| |
|
Every true value of a statement has a great deal of relativity attached to it. Truth or Lie is always relative.
I dunno, I'll bet I could make a "true" statement. I could say, for instance, that in the absence of outside interference small objects within a certain distance of the Earth will move toward the Earth's surface. This "truth" has the advantage of being confirmable by any independent (and honest) observer. It will be "true" in all cultures, whatever words (if any) or concepts (gravity, cosmic magnetism, "God", etc.) are used to describe the various elements involved. I suppose there is a basic assumption being made here that the apparent physical universe does have some kind of concrete existence, but even taking manifestation to be ultimately illusory, the group of phenomena that we in this culture associate with "gravity" is undeniably a consistent feature within the illusion, and therefore "true" in that context.
Remember Galilio? Socitey & the Church did give him his share for circulating 'heretic' ideas like 'earth goes round the sun'. Galilio was a heretic then. Coz, for everyone else earth did not move round the sun, it was truth for them. And today the truth is lot different from that...Well, truth never has a constant value. It changes. Like, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter", think about how people think about Osama. 'Rat' or 'Jihadi'? What is the truth?
These examples are more about interpretation than the existence or non-existence of objectivity. Say 'A' straps on an explosive vest, runs into a crowd and hits the detonator. All sides can probably agree on that much. Assuming we have accurate information, that much can be said to be "true". It's in the subsequent attempts to explain the event ('A' was/wasn't a terrorist/freedom fighter) that interpretation creeps in and in that respect things are quite relative. Even so, some interpretations are better than others--"gravity", for instance, is a more useful gloss, IMO, than "God" in the example I used above. Of course, the stickier and more complex the situation (as in the "terrorist/freedom fighter" example), the more difficult it becomes to rank interpretations with any real confidence. |
|
|
