative, then we can never be sure of anything. People will do as they please - kill, rape, steal, deceive, cheat, etc., and no one will be able to say that it is wrong. There will be no government, no laws, no justice, because the majority of people will not have the right to elect and set standards for the minority. A world without standards would be the scariest place imaginable.
From a spiritual perspective, this type of relativism leads to religious confusion, suggesting that there is no one true religion and no right way to have an intimate relationship with God. That is why today we often meet people who simultaneously believe in two diametrically opposed religions. People who do not believe in absolute truth follow universalism, which teaches that all religions are equal and they all lead to heaven. Additionally, people who favor this worldview will strongly oppose Christians who believe the Bible when it says that Jesus is “the way and the truth and the life” and that He is the highest manifestation truth and the only way to heaven (John 14:6).
Tolerance has become the single key value of society, the single absolute truth, and, therefore, intolerance is the only evil. Any dogmatic belief - especially the belief in the existence of absolute truth - is considered intolerance, an absolute sin. Truth deniers often say that it is good to believe what you want as long as you do not try to force your beliefs on others. But this opinion is a belief about what is right and wrong, and its proponents most certainly attempt to impose it on others, thereby violating the principles they stand for. They simply don't want to take responsibility for their actions. If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards, and then we are held accountable according to them. This responsibility is what people are actually trying to avoid by denying the existence of absolute truth.
The rejection of absolute truth and the general cultural relativism that comes from it is logical for a society that follows the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. If evolution is true, then life has no meaning, we have no purpose, and nothing can be absolutely right or wrong. A person has the right to live as he pleases and is not obliged to answer to anyone for his actions. And yet, no matter how far a sinful person is willing to go to deny the existence of God and His truth, he will still someday stand before His judgment. The Bible says: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. For what can be known about God is obvious to them, because God has revealed it to them. For His invisible things, His eternal power and Godhead, have been visible from the creation of the world through the consideration of creatures, so that they are irresistible. But how, having come to know God, they did not glorify Him as God and did not give thanks, but became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; calling themselves wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:18-22).
Is there any evidence for the existence of absolute truth? First, evidence of the existence of absolute truth appears in our consciousness. Our conscience tells us that the world must be built a “certain way,” that certain things are right and others are wrong. It helps us understand that there is something wrong with suffering, hunger, rape, pain and evil. It makes us realize that there is love, nobility, compassion and peace that we should strive for. This applies to all people who have lived at all times, regardless of their culture. The role of human consciousness is spoken of in Romans 2:14-16: “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do what is lawful by nature, then, not having the law, they are a law unto themselves: they show that the work of the law is written among them. hearts, as evidenced by their conscience and their thoughts, now accusing, now justifying one another - on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secret deeds of men through Jesus Christ.”
The second proof of the existence of absolute truth comes from science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, it is the exploration of what we know and the attempt to know more. Therefore everything Scientific research must necessarily be based on the conviction that there is an objective reality in the world around us. What could be explored without absolutes? How would one know that the conclusions reached are correct? In fact, the laws of science must be based on the existence of absolute truth.
The third proof of the existence of absolute truth is religion. All religions of the world strive to convey the meaning and definition of life. They are born from the fact that humanity strives for something more than just existence. Through religion, people seek God, hope for the future, forgiveness of sins, peace and answers to our deepest questions. Religion is truly proof that humanity is not just an advanced animal species. This indicates a higher purpose, as well as the existence of a purposeful creator who put into the mind of man the desire to know him. And if the creator really exists, then he is the standard for absolute truth, and it is on his authority that this truth is based.
Fortunately, we have such a Creator, and He has revealed His truth through His Word - the Bible. If we want to know the truth, the only way to do it is through a personal relationship with the One who is the Truth - Jesus Christ. “Jesus said to him: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). The fact that absolute truth exists shows us that there is a Lord God who created heaven and earth and revealed Himself to us so that we could know Him personally through His Son Jesus Christ. This is the absolute truth.
When writing this answer on the site, materials from the got site were partially or fully used Questions? org!
Owners of the Bible Online resource may partially or not at all share the opinion of this article.
- the concept of truth both in antiquity and in modern philosophy recognized the most important characteristic human thinking in its relation to its subject.In the theory of knowledge for thousands of years, forms of truth have been distinguished: relative and absolute.
Modern philosophy
Absolute truth in modern science is understood as knowledge that is identical to its subject and therefore cannot be refuted by further development knowledge. This is complete, exhaustive, actual and never entirely conceptually achievable knowledge about an object (a complex material system or the world as a whole).At the same time, an idea of truth can be given to a person by the results of knowledge of individual aspects of the objects being studied (statement of facts, which is not identical to absolute knowledge of the entire content of these facts); - definitive knowledge of certain aspects of reality, depending on certain conditions; - knowledge that is confirmed in the process of further cognition; Whereas relative truth is correct, but incomplete knowledge about the same subject. In any scientific absolute truth one can find elements of relativity, and in relative terms there are elements of absoluteness. In addition, scientific truth is always dynamic, since it is always conditioned by something: a number of reasons, conditions, factors. They can be changed, supplemented, etc. Thus, any true knowledge in science is determined by the nature of the object to which it relates, the conditions of place and time; situation, historical framework. That is we're talking about about conditioned truth. Recognition of only the relative in objective truth threatens relativism; exaggeration of the stable moment - dogmatism. Scientific true conditioned knowledge cannot be spread beyond the limits of its actual applicability, beyond acceptable conditions. Otherwise it turns into delusion. For example, 2+2=4 is true only in decimal notation. 
Thus, in science they talk about various properties of one non-dual truth, such as objectivity and subjectivity, absoluteness and relativity, abstractness and concreteness (conditioned by specific characteristics). All these are not different “sorts” of truths, but one and the same true knowledge with these properties. A characteristic feature of truth is the presence of objective and subjective sides in it. Truth, by definition, is in the subject and outside the subject at the same time. When we say that truth is “subjective,” it means that it does not exist apart from man and humanity; truth is objective - this means that the true content of human ideas does not depend either on man or on humanity. One of the definitions of objective truth is this: truth is an adequate reflection of an object by a cognizing subject, reproducing the cognizable object as it exists on its own, outside of subjective individual consciousness.
Forms of relative truth in science
Exist different shapes relative truth. They are divided according to the nature of the reflected (cognizable) object, according to the types of objective reality, according to the degree of completeness of mastering the object, etc.For example, if we consider the nature of the reflected object, then all surrounding a person reality, to a first approximation, turns out to consist of matter and spirit, forming a single system; both of these spheres of reality become the object of human reflection and information about them is embodied in relative truths. The flow of information from material systems of the micro-, macro- and megaworlds forms objective truth (it is divided into objective-physical, objective-biological and other types of truth). On the other hand, certain concepts, including cultural, religious and natural sciences, can also become the object of mastery by an individual. In this case, the question arises about the compliance of the individual’s beliefs with a particular set of religious dogmas and scientific positions, about the correctness of our understanding of the theory of relativity or modern synthetic theories of evolution; in both cases the concept of “truth” is used, which leads to the recognition of the existence of conceptual truth. The situation is similar with the ideas of a particular subject about methods, means of cognition, for example, with ideas about a systems approach, a modeling method, etc. We have before us another form of truth - operational. In addition to those highlighted, there may be forms of truth determined by the specifics of the species cognitive activity person. On this basis, there are forms of truth: scientific, everyday, moral, etc.
Truth as a dynamic process
Modern science tends to view truth as a dynamic process: truth is objective in content, but relative in form.The objectivity of truth is the basis of the process of succession of subjective truths. The property of objective truth to be a process manifests itself in two ways: firstly, as a process of change towards an increasingly complete reflection of the object and, secondly, as a process of overcoming errors in the structure of concepts and theories. One of the problems that arises on the path of a scientist in the process of scientific research is the delimitation of truth from error, or, in other words, the problem of the existence of a criterion of truth.
Criterion of truth
This problem arose with philosophy. It took place in all periods of its development, starting from antiquity. Some philosophers believed that there was no basis for judging the objective truth of knowledge, and therefore leaned towards skepticism and agnosticism. Others relied on empirical experience, given in human sensations and perceptions: everything that is deduced from sensory data is true. Some believed that the reliability of all human knowledge could be deduced from a small number of universal propositions - axioms, the truth of which is self-evident; contradiction to them is simply unthinkable. However, in reality there are no such self-evident provisions that do not require proof, and clarity and distinctness of thinking is too fragile a criterion for proving the objective truth of knowledge. Thus, neither sensory observation, nor self-evidence, clarity and distinctness of universal provisions can serve as criteria for the truth of knowledge. The fundamental flaw of all these concepts was the desire to find a criterion for the truth of knowledge in knowledge itself. As a result, special positions of knowledge are identified, which are somehow considered privileged compared to others.
The task arose to find a criterion that, firstly, would be directly related to knowledge, would determine its development, and at the same time would not itself be knowledge; secondly, this criterion had to combine universality with immediate reality.
This criterion of truth turned out to be practice. Practice involves the subject, his knowledge, will; in practice - the unity of the subject and object with the leading role of the object. In general, practice is an objective, material process. It serves as a continuation natural processes, unfolding according to objective laws. At the same time, knowledge does not cease to be subjective, being correlated with the objective. Practice includes knowledge, is capable of generating new knowledge, and acts as its basis and ultimate goal. However, there are a number of sciences (for example, mathematics), where practice is not a criterion of truth, but only serves as an assistant in the discovery of new scientific truths. Thus, based on practice, a scientist can put forward a hypothesis about the distribution of this property to a number of objects. This hypothesis can be tested in practice only if the number of objects is finite. Otherwise, practice can only refute the hypothesis. Therefore, in mathematics the logical criterion prevails. This refers to its understanding as a formal logical criterion. His essence is in the logical sequence of thought, in its strict adherence to laws and rules formal logic in conditions where it is not possible to directly rely on practice. Identification of logical contradictions in reasoning or in the structure of a concept becomes an indicator of error and misconception. Thus, in almost all textbooks on analysis, geometry and topology, the famous and very important Jordan theorem for mathematicians is given, cited and proven: a closed curve on a plane that does not have self-intersections (simple) divides the plane into exactly two regions - external and internal. The proof of this theorem is very difficult. Only as a result of many years of efforts by many scientists was it possible to find relatively simple evidence, but even this is far from elementary. And the first, most difficult proof of Jordan himself generally had logical errors. While, for example, a theoretical physicist would not spend even a minute proving Jordan’s theorem. To a physicist, this theorem is absolutely obvious without any proof. Thus, each science has its own characteristic criteria of truth, which arise from the characteristics of each science and from the very goals that it sets for itself.
Buddhist concept of absolute and relative truth 
In Buddhism, absolute truth is understood as the truth of higher meanings (paramartha satya), accessible to the understanding of those who were able, in the universal relativity of the nature of formation, among everyday ideas and scientific theories, to discern the whole variety of conditioned things and phenomena as a manifestation of consciousness and discover in themselves the absolute nature of the mind . “To see what is conventionally called the Absolute,” according to Nagarjuna (II-III centuries). In “Mula-Madhyamaka-karika” he wrote: “The Dharma of the Buddhas rests on two truths: the Truth conditioned by worldly meanings, and the truth of the highest meaning (absolute). Those who do not know the difference between these two truths, Those do not know the innermost essence ( highest reality) In the Buddhist Teaching. Without relying on everyday meaning, one cannot comprehend the highest (absolute) meaning, Without acquiring the absolute meaning, one cannot achieve the cessation of the series of births (samsara).(XXIV, 8-10).
In Buddhist philosophy, practice is also the criterion of truth.
In the tantras of the Diamond Path (Vajrayana), for example, the Guhyagarbha Tantra speaks of absolute and relative truth, it is explained that relative truth is initially pure and uncreated, and any object, any phenomenon of relative truth is in a state of great emptiness.
The doctrine of the two truths of northern Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism has its roots in the early Buddhist doctrine of the difference in approaches to teaching the Dharma. This teaching was established by Nagarjuna as the mainstay of the Madhyamaka doctrine. In it, two truths do not oppose each other, but are complementary; this is one truth on two levels of consciousness - the everyday-reasonable and the spiritual-contemplative. If the first is achieved through everyday skills and positive knowledge, then the second is revealed in the intuitive knowledge of extra-sign reality. Intuitive truth of the highest meaning cannot be achieved without the prior comprehension of conditional truth, based on inference, language and thinking. This complementarity of two truths is also indicated by the Buddhist term Dharmata, meaning the nature inherent in everything, the essence of things as they are. Sogyal Rinpoche: “This is the naked unconditioned truth, the nature of reality or the true nature of manifest existence.”
Literature: Androsov V.P. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 2011, P.90; P. 206. Absolute and relative truths: Lectures on philosophy http://lects.ru/ " target="_self" >lects.ru
Sogyal Rinpoche. The book of life and the practice of dying.
Relative truth is incomplete, limited knowledge about the world. Due to the infinity of the world, the historical limitations of human knowledge, the achieved knowledge about the world and man is always incomplete and inaccurate. The relativity of knowledge should, in particular, be seen in the fact that it is always related to certain conditions, place and time.
Any knowledge, due to its specificity, is always relative.
Absolute truth is complete and accurate knowledge of a subject, this is knowledge about the infinite world as a whole, in all its infinite richness and diversity.
Absolute truth is made up of relative ones, but the sum of relative truths is infinite, therefore, absolute truth is unattainable. Man is constantly approaching the absolute truth, but he will never reach it, because the world is constantly changing. Knowledge of absolute truth would stop the process of knowledge.
Dialectics of concrete, relative, objective and absolute truth.
True knowledge, like the objective world itself, develops according to the laws of dialectics. In the Middle Ages, people believed that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. Was it a lie or the truth? The fact that a person observed the movement while on the ground led to a false conclusion. Here we can see the dependence of our knowledge on the subject of knowledge. Copernicus argued that the sun was the center of the planetary system. Here the proportion of objective content is greater, but not everything corresponded to objective reality. Kepler showed that the planets revolve around the sun not in circles, but in ellipses. This was even truer, more certain knowledge. From these examples it is clear that objective truth develops historically. With each new discovery its completeness increases.
The form of expression of objective truth, depending on specific historical conditions, is called relative. The entire development of human knowledge, including science, is a constant replacement of some relative truths by others, more fully and accurately expressing the objective truth.
Is it possible to achieve absolute truth? Agnostics answer in the negative, saying that in the process of cognition we deal only with relative truths. And the more complex the phenomenon, the more difficult it is to know the absolute truth. And yet it exists, each relative truth is a step that brings us closer to this goal.
Thus, relative and absolute truths are just different levels of objective truth. The higher the level of our knowledge, the closer we approach the absolute truth. But this process can last indefinitely. This constant process is the most important manifestation of dialectics in the process of cognition.
Truth and error.
I. Truth is an adequate, correct reflection of reality. The value of knowledge is determined by the measure of its truth. Achieving true knowledge is a complex and contradictory process. Naturally, it is possible to obtain different results along this path. A researcher, if we are talking about the search for scientific truth, can not only come to the true result, but also take the wrong path and be mistaken. Therefore, there is no once and for all established line between truth and error. The search for truth is an open process; it contains various possibilities, including the possibility of incorrect, erroneous assessments of what is happening.
Misconception is such knowledge that does not correspond to the essence of the object being cognized, but is recognized as true knowledge. This is a constant element of the development of science. People unconsciously accept this fact, that is, they proceed from empirical experiments. An illustrative example of a fallacy is the Sun moving around the Earth in the pre-Copernican period.
Delusion is not an absolute fiction, a play of the imagination, a figment of fantasy. Misconceptions also reflect, albeit one-sidedly, objective reality; they have a real source, since any fiction contains threads of reality.
Reasons for the objective occurrence of misconceptions:
1) Historical practice, namely, the level of development of science at that time, inadequately perceived facts, their erroneous interpretation. Often, truth becomes a fallacy if the boundaries of truth are not taken into account and one or another true concept extends to all spheres of reality. Misconception can also result from incorrect information.
2) Freedom of choice in research methods. That is, the subject itself imposes a method, a method of research, for example, you cannot study inflation using the method of sensory cognition.
A misconception differs from a lie in that it is unintentional.
In general, delusion is a natural moment cognitive process and is dialectically related to truth. It is necessary to take into account the possibility of misconceptions, without exaggerating or absoluteizing them. Exaggerating the place of errors in knowledge can lead to skepticism and relativism. The outstanding Russian physicist, Nobel Prize laureate P.L. Kapitsa noted: “...errors are a dialectical way of searching for truth. One should never exaggerate their harm and reduce their benefits.”
Therefore, truth is opposed not so much by error as by falsehood as a deliberate elevation to the rank of truth.
As the practice of mankind has shown, delusion is an integral element of the search for truth. While one discovers the truth, a hundred will remain in error. And in this sense, error represents unwanted, but legitimate costs on the path to achieving the truth.
II. Scientific knowledge is inherently impossible without collisions different opinions, beliefs, just as it is impossible without mistakes. Errors are often made during observation, measurement, calculations, judgments, and assessments.
Error.
An error is a discrepancy between knowledge and reality.
Unlike a delusion, an error is realized and committed for subjective reasons:
1) Low qualification of the specialist, 2) Inattention, 3) Haste.
Lie.
III. Lie. Deception. This is a deliberate distortion of reality. That is, the statement that the Sun, and not the Earth, rotates, from the point of view of modern astronomy is false.
Feature: The lie is targeted (either they deceive an individual or the whole society).
Here knowledge is intentionally or unintentionally, unconsciously distorted, since such distortion turns out to be useful for one or another social groups and individuals to achieve group and personal goals, maintain power, achieve victory over an enemy, or justify one’s own activities. First of all, this concerns knowledge related to socio-historical reality and directly affecting issues of worldview, ideology, politics, etc.
A lie can be either a fabrication about something that did not happen, or a deliberate concealment of something that did happen. The source of lies can also be logically incorrect thinking.
For example, the company “Ivanov and Company” advertises a product that attacks pathogenic bacteria, but at the same time is silent about the contraindications of this product. As a result, the harm from taking this medicine outweighs the benefits; NPP designers hid the possibility of the Chernobyl effect, and not just a few, but hundreds of thousands of people are already suffering.
There are:
1) Blatant lies, that is, intentional. She is the closest thing to deception.
2) Lies of silence, concealment.
3) Half-truth, part is true, but not all. Sometimes it is done intentionally, sometimes unconsciously (perhaps out of ignorance).
Unlike delusion, lying is a moral and legal phenomenon, and therefore the attitude towards lies should be different from that towards delusion.
Truth and truth.
IV. Truth is a person’s conviction in the truth, it is the correspondence of the subject’s statements to his thoughts. Truth is based on truth, but is not reduced to it. That is, there may be one truth, but everyone has their own truth. And the truth is not always an adequate expression of the whole truth. She can act as special case truth.
They say that Solomon, after listening to the parties involved in the dispute, declared that each of them was right. He is right as the bearer of his truth.
The problem of the relationship between truth and truth is solved through determining the measure of truth. So, from the point of view of a soldier or officer of the federal troops, the war in Chechnya is a defense of the integrity of Russia. And it is true. From the point of view of a Chechen, the war in Chechnya is the defense of his home. And this is also true. But in both cases this is part of the truth. As for the complete truth, the Chechen phenomenon of confrontation is a commercial war of profit for some and impoverishment for others, dubious happiness for some and inconsolable grief for others.
Society.
Society – 1) social form matter, the substrate functional unit of which is man.
2) part isolated from nature material world, representing the historically developing life activity of people.
3) a complex group of people united by various species social connections, conditioned for a given society by the specific features of existence.
Society as a system consists of spheres of public life.
Human.
Man is a material-social being, a unit of society with an individual social essence. The essence of a person lies in generic characteristics - work and intelligence.
Essential powers of man. 2 concepts:
1) universal; 2) social.
Essence - the most essential, the most important in a subject, its quality distinguishing characteristic. In general philosophical terms: man is a social universal material being. Social - a person has supernatural properties; universal - all properties of the world are inherent to man. In socio-philosophical terms: man is a social material generic being (similar to the universal BUT the concept of generic reveals that a person has inherent properties that each individual possesses: in every person the human race is represented. In a sense, the individual and the race are identical.).
Essence (difference from nature).
1. Unity of the generic and the individual.
2. Manifests itself in the special existence of man: the production of his own life, generic individual essence through the transformation of nature. The unity of man with the world and with other individuals is revealed.
Entity levels:
I. Actual (real): work, thought (consciousness), communication, freedom and responsibility, individuality and collectivity.
II. Potential. There is an opportunity that can be realized. These are: abilities and needs (to the current level).
The essence of man is divided into:
a) people are biosocial beings - this is not correct, we are physical-chemical-biological beings.
b) why are the 2 principles social and biological equal? This is not so.
2) A person is a subject, a person is both thinking and action, a being, matter can also be designated as a subject, a person is also an object, i.e. what its essence is directed towards. (The most correct definition of Orlov). Man is a being who produces himself and his own essence. Chel is a substance, because he is the cause of himself. Man is a social being. He cannot exist alone. Human essence is the unity of the generic and the individual. The generic is what is characteristic of every person, of all humanity as a whole. We have generic traits that exist only through real individuals. THAT. the essence of people is individuated, it has two sides: subsubstantial and relational
3) Many Soviet philosophers said that the essence of man is the totality of all general relations - Marx wrote this - incorrectly. A person is an objective being, a substance and + people communicate, this is a set of relationships, but not separately - all together - gives us the essence of a person.
The problem of social substrate and social functions. A person has his own functions (work, consciousness, communication) and these functions are carried out by the substrate. The human, social substrate is me, you, we, he, she, they. In the essence of man there is social being and social consciousness (consciousness of society). Social existence is the coexistence of individuals, real life processes. It is not perceived by the senses. Its understanding is only at a theoretical level. In social existence there are 2 sides: 1-we ourselves - has a social quality.
2-material elements of society are transformed natural elements included in the elements of society (buildings, cars...), but composite social quality not here, they or yavl. only because material elements are associated with people.
The crisis nature of human existence has aggravated three fundamental questions of human existence - about the essence of man, the method and meaning of his existence, and the prospects for further development.
Individual.
An individual is a single representative of the human race (can be distinguished by generic characteristics - primitive communal, etc.).
What defines character public relations- individual or society?
1) The individual himself creates his own social circumstance;
2) A person depends on social circumstances.
There are 2 opposing definitions of an Individual:
The individual is considered as an individual, as a unique person.
An individual is like a person in general.
Both definitions are one-sided and insufficient. It is necessary to develop a 3rd ODA covering the previous two. An individual as a collection of individuals or people. Or as the unity of the general and all the diversity of the special.
Society is people and their relationships with each other. Society and people are united into one whole by human activity in various types, and above all material and production. The question arises whether the individual determines the nature of society's life or whether society determines the characteristics of the individual. The formulation of the question is incorrect, -> let's introduce the 3rd formula: people create social circumstances to the same extent as social circumstances create people, i.e. people create etc. and ourselves. Personality is understood as a person who is not like other people (in everyday life). It is necessary to give others positive ODA. Firstly, each individual is a person. Each person is a certain unity of the general and diversity of the particular. How closer person to his human race, the higher his personal potential. The greater the diversity of human abilities represented in an individual, the higher his personal potential. A born child is an individual, but not a human individuality (personality), which is determined by the independence of existence in society. The individual and society are in a dialectically interconnected relationship. They cannot be opposed, because The individual is a social being and every manifestation of his life is a manifestation of societies. life. But it is also impossible to identify the Individual and the Social, because Each individual can also act as an original individual.
Personality.
Personality is the integration of socially significant qualities realized in an individual in a certain way.
If the concept of individuality brings human activity to the level of originality and uniqueness, versatility and harmony, naturalness and ease, then the concept of personality emphasizes the conscious-volitional principle in it. The more an individual deserves the right to be called a person, the more clearly he understands the motives of his behavior and the more strictly he controls it, subordinating it to a single life strategy.
The word “personality” (from the Latin persona) originally meant a mask worn by an actor in the ancient theater (cf. Russian “lichina”). Then it came to mean the actor himself and his role (character). Among the Romans, the word “persona” was used only to indicate a certain social function, role, role (personality of the father, personality of the king, judge, prosecutor, etc.). Having turned into a term, into a general expression, the word “personality” significantly changed its meaning and even began to express something opposite to what was meant by it in ancient times. A personality is a person who does not play the role he has chosen, and is not in any sense a “actor.” The social role (say, the role of healer, researcher, artist, teacher, father) is taken absolutely seriously by him; he takes it upon himself as a mission, as a cross - freely, but with a willingness to bear the fullness of the responsibility associated with this role.
The concept of personality makes sense only in a system of social mutual recognition, only where we can talk about a social role and a set of roles. At the same time, however, it does not presuppose the originality and diversity of the latter, but, first of all, the individual’s specific understanding of his role, an internal attitude towards it, free and interested (or vice versa - forced and formal) performance of it.
A person as an individual expresses himself in productive actions, and his actions interest us only to the extent that they receive an organic objective embodiment. The opposite can be said about personality: it is actions that are interesting in it. The very achievements of the individual (for example, labor achievements, discoveries, creative successes) are interpreted by us primarily as actions, that is, deliberate, voluntary behavioral acts. A personality is the initiator of a sequential series of life events, or, as M. M. Bakhtin accurately defined it, “the subject of action.” The dignity of a person is determined not so much by how much a person has succeeded, whether he has succeeded or not, but by what he has taken under his responsibility, what he allows himself to impute.
The semantic similarity of the terms “individuality” and “personality” leads to the fact that they are often used as unambiguous, replacing each other. At the same time (and this is the main thing), the concepts of individuality and personality capture different aspects of human self-construction.
The essence of this difference is already captured in ordinary language. We tend to associate the word “individuality” with such epithets as “bright” and “original.” About personality we would like to say “strong”, “energetic”, “independent”. In individuality we note its originality, in personality it is rather independence, or, as psychologist S. L. Rubinstein wrote, “a person is an individuality due to the presence of special, individual, unique properties... a person is a person because he has his own face" and because even in the most difficult trials of life he does not lose this face.
Related information.
The statement that all truth is relative, because we are talking about “my truth,” etc., is a fallacy. In reality, no truth can be relative, and talking about “my” truth is simply incoherent. After all, any judgment is true when what is expressed in it corresponds to reality. For example, the statement “there is thunder in Krakow now” is true if there is actually thunder in Krakow now. Its truth or falsity does not depend at all on what we know and think about the thunder roaring in Krakow. The reason for this error is the confusion of two completely different things: truth and our knowledge of truth. For knowledge about the truth of judgments is always human knowledge, it depends on subjects and in this sense is always relative. The very truth of the judgment has nothing in common with this knowledge: the statement is true or false completely regardless of whether someone knows about it or not. If we assume that thunder is really thundering in Krakow at this moment, it may happen that one person, Jan, knows about it, but another, Karol, does not know and even believes that there is no thunder in Krakow now. In this case, Jan knows that the statement “there is thunder in Krakow now” is true, but Karol does not know this. Thus, their knowledge depends on who has the knowledge, in other words, it is relative. However, the truth or falsity of a judgment does not depend on this. Even if neither Jan nor Karol knew that there was thunder in Krakow now, and in fact there was thunder, our judgment would be absolutely true regardless of knowledge of this fact. Even the statement: “The number of stars in the Milky Way is divisible by 17,” about which no one can say anything is true, is still either true or false.
Thus, talking about “relative” or “my” truth is incomprehensible in the full sense of the word; so is the statement: “In my opinion, the Vistula flows through Poland.” In order not to mutter something incomprehensible, a supporter of this superstition would have to agree that the truth is incomprehensible, that is, take a position of skepticism.
The same “relativity” can be found in pragmatic, dialectical and similar approaches to truth. All these misconceptions refer to certain technical difficulties, but in essence they are a consequence of skepticism, which doubts the possibility of knowledge. As for technical difficulties, they are imaginary. For example, they say that the statement “now there is thunder in Krakow” is true today, but tomorrow, when there is no thunder in Krakow, it will turn out to be false. It is also said that, for example, the statement “ it's raining"true in Fribourg and false in Tarnovo if it rains in the first city and the sun shines in the second.
However, this is a misunderstanding: if we clarify the judgments and say, for example, that by the word “now” we mean July 1, 1987, 10:15 pm, then the relativity disappears.
It is a kind of knowledge that objectively reflects the properties of a perceived object. - This is one of two types of truths. It represents adequate information that is relatively relevant to the object.
The difference between relative truth and absolute truth
As has already been said, truth may be truth represents some unattainable ideal; This is absolute knowledge about an object, fully reflecting its objective properties. Of course, our mind is not so omnipotent as to know the absolute truth, which is why it is considered unattainable. In reality, our knowledge of an object cannot completely coincide with it. Absolute truth is more often considered in connection with the process itself scientific knowledge, characterizing from the lower stages of knowledge to the highest. Relative truth is a kind of knowledge that does not fully reproduce information about the world. The main characteristics of relative truth are the incompleteness of knowledge and its approximation.
What is the basis for the relativity of truth?
Relative truth is knowledge obtained by a person using limited means of knowledge. A person is limited in his knowledge; he can only know part of reality. This is due to the fact that all truth comprehended by man is relative. Moreover, truth is always relative when knowledge is in the hands of people. Subjectivity and a clash of different opinions of researchers always interfere with the process of obtaining true knowledge. In the process of obtaining knowledge, there is always a collision between the objective world and the subjective. In this regard, the concept of delusion comes to the fore.
Misconceptions and relative truth
Relative truth is always incomplete knowledge about an object, which is also mixed with subjective characteristics. Misconception is initially always accepted as true knowledge, although it has no correspondence to reality. Although error reflects certain aspects one-sidedly, relative truth and error are not at all the same thing. Misconceptions are often included in some scientific theories (relative truths). They cannot be called completely false ideas, since they contain certain threads of reality. That is why they are accepted as true. Often, relative truth includes some fictitious objects, since they contain properties of the objective world. Thus, relative truth is not a fallacy, but it can be part of it.
In fact, all the knowledge that a person currently has and considers true is relative, since it reflects reality only approximately. Relative truth may include a fictitious object, the properties of which do not correspond to reality, but which has some objective reflection, which makes it considered true. This occurs as a result of a collision between the objective knowable world and the subjective characteristics of the knower. Man as a researcher has very limited means of knowledge.
