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 truths, but the sum of relative truths is infinite, therefore, absolute truth 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 get to 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. Researcher if we're talking about about the search for scientific truth, one can not only come to the true result, but also go along 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 experiences. 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. Outstanding Russian physicist, laureate Nobel Prize P.L. Kapitsa noted: “...mistakes 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 particular.
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 being 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, roles, roles (the personality of the father, the 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 responsibility for, 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.
Absolute and relative truth
At any given historical moment, the knowledge acquired by science is characterized by a certain incompleteness and incompleteness.
Progress in the knowledge of truth lies in the fact that this incompleteness and incompleteness of truth is gradually eliminated and reduced, and the accuracy and completeness of the reflection of phenomena and laws of nature is increasingly increasing.
It is necessary to distinguish conscious lies, which the enemies of scientific progress very often resort to, from those errors and misconceptions that arise in the process of cognition due to
objective conditions: insufficiency of the general level of knowledge in this field, imperfection of technical devices used in scientific research, etc. The dialectical inconsistency of knowledge is also manifested in the fact that truth often develops alongside error, and sometimes it happens that the form of development of truth is one-sided or even erroneous theories.
Throughout the 19th century, physics relied on the wave theory of light. At the beginning of the 20th century, it became clear that the wave theory of light is one-sided and insufficient, since light has both a wave and a corpuscular nature. However, the one-way wave theory made it possible to make a lot of important discoveries and explain many optical phenomena.
An example of the development of truth in the form of an erroneous theory is Hegel’s development of the dialectical method on a false, idealistic basis.
The incompleteness, incompleteness of human knowledge and truths obtained by man is usually designated as relativity(relativity) of knowledge. Relative truth- this is an incomplete, incomplete, inconclusive truth.
But if we stopped at the statement about the relativity of human knowledge and did not go further to the question of absolute truth, we would fall into the mistake that many often make modern physicists and which is cleverly used by idealist philosophers. They see in human knowledge only relativity, weakness and imperfection and therefore come to the denial of objective truth, to relativism and agnosticism. From the point of view of such one-sided relativism, any sophistry, any fiction can be justified - after all, everything is relative, nothing is absolute!
V.I. Lenin said that materialist dialectics recognizes the relativity of all our knowledge, but recognizes it “not in the sense of denying objective truth, but in the sense of the historical conditionality of the limits of approximation of our knowledge to this truth” 13.
In our always relative knowledge there is such an objectively true content that is preserved in the process of cognition and serves as a support for the further development of knowledge. Such enduring content in the relative truths of human knowledge is called absolutely true content, or more simply - absolute truth.
Recognition of absolute truth follows from recognition of objective truth. In fact, if our knowledge reflects objective reality, then, despite the inevitable inaccuracies and mistakes, there must be something in it that has unconditional, absolute meaning. Lenin pointed out
that “to recognize objective, i.e., truth independent of man and humanity, means one way or another to recognize absolute truth” 14.
More materialist philosophers ancient Greece taught that life arose from inanimate matter, and man originated from animals. Thus, according to Anaximander (6th century BC), the first living beings were formed from sea mud, and man came from fish. The development of science has shown that ideas ancient Greek philosophers about how life arose and man appeared were very naive and incorrect. And yet, despite this, there was something absolutely true in their teaching - the idea of \u200b\u200bthe natural origin of life and man, which science has confirmed and preserved.
Recognition of absolute truth immediately separates dialectical materialism from the views of agnostics and relativists who do not want to see the power of human knowledge, its all-conquering power, before which the secrets of nature cannot resist.
It is often said that there are not so many absolute truths in human knowledge and that they are reduced to trivial, i.e., generally known, provisions. For example, statements such as “twice two makes four” or “The Volga flows into the Caspian Sea” are absolute, complete truths, but they are supposedly not of particular value.
To this it can be objected that in fact human knowledge contains many extremely important absolutely true provisions that will not be changed by the further progress of science. This is, for example, the statement of philosophical materialism about the primacy of matter and the secondary nature of consciousness. It is absolutely true that society cannot exist and develop without producing material goods. The absolute truth is the idea contained in Darwin's teachings of the development of organic species and the origin of man from animals.
Truth is the reflection of an object by a cognizing subject, its reproduction as it supposedly exists on its own, as if outside and independently of the cognizing subject and his consciousness. Truth can be called knowledge itself (the content of knowledge) or known reality itself. In general, truth is a universal abstract category, a concept used, in particular, both in religion and philosophy, and within scientific knowledge.
You can make many examples to make it easier to understand in practice what truth is. I will give an easy and often used example: a child sits at the table and eats breakfast. He wanted to take the candy, and he reached for the vase and caught the cup standing on the edge of the table with his elbow. The cup fell and broke. Mom comes in, sees the broken cup and asks who broke it. The child replies that he did not break it. Mom claims that only he could have broken the cup. Two truths collide: the child is right, because he did not break the cup or even touch it; Mom is right, because no one except the child could break the cup. And the truth is that the cup was broken by accident, no one broke it on purpose.
I will conclude that we cannot always connect cause and effect, which is the result of the fact that people have different truths and misunderstandings occur.
Types of Truths
Speaking about truth and giving it definitions, we must not forget that truth has been divided into several types. Knowing and understanding these differences will make it easier for us to comprehend the truth.
Absolute truth
Absolute truth is the source of everything, that from which everything came. Absolute truth is not truth as a process, it is static, unchanging (if it is dynamic, then it can become more or less absolute, therefore, it becomes a relative truth). It is the knowledge of absolute truth that is the good that philosophy should strive for, but more often there is a departure modern philosophy from ontological questions. The human mind will always be limited by certain limits, and it will not have the ability to fully reveal the absolute truth. In some religions (in particular, Christianity) this problem is overcome by the fact that the absolute truth itself is revealed to man, since the latter’s personality is recognized (absolute truth is God). Philosophy could not offer another adequate solution to the question of absolute truth, because philosophical systems are limited for the above reason of the limitations of the human mind that created them, and the categories they create, claiming to be called “absolute truth,” deny themselves (by the way, in dialectical development), which leads to nihilism. Last in general outline comes down to the statement that “all truth is relative,” which is also characterized by self-negation, since it is absolute in nature.
There is a poem "What is truth?" It circulated in manuscripts among persecuted Christians in the USSR. Describes Pilate asking Jesus, “What is truth?” and without hearing the answer, he immediately turns around and goes to the crowd.
“For centuries the question has been heard:
Tell me, what is the truth?
I am the Truth, said Christ,
And this word is true!
Once the interrogation was going on in the Praetorium,
The people shouted furiously.
He hears My voice, said Christ,
The one who is himself from the Truth.
This answer seems simple,
Pilate sees sincerity in him,
And yet he asks the question:
What is truth?
So, looking the Truth in the eye,
We are chasing her vigorously,
Forgetting that Christ Himself said:
I am the Way and the Life and the Truth!”
Jesus made a revolution by pointing out that truth is not “what”, but “who”. Truth is alive. It never occurred to Pilate...
Here, I think, one of the conclusions can be drawn is that in the eyes and concepts of a person, the truth will always be different while we have miscellaneous information and different knowledge, different values and feelings.
Relative truth
Relative truth is a philosophical concept that reflects the assertion that absolute truth (or ultimate truth) is difficult to achieve. According to this theory, one can only approach the absolute truth, and as one approaches, new ideas are created and old ones are discarded. Theories that assert the existence of absolute truth are often called metaphysics, while theories of relative truth are called relativism. The concept of relative truth is used in the doctrine of dialectics. A type of relative truth is truth. Relative truth always reflects the current level of our knowledge about the nature of phenomena. For example, the statement “The Earth rotates” is an absolute truth, and the statement that the Earth rotates at such and such a speed is a relative truth, which depends on the methods and accuracy of measuring this speed.
Objective truth
Objective truth is the content of our knowledge that does not depend on the subject in content (it always depends in form, therefore truth is subjective in form). Recognition of the objectivity of truth and the knowability of the world are equivalent and have nothing to do with relative concept irrationalist philosophy.
Having considered the three types of truth, I understand that philosophy concentrates on absolute and relative truth. The following discussions will be about how these truths are interpreted in detail in philosophy and how they arose.
Throughout their existence, people try to answer many questions about the structure and organization of our world. Scientists are constantly making new discoveries and are getting closer to the truth every day, unraveling the mysteries of the structure of the Universe. What is absolute and relative truth? How are they different? Will people ever be able to achieve absolute truth in the theory of knowledge?
The concept and criteria of truth
In various fields of science, scientists give many definitions of truth. Thus, in philosophy, this concept is interpreted as the correspondence of the image of an object formed by human consciousness to its real existence, regardless of our thinking.
In logic, truth is understood as judgments and conclusions that are sufficiently complete and correct. They should be free of contradictions and inconsistencies.
In the exact sciences, the essence of truth is interpreted as the goal of scientific knowledge, as well as the coincidence of existing knowledge with real knowledge. It is of great value, allows you to solve practical and theoretical problems, substantiate and confirm the conclusions obtained.
The problem of what is considered true and what is not arose as long ago as this concept itself. The main criterion for truth is the ability to confirm a theory in practice. This could be a logical proof, an experiment, or an experiment. This criterion, of course, cannot be a one hundred percent guarantee of the truth of the theory, since practice is tied to a specific historical period and is improved and transformed over time.
Absolute truth. Examples and signs
In philosophy, absolute truth is understood as a certain knowledge about our world that cannot be refuted or disputed. It is exhaustive and the only true one. Absolute truth can only be established experimentally or with the help of theoretical justifications and evidence. It must necessarily correspond to the world around us.
Very often the concept of absolute truth is confused with eternal truths. Examples of the latter: a dog is an animal, the sky is blue, birds can fly. Eternal truths apply only to a particular fact. For complex systems, as well as for understanding the whole world as a whole, they are not suitable.
Does absolute truth exist?
Disputes between scientists about the nature of truth have been going on since the birth of philosophy. In science, there are several opinions about whether absolute and relative truth exist.
According to one of them, everything in our world is relative and depends on the perception of reality by each individual person. Absolute truth is never achievable, because it is impossible for humanity to know exactly all the secrets of the universe. First of all, this is due disabilities our consciousness, as well as insufficient development of the level of science and technology.
From the position of other philosophers, on the contrary, everything is absolute. However, this does not apply to knowledge of the structure of the world as a whole, but to specific facts. For example, theorems and axioms proven by scientists are considered the absolute truth, but they do not provide answers to all questions of humanity.
Most philosophers adhere to the point of view that absolute truth is made up of many relative ones. An example of such a situation is when, over time, a certain scientific fact is gradually improved and supplemented with new knowledge. At present, it is impossible to achieve absolute truth in the study of our world. However, there will probably come a time when the progress of mankind will reach such a level that all relative knowledge is summed up and forms a holistic picture that reveals all the secrets of our Universe.
Relative truth
Due to the fact that a person is limited in the methods and forms of cognition, he cannot always receive full information about things that interest him. The meaning of relative truth is that it is incomplete, approximate knowledge of people about a particular object that requires clarification. In the process of evolution, new research methods become available to humans, as well as more modern devices for measurements and calculations. It is precisely in the accuracy of knowledge that the main difference between relative truth and absolute truth lies.
Relative truth exists in a specific time period. It depends on the place and period in which the knowledge was obtained, historical conditions and other factors that may influence the accuracy of the result. Also, relative truth is determined by the perception of reality by the particular person conducting the research.
Examples of relative truth
An example of a relative truth that depends on the location of the subject is the following fact: a person claims that it is cold outside. For him, this is the seemingly absolute truth. But people in another part of the planet are hot at this time. Therefore, when we say that it is cold outside, we only mean a specific place, which means this truth is relative.
From the point of view of human perception of reality, we can also give the example of weather. The same air temperature can be tolerated and felt differently by different people. Some will say that +10 degrees is cold, but for others it is quite warm weather.
Over time, relative truth is gradually transformed and supplemented. For example, a few centuries ago tuberculosis was considered an incurable disease, and people who contracted it were doomed. At that time, the mortality of this disease was not in doubt. Now humanity has learned to fight tuberculosis and completely cure those sick. Thus, with the development of science and the change historical eras ideas about the absoluteness and relativity of truth in this matter have changed.
The concept of objective truth
For any science, it is important to obtain data that reliably reflects reality. Objective truth refers to knowledge that does not depend on the desire, will and other personal characteristics of a person. They are stated and recorded without the influence of the opinion of the research subject on the result obtained.
Objective and absolute truth are not the same thing. These concepts are completely unrelated to each other. Both absolute and relative truth can be objective. Even incomplete, not fully proven knowledge can be objective if it is obtained in compliance with all necessary conditions.
Subjective truth
Many people believe in various signs and omens. However, support from the majority does not at all mean objectivity of knowledge. Human superstitions have no scientific proof, which means they are subjective truth. The usefulness and significance of information, practical applicability and other interests of people cannot act as a criterion of objectivity.
Subjective truth is a person’s personal opinion about a particular situation, which does not have significant evidence. We have all heard the expression “Everyone has their own truth.” It is precisely this that fully relates to subjective truth.
Lies and delusions as the opposite of truth
Anything that is not true is considered false. Absolute and relative truth are opposite concepts for lies and delusions, meaning the discrepancy between the reality of certain knowledge or beliefs of a person.
The difference between delusion and lies lies in the intentionality and awareness of their application. If a person, knowing that he is wrong, proves his point of view to everyone, he is telling a lie. If someone sincerely considers his opinion to be correct, but in fact it is not, then he is simply mistaken.
Thus, only in the fight against lies and delusion can absolute truth be achieved. Examples similar situations are found everywhere in history. Thus, approaching the solution to the mystery of the structure of our Universe, scientists rejected various versions that were considered absolutely true in ancient times, but in fact turned out to be delusions.
Philosophical truth. Its development in dynamics
Modern scientists understand truth as a continuous dynamic process on the path to absolute knowledge. At the same time, at the moment, in a broad sense, truth should be objective and relative. The main problem becomes the ability to distinguish it from delusion.
Despite the sharp leap in human development over the last century, our methods of cognition still remain quite primitive, not allowing people to get closer to the absolute truth. However, by consistently moving towards the goal, on time and completely eliminating misconceptions, perhaps someday we will be able to learn all the secrets of our Universe.
Objective truth
Let us turn to the main characteristics of true knowledge. The key characteristic of truth, its main feature is its objectivity. Objective truth is the content of our knowledge that does not depend on either man or humanity. In other words, objective truth is such knowledge, the content of which is as it is “given” by the object, i.e. reflects him as he is. Thus, the statements that the earth is spherical, that +3 > +2, are objective truths.
If our knowledge is a subjective image of the objective world, then the objective in this image is the objective truth.
Recognition of the objectivity of truth and the knowability of the world are equivalent. But, as V.I. noted. Lenin, following the solution to the question of objective truth, a second question follows: “...Can human ideas that express objective truth express it immediately, entirely, unconditionally, absolutely, or only approximately, relatively? This second question is the question of the relationship between absolute and relative truth.”
Absolute truth and relative truth
The question of the relationship between absolute and relative truth could arise fully as a worldview question only at a certain stage of development of human culture, when it was discovered that people are dealing with cognitively inexhaustible, complexly organized objects, when the inconsistency of claims of any theories for the final (absolute) comprehension of these objects was revealed .
Absolute truth is currently understood as that kind of knowledge that is identical to its subject and therefore cannot be refuted by further development knowledge. This is the truth:
- a) the result 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);
- b) definitive knowledge of certain aspects of reality;
- c) the content of relative truth that is preserved in the process of further cognition;
- d) complete, actual, never entirely achievable knowledge about the world and (we will add) about complexly organized systems.
When applied to sufficiently developed scientific theoretical knowledge, absolute truth is complete, exhaustive knowledge about the subject (complexly organized material system or the world at large); relative truth is incomplete knowledge about the same subject.
An example of this kind of relative truths is the theory of classical mechanics and the theory of relativity. Classical mechanics as an isomorphic reflection of a certain sphere of reality, notes D.P. Gorsky, was considered a true theory without any restrictions, that is, true in some absolute sense, since with its help real processes were described and predicted mechanical movement. With the emergence of the theory of relativity, it was found that it could no longer be considered true without restrictions.
This idea of absolute, and also of relative truth, associated with access to the development process scientific knowledge, the development of scientific theories, leads us to the true dialectic of absolute and relative truth.
Absolute truth is made up of relative truths.
