Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Truth
I have already talked about truth in the previous entry. I think truth is something that can be explained with hard evidence. This is my general view of truth. However, I know that there are some truths that cannot be explained with hard evidence, you must just accept them as truths. An example; to know someone loves you it is through their actions that you can accept their love as a truth. There is no hard evidence, only actions. So maybe, truth is found individually on some levels. There are things, scientific (or craft) like things that are truths even if you do not believe they are truths. I guess you must test everything for yourself and not trust what anyone else says until you have tested and proven it for yourself to be true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The classic use of the word "truth" is expressed by Copi and Cohen in their Introduction to Logic (12th ed., page 15): "Truth is the attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the case." I don't know that that advances us much, but it does of course point to evidence. How do we determine what constitutes "hard evidence"? How can we assess evidence? What ground rules should be applied to the analysis of evidence? These are fundamental questions within logic.
Post a Comment